Talk:Tutankhamun/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Winifred Brunton (Wikiquette, good faith, be nice...)...

Winifred's painting technique for the pharaonic portraits:

. . . I turned to the statutes and reliefs. These would show me how the sitters impressed the artists of those days, and the work of an artist's chisel or brush is at least as good evidence as the sworn word of a witness in a court of law, at any rate when the artist is as literal-minded as were the Egyptians. Do we not know the honest mistakes a man in the witness-box can make? And shall we not concede the difference between a trained and an untrained observer?

The ancient artist was a trained observer; I would examine his trained evidence on what he saw, and compare it with what I could see today of the Pharaohs. This done, discrepancies appeared which could not be disregarded. And besides, the various artists who portrayed a Pharaoh did not all agree in detail among themselves. This added to the difficulty! It was evident that some detailed and perhaps laborious comparing would have to be done. I had recourse again to the mummy, and took the face carefully back through the process of mummification.

Certain confirmations appeared of the artists' evidence; these I accepted and retained, especially as they seemed to me to agree with the king's known character. Discrepancies on the other hand could be partly accounted for by the changes in the subject between youth and old age, and partly by the deference due to kings. Finally I did construct a firm scaffolding on which to build my portrait, and so the picture of Sety I was begun.

The costume was a simpler problem. One had only to consult the monuments and the jewel-room of the Museum, and to be careful to avoid howlers such as a dinner party parure with a field-service helmet, and so on. Ramses II was next attempted, and I was greatly cheered by the recognition of my resuscitated kings by several eminent archaeologists. Not all the Egyptologists who recognised my portraits realised the method in my madness, the slow sifting of evidence and the laborious brick-making. To many they seemed flights of a fancy only slightly, if at all, controlled by research.

But one of the most famous of them all, namely Professor Breasted, gave me enormous encouragement. Whatever was to be thought of these particular portraits, he admitted that this was a line of research not hitherto tried, but perfectly legitimate and which might conceivably yield valuable results. His kind words so stimulated me that I made similar attempts with other defunct royalties, and gradually completed the series of kings and queens which appear in these pages. [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/winiferbrunton.htm]

Google will tell you what happens if you ask deeceevoice to be nice. Jim Apple 19:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Apple, the next time Wikipedia has a Miss Congeniality contest, you can vote against me. (Who gives a flying f***?) deeceevoice 10:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I was just telling Dark Droid that he's wasting his time asking you to be nice. If you disagree, that's fine, but I don't think you do. I'm not criticizing you or calling you out or casting any votes about your behavior. I'm just trying to tell Dark Droid to spend his time in more productive ways than asking your for some courtesy. Jim Apple 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha. You ain't nevvuh lied. :p My apologies for my earlier language banning you from my user page. I'd read your comments (elsewhere?) too hastily as typical piling-on/troll behavior. You've shown yourself to be a good-faith actor on the site, though we may not always agree. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 11:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Jim Apple 13:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Elvis ... uh, I mean King Tut has left the building (and is working at Rite Aid)

Last week, I went to the neighborhood Rite Aid in search of a few things. As I was rounding an aisle near the vitamins section, I came upon this tall, lanky brother. He was black -- or about as close to it as I'm ever likely to see in the human form. His skin was mahogany with blueish, reddish undertones (purple?). He had a very pronounced alveolar prognathism and really large (somewhat yellowed) front teeth. Classic Nilotic. I said to myself, "This brother's got to be from Sudan." (He didn't quite look Somali; I know the general look of Somalis quite well.)

"Excuse me," I said. "I hope you don't mind my asking, but where are you from?"

"Sudan," he said with a toothy smile, "East Africa."

"Oh," I said simply. "I was thinking Sudan."

We smiled at one another, and that was that. As I passed him by, I noticed his head: definitely dolichocelphalic.

