lol

It annoys me that all of these programmes are all focused on 'startling new evidence!' and so on. It seems that T.V stations think that the only way that thew can attract viewers is by adding highly dubious slants to all of their history documentaries.

Why can't there be any normal Egyptology programmes?!

Because the History and Discovery Channels suck.

I completely agree with you!

There was a programme on in Britain recently about the death of Tutankhamun, and to try and find out the motives behind his possible assasination they took two 'Top F.B.I Psychologists' to the 'scene of crime'. Despite the fact that they were obviously actors, even if they had been real Psycholgists I don't know how much they could have determined by entering a tomb that has been a tourist attraction for eighty years and narrowly avoided being completely destroyed by Carter.

Oh, I do like being critical. But honestly- F.B.I Pschologists?

What was this theory between Akhenaten and Moses that you mentioned?
Is it the one where they say that Judaism's monotheim was born from Atenism? Or is it something else?

I have a story that I wrote in my Creative Writing class last year about King Tut's last year of his life. It's called Tutankhamen's Egypt. I need help with it if anyone wants to help me. It's not completely accurate since his wife dies before he does. I just wanted to twist some things. I'd like someone who's been on this site for a while.

Well, what do you want to twist about? If we know exactly what maybe someone with a special area of interest could help you. Someone may be good with religion (like me) whereas someone else may be good on events and chronology (like Sekhmet) etc.

I wanted to really twist it with Amenhotep IV and Tutankhamen being brothers. I did want it to be that Amenhotep IV didn't become pharaoh and he was jealous of Tut because he became pharoah and killed him. However, I don't really want to change something that's been proven.

Well, I think that is completely tasking it out of the water now to be honest. It is pretty definate that Amenhotep IV was a Pharaoh and you cannot really dispute that in a credible book. You could however work with the elusive Smenkhare as he is so shadowy it is quite easy to manipulate his character into what you want. Maybe Smenkhare was murdered by a pro Tutankhamun faction headed by Ay who wanted an end to the Atenist revolution and a return to the strong kings of old? That is just an idea for you if you want to work with it. That way you are still dealing with murder in the Royal household, but it is much more beliveable. Amenhotep however had been dead for perhaps 11 years at the time King Tutankhamun died so his part in the murder would be quite minimal.
I like the ideas and themes that you are constructing in your story, but if you want a more historically accurate text with regard to kings and reigns then Amenhotep IV and Tutankhamun have to be kept quite seperate with regard to their reigns. As for murder in the Royal house, bear in mind that there is very little evidence for any assasination attempts bar those on the Ptolemies and on Ramses III. Be careful when constructing a story in the Amarna period as so many people have a different view at least one faction will probably try and cut it down. Pay no attention to them though, write a brilliant story and dont forget to share it with us all!

Eh, I said that because I've only read one thing about Akhenaton and Tut being brothers's and it was almost completely wrong.

Well, to say that they were brothers flings a hell of a lot of questions into the air. Why would Amenhotep III carry on such a long regency with his son? Tutankhamun was born almost certainly some time after the death of Amenhotep III. The ages do not tie up. Tutankhamun was born between Years 9 - 12 of the reign of Akhenaten. To believe in a co-regency of 9 - 12 years is seriously challenging the accepted length of a regency. Rarely did one last more than a couple of years and quite often their was only a very brief period in which this changeover occured. Although the geneology of this particular period is even more confusing than the rest it is safer to say that Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten and not his brother. If we speak about Tutankhamun being the brother of Akhenaten we have to fit Smenkhare into the equation as well, not an easy task if we look at dates carefully.

I have an idea-

You could make the priesthood of Amun a sort of dark cult e, plotting the downfall of the weak boy king. If you want to make your story really contraversial and into more of a myth- you could include the gods themselves as potential murderers. . .

The priest of Amun , angered by the desecration of their holy relics and the removal of all of the old pantheon pray to Amun and all the gods of the old order, so that they might curse Tutankhaten so terribly as to send him to an early grave. . .
All is peaceful at the Pharoah's estate as he and Akhesenamun sit down to dinner. . .suddenly the sky turns black as the sun plummets below the horizon of Akhet. The cities are in turmoil as the hot Egyptian sun vanishes, plunging the Nile Valley into eternal night. Khepri- god of the setting sun is no longer rolling the sun across the sky, not for a Pharaoh who believes that there is no Khepri!
Each of the main gods of the Egyptians has been told by Amun to in turn wreak havoc upon the Nile Valley and Tutankaten, all to punish the infidel king for his non-belief!
Wadjet for example could send swarms of deadly serpents through the sands surrounding the palaces. Geb could crack and shake the earth, Horus could drop the sky from the celestial sphere, Isis could dry out the Nile- the possibilities are endless, if not exactly historically accurate.
Then, upon Tut's terrible and overly dramatic death, the old gods are quickly restored, and his tomb hastilly repainted (explaining its unfinished look) with images of the old gods of Egypt, by the terrified priests of Aten.
I know that there is tons of concrete evidence to show that Tutankhamen worshiped the old gods just years after Akhenaten's death (the temple of Amun at Thebes being the most obvious), but you could just exclude that temple as a clever fake built by Arabs in 1824 to attract tourists.

Pretty cool, I think- and you could tweak it slightly (majorly!) to comply with current knowledge of the hazy Amarna period. No one would ever guess that it isn't true. You did say you wanted to really twist a well know story- and if this isn't twisting then I don't know what is!