Who Killed King Tut?: Using Modern Forensics to Solve a 3,300-Year Old Mystery [Hardcover]

Michael R. King (Author), Harold Bursztajn (Preface)

Book Description

Publication Date: April 2004

The greatest archaeological find of the 20th century, and perhaps of all time, was the discovery in 1922 of the tomb of the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamen. Untouched for 3400 years, the ancient tomb, filled with spectacular treasures, raised many questions about the legendary reign of this boy king. Recently, Tut has been in the news again. Not only has a travelling museum exhibit of his tomb's fascinating artefacts drawn the public's attention, but also a CT scan of his body, which provides new evidence concerning the king's fate, has received a good deal of media attention. Based on this new investigation, an Egyptian team of scientists and scholars has now publicly ruled out the possibility that Tut was murdered. In this thorough and intriguing review of all of the evidence, two law enforcement specialists in forensics and the psychology of criminal behaviour dispute the conclusions reached by the Egyptian team. Applying sophisticated crime-solving techniques used in the investigation of contemporary murders, Detectives King and Cooper make a compelling case that the cause of King Tut's death was most likely murder. The detectives' investigation concentrates on Tut's inner circle of close confidants. One by one, the suspects are eliminated, due to evidence or probable cause, until in the end the detectives focus on the most likely suspect. For readers who enjoy mysteries, true crime, and history, "Who Killed King Tut?" is both an educational read and a real page-turner.

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist

Intrigued by the brief life and premature death of young King Tutankhamen, the authors combine modern forensic archaeological evidence, modern forensic techniques, and psychological data to determine whether or not King Tut was actually murdered. After concluding that the young pharaoh did not die of natural causes, they investigate and eliminate each of the likely suspects, until they point the finger at Ay, one of Tut's most trusted advisors. King, a detective, joined forces with an Egyptologist, sifting through a variety of concrete clues while at the same time employing some more speculative criminal-profiling and intelligence-gathering methods. Written in the style^B of a fictional whodunit, this fascinating piece of historical detection will appeal to history buffs, mystery lovers, and true-crime fans. Margaret Flanagan
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Review

"...this book is unique in presenting a criminological analysis." -- College & Research Library News, November 2004

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 258 pages
• Publisher: Prometheus Books (April 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1591021839
• ISBN-13: 978-1591021834
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,525,832 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars And your point is?????, March 9, 2011

By 

SingleEyePhotos - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Who Killed King Tut?: Using Modern Forensics to Solve a 3,300-year-old Mystery (Kindle Edition)

On just about every page I was saying "Huh? And just where did you come up with THAT conclusion?". This purports to be an investigation by 2 police profilers into who may have killed King Tut, and perhaps they did do a thorough investigation, but you'd never guess that from the book. Editing was awful - repititious, poorly thought-out, tons of irrelevancies, etc. The tone was 'dumbed down' (they were also filming for a Discovery Channel show and parts of this book read like a transcript of the program) but the language alternated between using scientific terminology and sounding like the stuffiest of stuffy 'police talk' in the witness box in a police procedural. The 'voice' alternated - randomly - between 1st person and 3rd person, sometimes even within a paragraph. Facts were provided in the wrong order, and the detectives appeared to pick and choose among which 'facts' they gave credence to. They took, at times, a very condescending and demeaning view of the Egyptian 'common folk'.

The investigators spent an unconscionable amount of time patting themselves on the back for their investigative/profiling abilities - which it should be noted, all took place 'behind the scenes' - the reader was never privy to any discussion or alternate theories that were ultimately discarded. They presented their conclusions as 'facts' without describing how they reached those conclusions. No evidence pro or con was given, just a statement along the lines of 'after reveiwing the evidence, we determined ... " and then those 'determinations' were treated as hard fact with no additional supporting detail. There were instances where they appeared to contradict themselves. For example, one of the medical experts that was hired to review old X-rays of the king determined that there was no evidence supporting the suggestion of blunt trauma to the base of the skull. Then a couple chapters later, the investigators rule out the king's wife as possible murderer even though she had the strength to inflict blunt trauma to the king. What was the point? Their own expert had just ruled out blunt trauma, so why even make that comment?

Finally, in an afterword, they had the gall to diss the scientists that particiapated in the 2005 CT scan study of the mummy that was authorized by the Egyptian Department of Antiquities (totally unprofessional - but some of the scientists had the nerve to disagree with their findings!).