As I walked away, I chuckled and said aloud to myself, "Nice to meetcha, Tut, my brutha." Aw, yee-ah, bay-bee. A gen-yew-wine Tut sighting. Somebody alert the media! :p deeceevoice 14:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This talk page would be more helpful if you stuck to discussing the article instead of using silly anecdotes as if they showed anything useful. DreamGuy 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

And who appointed YOU a Wiki cop? I write what I please. And you're a fine one to talk, with your constant, baseless kvetching about something about which you obviously know so little. KKMBA. LMBAO. :p deeceevoice 23:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The fundamental problem: "black" does not = African, African does not = "black." (64.169.160.7 23:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

No problem. "Black" and in Africa (like King Tut) definitely means 'BLACK. :p deeceevoice 08:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting page, this. Maybe it would help if we came a bit away from this black OR white thinking. I must say that this discussion made me see some things in a different light. If you asked an average WASP-Joe how he thinks an Ancient Egypt would look like in terms of the colour of his skin, he would most certainly say "white". Before thinking a little more about this, I would have said so, too. Why is that so? I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I think it is more a subconscious thing. Egyptology has been a domain carried out almost exclusively by white men. These people surely weren't all racists but many may have made the somewhat subconscious/automatic connection linking higher civilization to white people exclusively. That was taken over by average Joe, hence the "classical" image of white Egypt. Then people look closer to how these people really looked like. Surely not like "Italians" as stated earlier. Neither were they "Caucasians". We also have the term "Mediterraneans". But I have my doubts whether these racial terms are of much use. What would you call a man who is the son, say of a "mediterranean" father and a "nilotic" or "kushitic" mother? We surely have no written evidence that Tiy was black; she might just as well be from Mitanni, right, though looking at her portait I would classify her as rather black. Even so, she was (if she indeed was Tut's grandmother) only one of four of Tut's grandparents; the other three were, if you wanted to classify them, more or less mediterranean, I guess. What makes this Tut? A 1/4th negro? Well, if we examine closer the generation before, we may get to a result like: a 2/8th or a 3/8th negro or, still a generation further, he maybe was a 5/16th negro (or a 9/16th negro for that matter). The closer you look at it, the more ridiculous it gets. Do we need a categorization at all? That man was of a more or less dark complexion, he had an elongated skull, okay. So? What does this tell us about him? There are nice white guys, there are bad white guys. There are nice black guys and bad black guys. There are nice mediterranean guys and there are bad ones. Would be more interesting to learn a bit about Tut's character, about which we know so little. And which doesn't have too much to do with his skin, I suppose.--Proofreader 20:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Pardon me for my poor English; I am from Germany, a nation that not so long ago used to categorize people into Aryans, 1/4 jews, 1/2 jews, 3/4 jews, and "thoroughbred" jews.

National Geographic image

I have put the National Geographic cover image back, because the section discusses National Geographic and the recreated likeness, and this is in accordance with Wikipedia's fair use policies. That said, if the section does not discuss National Geographic's role in the recreation, using the image would not be considered fair use. Please keep that in mind when you make changes to the section.  :)

Also, the image I replaced was Image:Tut mask closeup livinghorus.jpg, which has unknown source and copyright. Foofy 07:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

To follow up, the image of the recreation itself is owned by the Supreme Council of Antiquities. Their website is gone, and I'm not able to contact them, so the NG cover will suffice for now. Foofy 08:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sentence describing dismembering the mummy

From the article, the following sentence describing Carter's dismembering of Tutankhamun's mummy is a bit confusing: quoting from the article "... the torso cut in half and the head was severed, then removed from the golden mask to which it was cemented by means of hot knives"

Did Carter remove the golden mask using hot knives? Or was the golden mask cemented using hot knives? Can the author clarify / rephrase the sentence so that it is clear?

Thanks, --Das

It was removed with knives. Paul B 09:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Deluxe Paint

Deluxe Paint V box

Should we mention that his mask is featured in the promotional material of the Deluxe Paint series?

In the Deluxe Paint article, sure. Here, no, it's probably too tangental and trivial, in my opinion. Jonathunder 05:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

How is it that Tutankhamun has both.. an exaggerated alveolar prognathism and enlarged incisors, creating a bucktoothed appearance; and a receding chin.

The Curse

Why is there nothing on the infamous Curse of King Tut?

Because there isn't one, I guess. Paul B 00:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

King tut's tomb had no curse text. Therefore there was no curse. Everything about that nonsense curse is already in George Herbert, 5th Earl of Carnarvon Thanatosimii 06:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Exhibitions parochialism

The Exhibitions section starts:

"The splendors of Tutankhamun's tomb are among the most traveled artifacts in the world. They have been to many countries, but probably the most well-known exhibition tour, which more than a million people visited, is Treasures of Tutankhamun, organized by the Metropolitan Museum of Art from 17 November, 1976 through 15 March, 1977 (and extended by other galleries until 1979)."

