Em Hotep! » Howard Carter

King Tut’s Death: Solved, Resolved, or Just Restated?

Shemsu Sesen — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:27:21 +0000

King Tut is known as the Boy King for two reasons. The first is the young age at which he assumed the throne—around eight or nine. The second is that he died at around nineteen, so he never really reached adulthood. Why he died so young is a question that has been with us since his tomb was discovered by Howard Carter in 1922.

In 2005 a team of top radiologists conducted a series of CT scans on Tutankhamun’s mummy, and when the results were announced the following year at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, the results were not 100% conclusive. Most of the team felt they had settled the question of what had caused Tut’s early death, but there were some holdouts.

So when Zahi Hawass announced last August that he was on the verge of announcing the exact cause of Tut’s death, Em Hotep! took notice. So does a new article and video on Dr. Hawass’ website finally put the question to rest?

Pharaoh Tutankhamun (Photo by P. A. Hudson)

As Em Hotep! readers have been reminded, perhaps to the point of tedium, Dr. Zahi Hawass declared to a sold out crowd in Indianapolis on August 7, 2009, that the “exact cause” of Tutankhamun’s death would be revealed in ”one month.” This was exciting news because, despite the best efforts of the radiological team that conducted the 2005 CT scans, there was still just a tiny bit of doubt about the “exact cause.”

Of course, this wasn’t exactly what you might call a scandalous controversy. Most of us were fairly satisfied with the majority opinion of the team—that Tut had died of a secondary infection resulting from a traumatic compound fracture to his left thigh. But the fact that Dr. Hawass had raised the issue again, with a promise of a conclusive answer, led to speculation that some new study had been conducted that resolved any remaining doubt. We have been following the story very closely ever since.

In late November Dr. Hawass posted a story and video clip to his website entitled “VIDEO: How Did King Tut Die?” Following on his August announcement, the title seemed pretty self explanatory. But before we evaluate this latest offering, let’s have a quick review of the controversy, minor though it may be.

Murder Most Foul?

Ever since Howard Carter first introduced us to Tutankhamun in 1922, there has been conjecture regarding the cause of his death. Here we had an apparently healthy young man from the absolute top strata of privilege who died in his late teens. By itself this would have been unfortunate, but not unheard of. However, given the tumultuous political climate he had inherited from his heretical predecessor, and the Eighteenth Dynasty’s penchant for court intrigue, speculation of regicide was inevitable.

Pharaoh Akhenaten (Photo by Szczebrzeszynski)

Tutankhaten, as he was then known, grew up amidst controversy. His father (or older brother, by some accounts), Akhenaten, had made some rather unpopular changes in Egyptian politics and religion during his reign. He moved capital from Memphis to Amarna, and suppressed Egypt’s traditional religions in favor of a sort of monotheism based on Aten, the deification of the solar disk. Memphis had long been the administrative center of Egypt, and Thebes, the Holy City of Amun, was Her spiritual center.

This sudden disenfranchisement of the political and religious elite did not win Akhenaten many friends.

Young Tut spent the first decade of his life cloistered with his parents in a sort of counter-culture retreat. It is tempting to imagine Amarna as being like Southern California during the Sixties, when a lot of social elites joined new religions and moved to communes. Even the art of the Amarna Revolution went through a shift away from the conservative idealized forms of the past in favor of a radical new realism encouraged by Akhenaten and his glamorous wife, Nefertiti. Meanwhile, the elder statesman Ay, was the Richard Nixon waiting in the wings.

Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and their children being blessed by Aten (Photo by Gerbil)

When Tutankhaten was only eight or nine years old, Akhenaten died and the Summer of Love came to an end. Monarchies abhor a vacuum, especially when the political and religious apparatus of the state, not to mention the citizenry, are already close to a revolution of their own. To preserve the peace (and the dynasty), Tut was hastily put on the throne through the machinations of his crafty grandfather, Ay.

Pharaoh Ay (Photo by Keith Schengili-Roberts)

Ay undoubtedly had political ambitions of his own dating back to his days of advising his son-in-law, Akhenaten, and he exerted his influence through Tut. On Ay’s advice, the Boy King moved the capital back to Memphis and began the process of restoring the old religion of Amun. He even changed his name from Tutankhaten to Tutankhamun to reflect this return to the Good Old Days. But Ay was getting on in years, and if he was going to have his turn on the throne, it would have to be soon.