I would strongly recommend avoiding this book unless you are the type who enjoys intellectual train wrecks. If you're interested in the 'mystery' surrounding King Tut and his life & death, there are many other books out there that will give a more balanced picture and avoid the graceless writing style and self-promotion of this book.

Note on Kindle formatting: The only bright spot in this review - Kindle formatting was excellent. I think I noticed one or two places where there was a minor issue, but overall, formatting was very well done.

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Fun, fun, fun--but don't be overly credulous, May 13, 2006

By 

Atheen M. Wilson "Atheen" (Mpls, MN United States) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Who Killed King Tut?: Using Modern Forensics to Solve a 3,300-Year Old Mystery (Hardcover)

Who Killed King Tut? What a title! And who hasn't wanted to know? More importantly, who doesn't already have a theory?
The book is a wonderfully entertaining "who dunnit" cum travel documentary; in fact it was originally filmed by a British production company as a feature for the Discovery Channel.

The two super sleuths certainly have impressive credentials, Michael King is State Regional Intelligence Supervisor for the Department of Homeland Security in Utah, and Gregory Cooper his partner in this investigation is Assistant Federal Security Director for Law Enforcement, also a former profiler for the FBI's Criminal Profiling Unit. Given the vita of both individuals, it should come as no surprise that what they add to the much-discussed conundrum of King Tut's demise, is their capacity as profilers.

As the preface by Harold J. Bursztajn (Co-director of the Harvard Medical School Program in Psychiatry and the Law at Massachusetts Mental Health Center) notes, the authors are able to look at the situation as professional homicide investigators. They avoid premature commitment to any theory and instead examine the situation in terms of "risk profile." From low risk to high risk, is the individual likely to have been a victim of murder, suicide, natural causes or accident? And if murder is suspected, who is likely to have been the perpetrator at the victim's risk level? If high risk, it is more likely to be a crime of opportunity by an assailant unknown to the victim; if low risk, it is more likely to be someone known to the victim. The commentator also points out that unlike many historians investigating the case, the authors approach the victim's profile as an evolving situation, looking at a more dynamic profile of risk over the individual's lifetime.

From my own perspective, I found the book a marvelous trip through memory lane. Much of the book is dedicated to the first impressions of the two gentleman with respect to Egypt: it's modern culture, it's impressive monuments, it's exotica. With trips to the various tombs, visits to Khan el Khalili Suq for tea in the city's oldest tea shop, a visit to (probably) the famous Groppy's ice cream parlor for coffee and treats, the smiling children trying to sell you anything they can at exorbitant prices, their demands for "pens," the two authors reminded me of myself when I first visited the country. There is so much to see and experience, your mind goes into overdrive, and you find yourself exhausted beyond belief at the end of every day. For anyone who has not had the experience, this is a good way to enjoy it vicariously, as the men's experiences are very common, and their assessments very astute. I'd read the book before I visited for the first time; it will prepare you for the experience better than any travel book.

For those who enjoy a good "who-dunnit" and have not read anything about the history of pharonic Egypt, you need not worry. Neither of the authors knew anything at all about ancient Egypt prior to this experience. They were, however, very well coached by specialists hired as historical resources for them. They were also motivated enough by their own curiosity and their professional background to do reading beyond the materials they were given. In short, they showed considerable initiative in preparing themselves for the mission. The reader will find that what the two learned in the progress of their study and from the specialists who assisted them is presented in a clear and coherent manner for the reader. The beginner will be more than able to understand some of the political venue and personalities of the 18th dynasty as they are presented.

This said, I will point out that the period is not nearly as clear cut as the authors present it, and if you have a serious interest in the period beyond the "who-dunnit" presented here, I'd look at other volumes written for the general reading public on the topic of ancient Egypt, the 18th dynasty, or some of the famous personalities of the period.


My only real criticism of the book is that the authors are inclined to paint the events in such a way that they may appear to be literally definite and "true" to the reader. Indeed they may well have been, but the period is much more confused than the authors present it. Unfortunately, they are inclined to take their own picture of the venue and it's events as a "given" and draw conclusions that are not always well founded. For one thing, the "crime scene" as they point out was "cold" at the time of the investigation (2002 A. D.) by some "1,224,575 days (p. 48)." In short, stone cold dead by any definition. The actual site of the mishap-or even if there was one-is unknown, so there is no crime scene from which to gather data. The written documentation is sketchy at best, and all of it represents the official position of the central government-and as the authors point out, those in control, who might well have been responsible for the young king's death. In fact, whatever has been documented is not only fragmentary, official, and vague, its intent is suspect. Unfortunately it's anyone's guess as to who that suspicious individual was and of what he was really guilty. None of the individuals present at the time are available to question, and no swore statements were ever obtained at the time.