In my opinion this is totally parochial, and inaccurate by omission.

The Treasures of Tutankhamun exhibition was certainly a mammoth event, but the US leg was only a small part of this tour. According to other sources on the net Egyptian officials organised "the famous exhibition Treasures of Tutankhamun that travelled outside Egypt to Paris in 1967, the British Museum in 1972, to four cities in the Soviet Union in 1973, and to seven in the USA" (1976-7). Apparently Paris also had 1 million visitors, while a slightly earlier Tutankamun exhibition that visited Japan had over 3 million.

AFAICT the US exhibition re-used the catalogue written by I.E.S. Edwards for the 1972 exhibition at the British Museum.

220.237.74.218 11:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC) G Watson gwat@optusnet.com,au

I agree that it is parochial, although reliable non-parochial information on the topic is surprisingly hard to come by. Museums tend to trumpet themselves and don't care much about other venues, especially in other countries. I have found information on the various international tours and exhibitions and I plan to substantially re-write this section in the next week or weeks.

In fact, I have so much information that I think there needs to be a sub-article on the various international shows. It is important in in own right, but threatens to take over the main article if put there. For the article title, I am thinking Tutankhamun exhibitions. Any opinions on this?

As for the current claims in the article, the Met did co-ordinate the 1970s US tour, but the attendance for the US leg was over 8 million, not 1 million. As for Paris, there were well over a million visitors, but Japan's attendance was actually under 3 million. I have found more exact figures which are preferable, since "some 3 million" (meaning almost 3 million) can easily become "over 3 million" when re-written.

The "other sources on the net" are not terribly accurate. The Paris, London/USSR, and USA exhibitions mentioned were each separate exhibitions, with different selections of artifacts. The 1972 British exhibition and the 1970s US exhibition catalogues were both written by Edwards, but the US exhibition omitted many objects that appeared in London and added many others. Less than 60% of the US items also appeared in London. For those in both, descriptions were sometimes shortened, updated, or revised (UK "stave" became US "staff", etc.) Canadiana 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentences about "Amarna Succession" article

The main article contianed a half-paragraph reference to an upcoming J.P. Allan article "The Amarna Succession". Here is the text I removed and the justification:

However, Professor James Allen in an upcoming 2007 article titled "The Amarna Succession"--written to honour the memory of the late William Murnane--argues that Tutankhamun was more likely to be a son of the short-lived king Smenkhkare rather than Akhenaten. Allen notes that Akhenaten consciously chose a female coregent named Neferneferuaten to succeed him rather than Tutankhamun which is untenable if the latter was indeed his son. [1] (see pp.7, 12-14)

I have a deep respect for Professor James Allen, and his book on Middle Egyptian is one of my favorite books. I have not read this article (indeed, it is not even in print yet!) but the discussion seems to have no place in a Wiki article. Wiki has a No Original Research policy, and clearly this constitutes original research, or at least it is simply speculation. Anyway, this complicated discussion doesn't seem relevant for this section, as a simple "we don't know for sure" can suffice until conclusive evidence emerges (if ever).

So sorry if it hurts anyone's feelings, but I think this little section should be cut, but I would be happy to discuss further. --Jeff Dahl 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is genuinely forthcoming, then it's a grey area. As you know forthcoming publications are often cited in academic literature. But we certainly don't need the tribute to Murnane. It could be shortened to "Professor James Allen argues that Tutankhamen is more likely to have been a son of Smenkhkare". The rest can go in a footnote. Paul B 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

James Allen may or may not have written the forthcoming article that is mentioned, but there is no way to verify that such a forthcoming article exists or what it says. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish ... new information not heretofore published." It hasn't actually been published yet, so I think it's too early to include it. Canadiana 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am of course well aware of NOR policy, but it's not applicable here. There is no doubt that he wrote the article. It is posted on the university of Memphis website. Jeff Dahl has already provided the link. Here's the site again. [2] The existence of the article and the notability of Allen is not in question. It's really only an issue about footnoting a forthcoming hard-copy publication. Paul B 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am restoring a shortened version of the passage. It's a significant article, and directly accessible to online readers. 212.219.28.94 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with the shortened version of the passage. The only really grey area is whether the web version on the University of Memphis site is the final peer-reviewed version or not. I can't tell. Canadiana 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Tutankhamun's seat section

I have removed the following text which was added by an anonymous AOL user on June 2, 2006:

Tutankhamun's seat

The golden throne that Howard Carter discovered in the Antechamber beneath the hippopotamus couch is similar to the chair belonging to Sitamun. The style was popular for royal chairs of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Instead of female torsos protruding from the seat, however, the more traditional lions are in their place. The armchair is carved from wood, but covered in gold with some silver overlay. Coloured glass, faience, calcite and semi-precious stones are used for the inlays.