Fortunately for Ay, it was soon. Tutankhamun conveniently died at around age 19, allowing Ay to finally ascend to the throne, where he reigned as pharaoh for a grand total of four years before he died.

Given these circumstances, and Tutankhamun’s early demise, we can be forgiven for thinking the worst. When an X-Ray performed on his mummy in 1968 found a hole in the base of his skull, apparently delivered from behind, images of Caesar dead on the floor of the senate leapt into our fertile imaginations. We had our smoking gun.

Only, we didn’t.

New Study, New Conclusions, New Possibilities

When the radiology team conducted the CT scans on Tut in 2005, they also revisited the hole in his skull. On closer examination, it appeared that the hole was a result of either the embalming process or damage that occurred shortly after the mummy was discovered, most likely the latter.

The team found that the bone fragments from the hole were loose and rattling around inside Tut’s skull. If the damage had occurred prior to or during the embalming process, then the bone fragments should have been stuck in, or at least covered with, resin. Neither was the case.

“The damage probably occurred because of the bad handling of the mummy” says Ashraf Selim, a radiologist who worked with the team that conducted the scan (National Geographic News: “King Tut Died From Broken Leg, Not Murder, Scientists Conclude,” p. 2). So while the hole may have occurred during the embalming process, the most likely explanation seems to be Howard Carter’s notorious abuse of the mummy while trying to remove its wrappings (and gold).

So it seemed that Tutankhamun wasn’t murdered after all, at least not by a blow to the head. But the CT scans did raise another possible cause of death. Tutankhamun’s left thighbone had suffered a traumatic break which, if it had occurred while he was alive, would have caused a nasty puncture wound. Lacking effective antiseptic treatments, such a wound have become infected, likely resulting in his death.

So how does a healthy young regent acquire a deadly compound fracture?

In spite of the depictions of the young pharaoh riding into battle on his chariot, Richard Covington, writing for The Smithsonian, postulates that Tut probably spent much of his time attending to religious functions at Thebes, with the occasional hunting foray on the Giza Plateau (The Smithsonian Mysteries of the Ancient World, Fall 2009: “Looking into Tut,” p. 69).

Despite such valiant depictions as this, Tutankhamun was probably not a casualty of war (Photo courtesy of The Yorck Project)

A fall from a galloping horse, particularly if the horse ends up on top of you, could easily produce the sort of break found on Tutankhamun’s leg. So while Tutankhamun may not have suffered a mortal wound at the hands of the Nubians, it has been suggested that he may have died as a result of a hunting accident. But the question remains, did the wound occur before or after he died?

Pre- or Postmortem: That is the Question

When the radiology team analyzed their scans, they were looking for certain indicators that would tell the story of Tut’s life and death, and what happened to his body after he died. By observing the condition and location of the bone fragments in his skull, for example, they were able to conclude the hole was made after Tut had died. Because the fragments were not covered with embalming resin, they were able to conclude that the hole was likely a product of mistreatment rather than mummification.

The break in Tutankhamun’s thigh told a story as well. The job of the radiology team was to interpret the evidence in order to translate that tale. Most of the evidence seemed to indicate that the broken left thigh occurred prior to death. Two very convincing observations led the majority of the team to this conclusion.

First, there is the shape and appearance of the break. Living bone is moist and somewhat pliable. Like a living tree branch, when live bone breaks it tends to splinter and have ragged edges. Dead bone is dry and brittle. Like a dead twig, it tends to snap and leave sharp edges. Unlike the damage that was definitely caused by Carter, the broken thigh has ragged splintery edges. Tutankhamun’s thigh was more branchy than twiggy.

The second indicator of the fracture having occurred prior to death is the presence of resins inside the fracture itself. According to most of the radiology team, the embalming fluids could only have gotten into the break if it had occurred while Tut was alive.

If the break had been done by Carter, then the resin should have been on the surface only and the break should have been clean. Again quoting Ashraf Selim, “The resin flowed through the wound and got into direct contact with the fracture and became solidified, something we didn’t see in any other area,” (Source).

There is no sign of the break having begun healing, but the team offers two possible reasons for this. First, infection may have set in early causing a rapid deterioration and quick death. Second, the embalming process may have obscured any signs of healing.

