Hi All
I have been thinking about this for a while and something June said about Eygpt (on her website) has prompted me to post.
We are all aware of how history protrays say ancient eygpt and I know alot of what happened was written down for prosperiety at the time, but how do we know that the historians etc are getting it right 100% of the time. I have watched may programmes on eygpt (and other ancient civilisations) but there are so many different versions flying around how do we know what really happened over 3000 years ago!
Some of the things being said of King Tut are a bit strange and that they man who had brought him up and nurtured him into king would actually plot to kill him! Also in one programme they say that he was dismembered as a result of an autopsy but in another he was possibly hung!
Strange - just thought I would see what others thought??
With love
Maria
RE: Historians view on events
Yes, and it was General Horemheb (throne name - Per Aten Em Heb) who had King Tutankhamen's name (his throne name was Nebkheperure) erased from the king lists when he assumed power in 1353BC. His only claim to the throne was via his marriage to Nefertiti's sister Mutnojmet.
I dont think that King Ay killed Tut, but I do think that he may have killed Ankhsenamun, Tut's chief wife. A letter that she had written to the Mittainian King was found in the early part of the 20th century, and it's the writings of a desperate and frightened woman. She wanted the Mittanian king to send her a prince to marry, because she didn't want to marry one of her subjects (this has been since clarified as Ay.) This Prince Zinansash was sent out, but he was killed en route, and Ankhsenamun ended up marrying Ay and accepting her fate.
Oh, the intrigue!
Love,
Patsy.
xxxxx
RE: Historians view on events
The evidence for a marriage between Ankhesamun and Aye is cirucmstancial though to say the least, hinging entirely on the discovery of a ring inscribed with their joint names which is of very dubious origin. Personally I feel it is far more likely that Horemheb was behind her untimely death, as Aye was one of the family's most loyal supporters, as brother of Queen Tiye, Akhenaton's mother. His main reason for wishing to attain the throne was therefore to protect the surviving members of the family for as long as posisble from the wrath of Horemheb, and was not born from any desire to have power for himself. Unfortunately though by the time he came to the throne he was already an old man, so the respite was short lived.
June
RE: Historians view on events
June
That is what I can make out as well, I have a feeling that historians are making Aye out to be the villian when he may not have been, as you say the ring evidance is very dubious and Aye had been a loyal servant right up to that point! I can understand why this era was distroyed, but as it was destroyed so thoroughly I do wonder how the historians can peice together so much when most of it must be guess work (to a degree).
Don't get me wrong, if I live my life again I would love to be an archeologist, but I just feel that there are some discrepancies in this era of the pharos just by the simple point that so much was destroyed!
M