The carved plant motif between the feline-form legs was removed by thieves, but the delicate openwork design of the arms remains intact. On either side, a winged cobra wears the double crown and rests on a basket. Its outstretched wings enclose the hieroglyphs for the "king of Upper and Lower Egypt" followed by the sign for infinity (shen). A cartouche of the king is at the end of her wings on either side of the chair.

The back of the chair is supported by three vertical struts; the outer two are carved with the king's Aten name, the middle one with that of the queen. Four hooded cobra with solar disks rise up in pairs between each of the supports. A carved and gilded scene with birds in a thicket appears on the outer surface of the back of the seat. In the triangular opening formed between the diagonal of the back and the vertical support on each side is a hooded cobra. The one on the left wears the red crown of Lower Egypt, while the one on the right has the white crown of Upper Egypt.

The iconography relates to Atenist doctrines, but the names of the king and queen appearing on the chair use both the earlier (Aten) and later (Amun) forms. Such a combination indicate that the chair was probably produced rather early in Tutankhamun's reign, during the period of transition to the orthodox religion. Indeed, the queen's head appears to have been shortened to dilute the bizarre naturalism of Atenist art.

The original version of this section appears to have been copied directly from [http://www.touregypt.net/museum/tutl57.htm Tut Exhibit - King Tutankhamun Exhibit, Collection: Furniture and Boxes - Tutankhamun's Gold Throne], before undergoing several style edits beginning with one on June 5, 2006 by User:Master Spiky. Besides being a probable copyright violation, it doesn't seem to warrant four paragraphs to itself, when almost none of the other artifacts from the tomb are even mentioned in the article. Canadiana 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Recent theories that link Tutankhamun with early Christianity"

I have removed the section "Recent theories that link Tutankhamun with early Christianity", added August 19, 2006 by User:Rnolst. It makes some rather unusual claims about Jesus being Tutankhamun and treats them as if they were established fact.

This text was written by Charles N. Pope and appears to be taken directly from a section of http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/osman.html. Unless Rnolst is or has permission from Charles N. Pope, this is a copyright violation and cannot be permitted to remain. For the original addition record, see [3] Canadiana 04:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

what did king tut eat ?

Cause of Death

Isn't the tone in the first paragraph of this section just a tad too informal? Asking questions to the reader probably isn't the best format. Just a thought. Justinmeister 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tutankhamun might have been poisoned as well. {{Psusennes}}

I've removed the claim by 89.172.168.25 that Tut may have been poisoned. The better reports apout the Spanish research do not suggest this, and even the blog he cites is very sceptical. The story is, anyway, odd - as it implies that the "poison cup", unwashed, would be put in the tomb. Other reports suggest that it was sealed amphorae that were tested. Paul B 12:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Poison theory and facts:[[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/kingtutdeath.htm]] [[http://touregypt.net/featurestories/killtut.htm]] [[4]]

Please do not delete information that you do not like. None of your citations contain any actual evidence that he was poisoned, just speculation. We can speculate equally about the early deaths of almost any ancient figure. Half the Roman emperors are regularly claimed to have been "poisoned". The point is that the physical evidence formerly cited is no longer taken as valid. Paul B 12:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Roman emperors who were murdered were stubbed and not poisoned,whith an exception of Claudius.Also,a new theory about a infected leg that killed Tut is much of a speculation.

Repetition

I think there's a bit too much repetition between sections in this article, for example in the sections describing the role of Ay and the religious changes in Tutankhamun's time.