But not every member of the team agreed with this interpretation. Some of the radiologists felt that the break could only have occurred as a result of Howard Carter’s mishandling of Tut’s mummy. Had the wound occurred while Tutankhamun was alive, they insist, there would have been clear evidence of hemorrhaging and/or hematoma in the scans. The lack of internal bleeding and massive bruising, they contend, point to the damage being postmortem (Source: “Press release, Tutankhamun CT scan, 8 March, 2005”).

As for the resin inside the fracture, they feel this could have occurred while Carter’s team was breaking the mummy apart. As the broken edges of the bone grated against the resin-coated surfaces, resin could have been deposited into the break. And the lack of healing seems to speak for itself—dead bones don’t heal.

So the CT scanning team offered a very probable answer to how King Tut died, but it still wasn’t quite conclusive. As National Geographic writer Brian Handwerk summarized it:

While scientists were unanimous in concluding that there was no evidence of head trauma, they differed when interpreting a fracture found in the mummy’s left thigh. Some researchers felt that the break represented a serious injury that Tut had sustained shortly before death, perhaps resulting in an open wound and the possibility of a life-threatening infection. Others dismissed the broken bone as yet another example of damage inflicted by Carter’s team. (National Geographic News: King Tut Not Murdered Violently, CT Scans Show)

So the story of the 2005 CT scans was essentially a story without an end, which brings us back to Zahi Hawass’ promise to reveal the “exact cause” of Tutankhamun’s death, supposedly in September, 2009.

The Wait

When Dr. Hawass promised back in August to disclose in one month what killed Tut, I took him at his word and reported the news both on Em Hotep! and in an article I wrote for Heritage Key (Lecture Review: Zahi Hawass’ Mysteries of King Tut Revealed). When one month came and went, I wrote a follow-up article (King Tut: And the Cause of Death is… To Be Announced) and continued my vigil.

Toward the end of September I assembled a list of items Dr. Hawass had “promised, hinted, or suggested” would occur by October, 2009 (A Banner Month for Egyptology? October Promises, Hints, and Teasers). The promised announcement of Tutankhamun’s cause of death was on the list.

A follow-up to this was written on November 4, 2009 (Nefertiti, the Life and Death of King Tut, and KV64: The October Checklist). As of then, despite several public speaking engagements, including the opening of the Carter House (named for Howard Carter, a rather obvious connection to Tutankhamun), no news of Tut’s cause of death had been made public.

Finally, without the customary fanfare of a Zahi Hawass announcement, an article and video clip entitled VIDEO: How Did King Tut Die? appeared on Dr. Hawass’ blog. So was this the revelation Dr. Hawass had promised three and a half months ago?

And The News Is: Old and Contradictory.

There is no new information in the article on Dr. Hawass’ website. He makes mention of a “recent” CT scan, which is apparently a reference to the scan that occurred in 2005. No new analyses are detailed, no new interpretation is offered. The video clip was recorded in March, 2008, nearly a year and a half before his announcement in August, 2009, that the “exact cause” of Tut’s death would be announced in “one month.”

With regard to the hole in the back of Tut’s head, Dr. Hawass states in his article that “studies of the CT scans show that this hole was made in the back of his head in order to pour the liquid used in mummification into his body after he died.” This is in contradiction to Ashraf Selim’s statement that the bone fragments were not covered in resin, and the hole probably occurred as a result of Carter’s mishandling of the mummy (source). In fact, due to how the resins pooled in the skull, the team concluded that the embalming fluids had been poured in through the nasal cavity once the brain was removed.

With regard to the fractured leg, Hawass states in the article on his site that “Previous scholars thought this fracture in the leg was caused by Howard Carter, but we discovered it was the result of an accident that happened shortly before [Tut] died.” This statement is troublesome on a number of levels.

The fracture was not detected until the 2005 CT scan, so who are the “previous scholars”? If the previous scholars are the members of the radiology team who held a dissenting opinion, then is Dr. Hawass saying that a new study has been conducted? When? Where? Who is the “we” who discovered that the cause of death was the broken thigh? If it is the radiology team that conducted the 2005 scan, then how can the dissenters be “previous scholars”?

