Marcia Trimble’s murder wasn’t solved for three decades. But that isn’t the coldest of cold cases to be solved recently. The coldest case must surely be the three-millennia-old King Tut case.

The Facts, Just the Facts, Ma’am

Toward the end of the ancient-Egyptian 18th Dynasty, a heretical pharaoh named Akhenaten (1350-1334 B.C.) inherited the throne. He “demoted” the traditional gods, acknowledged that pharaohs are mere mortals, and established monotheism under a single god—the Sun God, Aten.

Akhenaten was a pacifist who neglected the military, thereby stepping on the sandaled toes of a general named Horemheb (famous for his victories against Egypt’s neighboring empires, such as the Anatolian Hittites). (Dissing Horemheb eventually proved to be a serious mistake. )

Most importantly, Akhenaten moved the seat of Egyptian government from Thebes to Karnak (now el Amarna) in order to diminish the power of the traditional Theban priests.

Akhenaten is probably most famous for his beautiful “great queen” (that is, his royal wife), Nefertiti. Tomb paintings depict the couple with several daughters, although at most only one survived childhood. Nefertiti may also have had a son named Smenkare, who briefly served as Akhenaten’s co-regent (as a sign he was next in line for the throne), but Smenkare seems to have died after a year or two “in office.” Akhenaten fathered at least two other children, perhaps by minor wives: a girl named Ankhesenamen and a boy named Tutankhamen—the legendary King Tut.

When his father died Tut ascended to the throne though still a child. Since ancient Egyptian custom required a pharaoh to marry one “great queen” of royal blood (as Akhenaten had married Nefertiti), Tut married his half-sister Ankhesenamen—the only surviving royal female in Egypt. She was about 9 and he about 8.

Tut’s reign, therefore, began under the regency of his father’s grand vizier, Aye (age 60 or so). Aye was the power behind the throne and was responsible for moving the government back to Thebes, to universal jubilation (the strange pharaoh, Akhenaten was not well-liked). Thus ended the brief “Amarna Period.”

Teenaged King Tut seems to have been popular—judging from monuments and stele inscriptions. Most Egyptians were overjoyed to return to worship of the traditional gods. And Tut was a handsome, athletic youth. Unfortunately he died when he was only about 18—leaving no heirs to the throne.

Then (as now) the sudden death of a famous, powerful person led to turmoil. Someone was bound to suggest foul play.

That someone was Tut’s widow (Ankhesenamen). We know this, because she wrote a “letter” to the last person in the world one would expect an Egyptian queen to turn to: the enemy Hittite king.  (The letter has survived the millennia because it was recorded on a clay tablet.) Since she was childless (she had two miscarriages), she wrote, she feared she would be forced to marry “a commoner” (the vizier, Aye). She begged the Hittite king to send his son to Egypt to marry her in order to prevent this. Shocked, the Hittite king sent an ambassador to Thebes. But his son, the prince, was ambushed en route by Egyptian troops and assassinated.

After that, young Ankhesenamen’s name “vanishes from history,” according to Prof. Robert Brier (below).  Aye became pharaoh, and, when he died only a few years later, Gen. Horemheb (also a commoner) became pharaoh. (In other words, Akhenaten’s political foes took over.)

Prof. Brier’s Murder Theory

Prof. Robert Brier of Long Island University is the world’s leading mummy expert -- the archeologist who first mummified a modern medical cadaver in the manner of the ancient Egyptians. He’s also the author of The Murder of Tutankhamen (1998), in which he argues that King Tut died from a blow to the back of the skull. He further identifies King Tut’s vizier, Aye, as the most likely murderer, partly because Aye improperly ascended to the throne following Tut’s death, and partly because Aye did, indeed, marry Ankhesenamen after he murdered the Hittite prince.

(For more information on the 18th dynasty, see Prof. Brier’s Teaching Company course, The History of Ancient Egypt.)

Mummy Autopsies

The cause of Tutankhamen’s death has fascinated archeologists since his tomb was discovered in 1922. Several pathologists have autopsied his mummy.

• As Prof. Brier notes, the first autopsy was in 1925, very soon after his tomb was discovered. (Unfortunately, the archeologists also had to saw the mummy in half to take X-rays.)
• The second autopsy, in the 1960s, focused on the development of the rib cage and molars in order to determine King Tut’s age at the time of death. But pathologist R. G. Harrison also found what he thought was a blood clot in the back of Tut’s skull. This finding is what planted the idea of murder in Prof. Brier’s mine.

More recently, a number of studies have been done on Tut’s mummy using CT scans and DNA testing. In particular, pathologist Dr. Frank Ruhli of the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Zurich recently conducted an autopsy on the mummy. Along with several other scientists, Ruhli has proved that Tut died of natural causes, possibly infection following a broken bone – not from a suspicious blow to the head.

Until the DNA tests, some historians questioned whether Tut was Akhenaten’s natural son. Because of the elder pharaoh’s unusual depiction in tomb paintings and sculpture, Akhenaten is believed by some researchers to have had Marfan’s syndrome, a condition they thought might have affected his reproductive organs. However, DNA has been extracted from several royal mummies proving Akhenaten’s paternity of Tutankhamen.

• Sidebar: If archeologists can extract usable DNA from a 3,000-year-old mummy, it seems odd that DNA found at crime scenes today could ever be so degraded by environmental factors that it becomes worthless as evidence. (I’ll have to “investigate” the issue.)

Of course, these studies don’t completely exonerate Aye of murder and usurpation of power. He provably forced Ankhesenamen to marry him. He certainly did usurp the throne from her (if she had become pharaoh, she would not have been the first female pharaoh). He ordered the assassination of the Hittite prince. And we still don’t know what happened to his young “great queen.” She was not buried with her husband, as was the custom. Her body has never been found. Instead, Aye’s first wife (a commoner) was buried with Aye.

Even  Gen. Horemheb’s history is suspicious. For example, he ordered all references to Ankhanaten, Smenkare, Tut, and Aye erased from all monuments and papyri. Then he married a woman with the same name as Nefertiti’s sister (was she actually the royal princess, or was it some other woman with the same name?).

Forensic Science Partially Exonerates a Vizier

King Tut probably died of natural causes—perhaps as the result of a broken leg during a hunting accident. The powerful vizier, Aye, took advantage of the situation to seize power. He conspired with Horemheb to thwart the legitimate queen’s desire to marry the Hittite prince. He married Ankhesenamen against her will, and then she “vanishes from history” (as Prof. Brier says).

If I were a grand juror, I might indict Aye for some of these acts, but, of course, if I were a petit juror I would have to say the case against Aye has not been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I fear that Prof. Brier—as prosecutor—overcharged the defendant.

Of course, if I were a juror I would also have to speculate about the quality of medical care Tut received for his injuries—was the doctor in the house when he died? Aye’s personal physician, perhaps?—and I would have to speculate about the young widow-queen’s strange disappearance.

In fact, it sounds like a good plot for a murder mystery . . . .