Samdutton 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I had a plan back in August to re-organize the article, which would really help to cut down on the repetition. I'll try to pull out my plan and do something about it within the next week. Canadiana 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

The article is now semi-protected at my request, which means it can't be edited by users who are not logged in. Sustained vandalism by anonymous users, especially over the last 11 weeks, have made it difficult to keep track of real edits and have meant that the article contains silly fallacious comments more often than not, nearly always from various anonymous IP posters. There has really next to nothing (maybe nothing, period) useful added by anon users during this time. Canadiana 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A second 'first ever' CT scan?

One minor difference was that Tut was 5'11"[5] Brian Pearson 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cause of death.

How can anyone say that he was certanly not murdered.His burial was certanly very hasty and I´ve seen it my own eyes.Why such an dirty burial if he died from a natural cause?Why did Ay and Horemhed distroy all records of the pharaoh´s name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:ihuhkugiu (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

For one, Tut's name was erased by Horemhab for the same reason Ay's was. Both were associated with the Amarna heresy. For two, we can't really say that the burial was hasty, since it's the only unmoved pharaonic burial existant. The only possible comparison is that of Queen Hetepheres, but that's a good thousand years earlier in the fourth dynasty. For three, scientific forsenic experts reexamied the body and said he was most probably not murdered. Regardless, if you have a dissent, feel free to put it on the page with it's appropriate citation from a hard, peer reviewed source. Thanatosimii 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You belive in everythindg you hear on the news.'The main argument against the murder theory is because the fragments were loose and not covered with solidified embalming material, the damage must have occurred after the pharaoh's remains were prepared for burial, scientists concluded.'However,the same fact(that the bones were not stuck in the embalming materian)was seen in the 1968 examination,when it was suggested that it was broken by the embalmers during mummification. . but it had been loosened before. A blow to the back of the head (rather from a fall or an actual blow), causes the brain to move forward, hitting the front of the skull, usually breaking small peices of the bone right above the eyes.The burial of queen Hetepheres was horribly robbed unlike .The walls of Tut's burial chamber have a spilled redish paint as well as his coffin.This proves a lack of respect from Ay(who prepared his tomb). So,even if you accept the CT scan findings,murder cannot be ruled out if the King were done in by poison.

Hence as I said, Hetepheres is the closest thing we've got to compare it to, and it's a far cry away. Still, it was largely intact compared to most tombs. Now, I don't pay attention to the news, but I read academic literature, and they don't like the murder theory anymore. If you can Cite a poison theory, feel free. Thanatosimii 16:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Which academic literature? Can you tell me the titles?There were other intact tombs:Hor I.,Intef VI.,Psusennes I.and Shoshenq II.How can I Cite in Wikipedia?

It's up to you to find academic literature. If you don't know of anything scholarly which supports poisoning, perhaps there isn't any. In that case, the theory would be fairly inadmissable to talk about, although nonscholarly literature could be used as a reference that some ameteurs or laymen have come up with a mostly unaccepted theory. Thanatosimii 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I`m asking because the academic literature that i read,as well as the internet sites,still support murder![[6]][[7]][[8]][[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tut.htm]][[http://touregypt.net/featurestories/killtut.htm]][[9]][[10]][[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/kingtutdeath.htm]][[11]] [[12]] [[13]]

None of this is academic in any meaningful sense, and speculation is not evidence. Please sign your posts by adding ~~~~Paul B 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But this demonstrates that most experts ans scientests do not rule out murder as a possible cause of his death. And which literature is academic acording to you? Give me an example!

Please sign your posts. It is virtually impossibe to "rule out" murder. Academic literature would be literature published by an academic press or in a peer-reviewed journal. That might also include scholarly websites hosted or supported by universities. Paul B 13:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

However,what I mean is that even the blow to the head theory can`t be rulled out.89.172.165.244 13:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Psusennes.

Is this academic [[14]]?

That's a talk given last year by Bob Brier, author of the 1998 book, the findings of which were invalidated by the 2005 scan! Paul B 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

All this scan proves,is a diferent opinion of the "scientists" that wiewed the CT-scan images,it can not rule out violent murder.The main argument against the murder theory is because the fragments were loose and not covered with solidified embalming material, the damage must have occurred after the pharaoh's remains were prepared for burial, scientists concluded.However,the same fact(that the bones were not stuck in the embalming materian)was seen in the 1968 examination,when it was suggested that it was broken by the embalmers during mummification,but it had been loosened before.