Hawass offers more detail in the video, where he declares:

[Howard Carter] damaged the mummy to 18 pieces. And this is why many people could think that this fracture could happen because of that damage that Howard Carter did. But radiologists found that’s not true. They found that this fracture is an accident that happened to Tutankhamun one day before he died. (source—in the video)

But not all of the radiologists “found that’s not true.” Nowhere in the video (or the article) does Hawass mention that the “previous scholars” who disagreed were part of the radiology team itself. The team did not reach a consensus. They did not find that the fracture occurred before he died; most of the team interpreted the evidence as being consistent with a pre-mortem accident.

So how did Tutankhamun die?

Frankly, I agree with Zahi Hawass with regard to the cause. I believe that the majority opinion of the radiology team that conducted the 2005 CT scan is the most convincing interpretation of the evidence. I believe that Tutankhamun suffered some terrible accident before he died that resulted in a compound fracture which became infected, resulting in his death.

Where I disagree with Zahi Hawass is the level of certainty he claims for this conclusion. I do not believe we can prove with absolute certainty what killed Tutankhamun with the evidence that we posses and the tools at our disposal. I feel that a case has been made for the fracture-and-infection theory that is reliable and likely enough that I choose to believe it. I think that in the article on his website and in the 2008 video clip Dr. Hawass withholds some of the facts in an attempt to portray a level of certainty which is not there.

As for what Dr. Hawass had in mind on August 7, 2009, when he promised to reveal the exact cause of Tut’s death in one month, I can’t speculate. As I said above, I took him at his word and what he has offered us is a three-year-old theory and a year-and-a-half old video clip presented as something new. “At least we can know the cause of his death for the first time,” Dr. Hawass concludes in his video clip.

Why? Apparently because Zahi Hawass says so, and contrary opinions are to be dismissed for no good reason.

Nefertiti, the Life and Death of King Tut, and KV64: The October Checklist

Shemsu Sesen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:06:30 +0000

October has come and gone and it’s time to review our checklist of things Dr. Zahi Hawass had “promised, hinted, and suggested” would occur during—if not before—last month. So how did he do?

It is kind of hard to say someone had a bad month when they successfully reclaimed five artifacts from the Louvre and were appointed Vice Minister of Culture. So call me a taskmaster, but those two things were not on the list…

In the last week of October Zahi Hawass was named Egypt’s Vice Minister of Culture by decree of President Hosni Mubarak. Dr. Hawass was set for retirement from the Supreme Council of Antiquities next spring, although he certainly had no plans to slow down. With at least a half dozen books planned to be released in the next year, and a list of projects to be completed in the Valley of the Kings, Zahi Hawass was full steam ahead in both his professional and public life. But with the sort of legacy he was leaving, he was concerned over who might end up replacing him at the helm of the SCA.

With a clear preference for blue-collar archaeology, Dr. Hawass was worried that his replacement might be an academician with no practical experience, rather than someone who had come up through the ranks at the SCA. In particular, he was…

“…concerned that the government might decide to appoint someone from the University to fill my position who did not have experience in archaeology. Such a person might be impressed by the glory of the job and not focus on the monuments, and all the projects I have initiated would be abandoned.” (source)

Although not stated explicitly, Dr. Hawass’ new position with the Ministry of Culture will assure that he has some sway over who will be appointed as his replacement. Rather than a book-smart professor type, more interested in glory and fame, Dr. Hawass’ trademark khakis, denim shirt, and Indiana Jones fedora will be handed down to someone not afraid to get his hands dirty. Or at least they would be, if Dr. Hawass wasn’t planning to return to the field himself.

Dr. Hawass’ new position will also allow him to continue with other projects of particular importance to him. The construction of new museums, not to mention the renovation of old ones, will continue under his guidance, as will the training programs he initiated for museum personnel and archaeologists. Site management has been one of Zahi Hawass’ priorities, and as Vice Minister of Culture he will be able to maintain a watchful eye over these programs as well.

Another priority for Zahi Hawass has been the repatriation of Egyptian artifacts that have found themselves in foreign lands under questionable circumstances. October saw an agreement by France’s Louvre to return a set of five wall paintings hacked from the tomb of Tetaki (TT 15), an Eighteenth Dynasty court official buried in the Tombs of the Nobles section of the Theban Necropolis.