Just the identity of the main characters and how they were interrelated is not as well known as is presented here. There have been a number of proposals, for instance, as to "who" King Tut was. It may seem simple to the casual reader that he was "king of Egypt," but the professional historian asks "why?" Who WAS King Tut? No one really knows. He comes out of the shadows of history when a successor is required, and assumes the throne after marrying the heiress, Ankhesenamun. One suggestion would make him a son of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaton by a secondary wife. Recently she has been identified as Kiya, it would appear simply because hers is virtually the only name of a secondary wife of Akhenaton that appears in the extant inscriptions. The beautiful Queen Nefertiti dominates almost every scene in the inscriptions, and it is known that she give birth only to daughters, the third of which became Tut's wife, Ankhesenamun.

That Tut was Kiya's son is not necessarily the case, however. Others have proposed that he was the youngest son of Queen Tiy, Akhenaton's mother, the Great Royal Wife of his father Amenhotep III, and therefore a younger full brother. He would therefore be unquestionably in line for succession. The 18th dynasty was plagued, however, with a succession problem throughout much of its long history. The Great Royal Wives of many of its kings gave birth only to daughters and male successors were taken from secondary lines. This was famously the case with Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis III. It was also the possessor of some of the strongest female personalities in Egyptian history, Hatshepsut being one of them. There is a good reason why Smenkhare, an early co-regent and successor of Akhenaton, is believed by some to have been a throne name for Nefertiti (for whom see, Tyldesley's Nefertiti: Egypt's Sun Queen). That this individual is a total mystery beyond his/her name and a mummy purported to have been his/hers, suggests more clearly than anything else from the period that it is a very confused period in Egypt's history.

The relationship of Queen Nefertiti is also up for grabs. It has been suggested that she was a Hittite princess sent to Amenhotep III's court but married instead to Amenhotep IV/Akhenaton. This has always been my belief, based primarily on the fact that Akhesenamun applied to the Hittite King for a prince to take as consort, which if she were descended from a Hittite mother would make her request logically one for a cousin to wed, something not infrequent in the Middle East even today. Others more recently have suggested she was a younger sister of Queen Tiy, whose family was a powerful member of the Nubian aristocracy-and therefore according to these authors, inconsequential (p. 152)!

And who is the much vilified Ay? An upstart? A villain? A murderer? Just where did he come from? Some have suggested he was an important nobleman. He was certainly able; he managed to survive the political ups and downs of three successions, a transfer of power from Thebes to Akhetaton (Armarna) and back to Thebes, and two major religious transformations. If nothing else, he was a survivor of considerable talent. Some have gone so far as to suggest he was a brother of Queen Tiy, also a powerful figure in the dynasty. He apparently showed no signs of having designs on the throne for most of his life, took control during a very problematic time for the dynasty, and left the throne to Horemheb, who left it in turn to another general, Ramses I. All of thus bought Egypt a stable social and political and military world and a smooth transition to dynasty XIX, during a period that was brewing international issues with which Egypt was forced to contend.

Much might be done with mDNA studies, except all of the players have not been identified. Some mummies have been lost, probably destroyed by the opposing ideology, and though we have Queen Tiy's, it has recently been suggested that it isn't her body after all. Furthermore, it would be difficult to say who was related to whom, since there was a great deal of intermarriage between full and half siblings during this dynasty. Almost everyone was related to almost everyone else among the upper ranks of society. With so much confusion, anyone's guess about relationships is as good as anyone elses.

This not only leads to a great deal of confusion among modern historians, it probably also lead to some... Read more ›

4 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Using Modern Forensics To Solve a 3300-Year-Old Mystery, October 10, 2004

By 

Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Who Killed King Tut?: Using Modern Forensics to Solve a 3,300-Year Old Mystery (Hardcover)

The collaboration of Michael R. King, Gregory Cooper, Don DeNevi, and Joan Fletcher, Who Killed King Tut?: Using Modern Forensics To Solve a 3300-Year-Old Mystery is a survey of a 3,000 year old mystery and how modern forensics could solve the crime. Two new law enforcement specialists in forensics and the psychological of criminal behavior here use modern crime-solving techniques to add a very different perspective and evidence overlooked by specialists in Egyptology and archaeology. The conclusion: Tut was most likely murdered; the evidence: in Who Killed King Tut?