Sir, it's impossible to rule out the possibility that Tut was an alien from Mars. We don't disprove things, we examine probabilities when writing history. The claim that he probably was not murdered has substantiated evidence behind it, and implies that it is still possible that he was, although the experts no longer lean that way. You don't need to insert extra sentances into the article to say, "it is still possible that he was murdered." Saying "Experts think he was not" both points out that there are two positions, and that the experts have largely abandoned one for the other. If you can find a vehement expert arguing for murder specifically against the 2005 CT findings, feel free to add. If noone actually does still believe murder and argue for it in the professional field, then the fact that old literature and web pages still argue for murder is irrelevant. Thanatosimii 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is your argument.[[15]]And as I see you are not serous which proves your sentence with Mars. He was a pharaoh.The infection theory is in that case very odd.Whay would a pharaoh ride a horse or a charriot in the cold winter day?

It's called reduction to the absurd. If a position makes an absurd statement just as valid as a seemingly normal statement, both are absurd. We cannot prove King Tut was not murdered. We cannot prove Tutankhamun was not an alien from mars. This is why the onus is not to disprove a theory, but to support it. Your book appears to not be a half bad source, but I'm not about to read all of it, so feel free yourself to come up with what their conclusions are, and write somthing to the effect, "Two forsenic experts have reexamined these ct scans and have come to [insert different conclusion here]. Specificity is good. Thanatosimii 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The book seems to be rather sensationalist, and certainly not academic, but if someone has read it then its arguments can be included. No-one says he was riding a chariot. He may have fallen down stairs. The chariot-riding is just a guess about how an accident might have happened. As it happens I have metal plates from breakages in both arms from two separate incidents. Neither involved chariots. Had I lived in Tut's day the second one would probably have killed me, since it became infected. I don't know what you would consider to be a "cold winter's day" in Egypt. Paul B 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem rather odd for a pharaoh to be in a cold desert,than in his warm pallace. Deserts are a very cold places in the winter.In my opinion a ruler living in caotic times would rather fall dead from a conspiracy than from an accident. I dont exclude the either murder od accident theory but I look in the circumstantial evidence to support one.

That presumes that the times were Chaotic. They don't seem to have been. Outside of the possibility of Tut's murder, there does not seem to be anything to warrent an assumption that the power wrangling going on in Egypt at the time was anything more than subtle excercises of influence.
What it all comes down to is this, however. A good article is going to cite solid academic work. The "No Murder" findings were conducted academically and with the blessings of and reviewal by Hawass's cronies. I don't particularly like the Supreme Counsil or whatever they call it, but they are producers of academia. If there is a dissent of equal quality, then the dissent will be given and the reasons pro and con murder in detail. This book you've provided seems quasi-academic, but not crankery, so if they, for instance, have an arguement pro-murder, their main point could be briefly summarized. However, the murder position is now largely held by the masses, who proliferate low quality literature left and right, and none of that can be admissable. Wikipedia has rules about giving undue weight to less reliable sources. Thanatosimii 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Caotic time at the end of the reign of Akhenaten.There were at least 2 assassination plots against Tutankhamun´s father(Akhenaten)that failed.The 3.may have been succesful.Egypt lost Syria,Canaan...It is imposible to say that the time that followed was much better.The new king(Tut) did the restauration,but there were certanly some people that wanted to remove all trace of the heretic pharaoh´s family.After I read the book I will put a Citation about a murder theory.

Losing canaan wasn't really "chaotic." The ancien't world isn't like the modern world. Egypt at large cared much less about canaan than we do today. The status quo seems to have remianed intact. And I find no account of assassination attempts in my literature. Thanatosimii 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not everything is written in your literature.This year I was in Egypt and i found a lot information there.Cannan must have been important because of the wood and other matherial that they imported,and because of trading.The main record about the assassination atempts on Akhenaten were found in the tomb of his minister of security and they show the assassins being brutaly punished.Moreover,Akhenaten moved his capital from Thebes not primarily because of the new religion,but because he tried to prevent the plot against him organised by the priests of Amun.There is a document thet tells us about the "evil words that he heared".

Academic literature is not always the most reliable source,I will give you an example.On an internet site of faculty of biology there is something clearly wrong.It states thet the Vipera berus has venom twice as powerful as Vipera ammodytes.It was always known that Vipera ammodytes has the most powerful venom of any european snake and much more powerful then Vipera berus.