The agreement was reached after Dr. Hawass suspended the Louvre’ s activities in Egypt, citing a letter that had been sent eighteen months earlier requesting the return of the tomb paintings. Frederic Mitterrand, France’s Minister of Culture, was sympathetic and agreed the fragments should be returned, but noted that France had only been aware of the fact they had been stolen following the rediscovery of the tomb in November, 2008 (source). Oddly enough, this would have been seven months after the letter was supposedly sent, but regardless of such minor details, a victory is a victory.

Efforts to reclaim another much higher profile Egyptian artifact have been less conclusive, which leads us to the October Checklist.

Ludwig Borchardt’s “Unethical Tactics”

Back in August, when I interviewed Zahi Hawass on behalf of Heritage Key, I asked about the status of his campaign to have the bust of Nefertiti returned to Egypt. In particular, I asked him when he intended to reveal the evidence of “unethical tactics” Ludwig Borchardt allegedly used to obtain the bust of Nefertiti for Germany. Dr. Hawass responded that the evidence was still being gathered, and would be publicly revealed when he wrote to Berlin in October to request the return of the artifact.

October did see changes in Nefertiti’s status. For their part, the Germans moved her to her “new permanent home” in Berlin. For his part, Dr. Hawass seemed to lower his expectations, stating to Spiegel Online that he was “not by any means” insisting that Nefertiti be removed from her new home (source). But it wasn’t Nefertiti’s return we were looking for with the Checklist, it was Dr. Hawass’ evidence that Borchardt was dishonest in his dealings.

There has been legitimate debate over whether or not the bust of Nefertiti should be returned to Egypt, even if Borchardt did remove her under false pretenses. On the one hand, there are those who say that regardless of the circumstances under which she came to Berlin, she is safe and well cared for, open for public viewing, and too fragile to transport to Egypt. On the other hand, there are those who say that she is an important and unique artifact and part of the heritage of the Egyptian people and belongs in an Egyptian museum. But whether or not she should return home or remain in Berlin was not the point the October Checklist was trying to address.

What makes an artifact an artifact is its history, and that history includes not only the circumstances of its creation, it includes how that artifact and its discovery have changed our understanding of the past and how we view ourselves in the present. An important part of Tutankhamun’s history is his tour of the world’s museums thirty years ago, and is why Dr. Hawass includes him among the world’s ambassadors. Likewise, the history of the bust of Nefertiti consists of not just the early years of its existence, it includes the story of all that has happened ever since.

Is she, as some have insisted, a forgery foisted on the German people by Borchardt? Is she the real deal, smuggled quietly out of Egypt by Borchardt and only revealed to the world a decade later when her kidnapper deemed it safe to do so? Or was she acquired under what were the standards of the day with regard to which discoveries archaeologists were allowed to take back to their home countries, and which were to be left in Egypt? All of these questions are as much a part of the bust’s history as everything thing that led up to them.

If the Supreme Council of Antiquities is privy to the answers of some of these questions, then they should make them public. What is the advantage of hanging on to evidence of an alleged crime that occurred a century ago? It’s not as if the prosecution is going to call some last-minute surprise witness who will burst into the courtroom with the Damning Evidence, as everyone turns and gasps. Nor is the evidence, if it exists, the private domain of a few men to distribute arbitrarily. It is not the task of historians and archaeologists to hide secrets, but rather to unearth them.

King Tut’s Daughter

When Howard Carter discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun in 1922 he also discovered the mummified bodies of two young girls—one who is believed to have been miscarried at about six months, and another believed to have been stillborn. The fact that they had been interred with the young king suggests they may have been his daughters. This potential link is vital to the genetic mapping of the Eighteenth Dynasty, because if they are the daughters of Tutankhamun and his wife, Ankhesenamun, then their genetic profile could help identify Ankhesenamun’s mummy. This could open an entire branch of the family tree, possibly leading to the identification of Nefertiti and other Eighteenth Dynasty celebrities.

A DNA sample was taken from the older of the two and subjected to testing in 2008, and again in 2009, supposedly with encouraging results. On August 7^th, 2009, at a lecture at Butler University’s Clowes Hall which I covered for Heritage Key, Dr. Hawass stated that both tests had indicated that Tutankhamun was likely the father of the child. He further stated that the results would be published in a paper “next week” (source).

August passed with no further word. Six weeks later, in a September 20, 2009, article for the Sacramento Bee, spokesperson Jill Lynch stated “this fall, Dr. Zahi Hawass is going to announce the results of a DNA study that will determine the parenthood of the two fetuses found buried with King Tut.” According to the article, the DNA results would be announced in “the next few weeks.” It has been yet another six weeks, with no announcement.

The declaration that a paper detailing the DNA studies would be published “next week” was met with applause at Clowes Hall because people follow the story with excitement. We want to know the ongoing status of this work, even if such reports only announce that the results so far are inconclusive. Stating that a paper is to be published next week, or an announcement is coming in a few weeks, implies that the work has been done, so why continue to withhold it from the public?

Nobody is suggesting that a researcher doesn’t have a right to hold back their work until it is ready for publication, and nobody wants to deny an archaeologist his or her much-deserved moment in the sun. And everybody can appreciate the fact that sometimes things come up and schedules change. But when we are told that an exciting event will happen by a certain date, the date passes without the event or an explanation, only for the same exciting announcement to be repeated again a little later, people begin to wonder if these announcements are really worth the excitement they generate.

A New Tomb

Again quoting the above-cited lecture at Clowes Hall, Dr. Hawass stated in August that he hoped his “all Egyptian team” would be announcing the discovery of a new tomb in October of 2009 (source). This new tomb, which according to the naming conventions for the Valley of the Kings is already known as KV64, is a favorite topic of discussion and speculation in Egyptological community, particularly on the blogosphere. It is known that Dr. Hawass has been in hot pursuit of the tombs of Nefertiti, Ramesses VIII, and Queen Tiye in recent years.

And although the lecture seemed to imply that the discovery would be made at the Valley of the Kings area (the proclamation was made in the context of discussing recent work in the Valley of the Kings), it is entirely possible the next tomb to be announced may not be KV64. Rather than the Valley of the Kings, what if the new tomb is in Alexandria? Work was to resume in October at (or near) Alexandria on a tomb Dr. Hawass believes may belong to one of ancient history’s most famous femmes fatales, Cleopatra VII (source). It is entirely possible this year’s digging season may uncover the tombs of both Cleopatra and Nefertiti, two of the most powerful women in Egypt’s history.

But wishful thinking aside, no new tombs were announced in October. One might point out that the operative word above was hoped, as in, Dr. Hawass hoped to make the announcement in October, but made no promises. Fair enough, but again, why keep us in the dark? Why not give us an update? “We hoped to make an announcement this month, but ran into problems. We hope that we will be making an announcement in January.” Instead, another date passes without an explanation, or even an acknowledgement.

What Killed Tut?

Again, to return to the lecture at Clowes Hall, on August 7^th, 2009, Dr. Hawass assured the audience that contrary to popular belief King Tutankhamun was not murdered, and that he would be announcing the cause of Tut’s death “in one month” (source). It has been nearly three months now, and to my knowledge Dr. Hawass has made no announcements regarding the cause of Tutankhamun’s death.

A little later today (November 4, 2009) an important event is scheduled to take place in Luxor, Egypt—the opening of the Carter House to the public. Dr. Hawass will be present and is scheduled to address those gathered for the occasion. In the comments section of a previous Em Hotep! article on this very subject, King Tut: And the Cause of Death is… To Be Announced, one of our readers (Ann) suggested that this event would be an ideal time to announce the cause of Tut’s death, seeing as how Howard Carter discovered his tomb.

I am inclined to agree with Ann. It makes perfect sense to hold onto this news for the opening of the Carter House. The two events are related and it would pay double homage to a famous and beloved Egyptologist, Howard Carter. But once the decision was made to postpone this historic revelation, why not announce the change? The earlier date had been set in a public forum, why not relate the change in an equally public manner, such as an announcement on Zahi Hawass’ blog that instead of September the cause of Tutankhamun’s early demise would be disclosed at the opening of the Carter House?

This, of course, presumes that Dr. Hawass will be sharing this knowledge later today at the Carter House. Without the facts, all we can do is speculate.

Zahi TV

This item on the Checklist was sort of tongue-in-cheek. There were rumors that The History Channel might be filming a sort of archaeology reality show with Dr. Hawass beginning in October of 2009 (source). There has been no further mention of these plans that I have been able to track down, but it is easy enough to find Zahi TV as it is. Not just The History Channel, but The Discovery Channel, National Geographic documentaries, possibly even the Weather Channel have all featured Dr. Hawass and will undoubtedly continue to do so for years to come.

And that’s ok. Even the grand-standing is ok because it generates interest in Egyptology. Zahi Hawass seems to have the ability to pull a press conference out of thin air. Even he has joked about arriving unannounced at dig sites only to find the cameras already there waiting for him. The desire to always have some exciting news to break must be quite compelling. It is certainly understandable that he is concerned his replacement might be someone who is merely “impressed by the glory of the job.”

Maybe the October Checklist delivered more of a bite than I originally wanted. It was intended to be fun, and I had really hoped to see the “inventor of the twenty-four hour workday” knock these five (ok, make that four) pitches out of the park. They were, after all, things he himself had “promised, hinted, and suggested.” But I can’t help but note that these major announcements were made so lightly, and apparently forgotten with the same ease.

I sincerely hope that the cause of Tutankhamun’s death will be revealed at the Carter House in a few hours. Otherwise, it is just another announcement dropped and then, well, just dropped.

Photographs “Egypt.Zahi.Hawass.01.jpg” by Hajor, ”Nefertiti berlin.jpg” by Zserghei, ”DSC093719.JPG” by E. Michael Smith, and “Rubble being cleared” by drewnoakes are provided courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of those files under the conditions that you appropriately attribute them, and that you distribute them only under a license identical to this one. Official license

King Tut: And the Cause of Death is… To Be Announced

Shemsu Sesen — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:14:13 +0000

It has been nearly a month now since Dr. Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, announced that in one month he would reveal “the exact reason why King Tut died.”

The title of the lecture was Mysteries of Tutankhamun Revealed. I was in attendance, and among the most exciting revelations were promises to reveal more revelations in the very near future.

To be more specific, at a lecture on August 7^th, 2009, at Butler University’s Clowes Memorial Hall in Indianapolis, IN, Dr. Hawass assured the crowd that he knew the exact cause of Tutankhamun’s death, long thought (apparently incorrectly) to be murder, and that he would be revealing the cause at a press conference within a month. (For a full review of the lecture see my analysis on Heritage Key: Lecture Review: Zahi Hawass’ Mysteries of King Tut Revealed).

The Boy King, Tutankhamun (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Dr. Hawass also promised that other forensic results would be made public within the month. For example, why did the boy king need to use a cane at such a young age? He also announced that the results of a second paternity test confirming that Tutankhamun is the father of one of the fetuses found in his tomb by Howard Carter in 1922 would be subjected to publication for peer review this month.

It has been one month and one day since the lecture, so maybe what Dr. Hawass meant was that the cause of death would be announced sometime in September. That effectively resets the clock to T-minus 30 24 days.

The exhibition Tutankhamun the Golden King and the Great Pharaohs is due to open at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, Canada, on November 24th, 2009 (it is currently running at the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, where it will remain until October 25th, 2009). But there has been no announcement that Dr. Hawass will be speaking in Toronto to promote the exhibition, as he did in San Francisco and Indianapolis. Besides, that would be two months from now.

The only up-coming speaking engagement for the Good Doctor that I am aware of is the Geotechnical Engineering Conference coming up on October 6^th, 2009, at Alexandria (Hawass to Speak at Geotechnical Engineering Conference), and that doesn’t sound like a very promising venue for a discussion of mummy forensics.

But on the subject of Egypt and engineering, we have much excitement of our own planned for September here at Em Hotep!, including a multi-part very in-depth review of Jean-Pierre Houdin’s explanation of how the Pyramid of Khufu was constructed. It’s much more complex than just an internal ramp, as you will see.

So in the meanwhile, stay tuned to Em Hotep! for more death and construction.

Photograph ”Tête de Toutânkhamon enfant (musée du Caire Egypte).jpg” by Wiki user dalbera, is provided courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of those files under the conditions that you appropriately attribute them, and that you distribute them only under a license identical to this one. Official license. Photograph “hawass3.jpg” by Anne Houston Payne is courtesty of Heritage Key–All rights reserved.