Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
How was King Tut murdered? Was he killed or did he die from an illness? This question has continued to puzzle historians, Egyptologists, and scientists for years. There are many different philosophies how he died, and all of them continue to be controversial topics. Some say King Tut was possibly murdered due to greed and power, and some people believe he fell from his chariot or croaked from an illness. There are so many theories, and it’s impossible to rule out an exact cause of King Tut’s death. With all the information, and centuries of forgotten facts, one thing is sure, and there will be many theories as to how King Tut died. One famous story stands out the most, and this one is based on the relationship between King Tut and Ay. Therefore, much so, that this scandal continues to be a popular theory. It was said that Ay killed King Tut out of greed. Ay knew that by killing King Tut, he would receive the throne and become pharaoh. Coincidently, King Tut does …show more content…
die at around 18 and Ay is given the throne. What makes this story fascinating is that a crack was found on the base King Tut’s skull possibly demonstrating that King Tut was killed. The king’s deputy, also known as Horemheb, may have also been responsible for the death of King Tut as well.
The likelihood that King Tut was getting older and probably ready to take control into his hands may have contributed to his early death. For many years, many alleged that Hormheb guided King Tut in his royal decisions as a child. As King Tut grew older and became more independent, he started making his decisions without the help of Horemheb. This new thinking might have upset him, and he quickly saw his power fading away. This independence that King Tut was mastering might have upset him and could be the reason why he killed King Tut. The theory that I find as the most plausible would be the theory of Ay. I chose this approach because, it says that soon after King Tut died, Ay was given the throne. That to me is a huge coincidence. Why wasn’t Ay due to the throne while King Tut was alive? I believe that Ay wanted that throne so badly and he knew the only way he could get it was by killing King
Tut. Two reasons why the theory of Ay is the best theory to explain the mystery is because, is was stated that Ay would receive the throne and become pharaoh. A ring that was revealed in Cairo in 1931. This ring presented that Ay and Ankhesenamun were married later after King Tut’s death. Brier believes that Ay forced Ankhesenamun to marry him because if she did not, Ay would not have been able to obtain the throne. Some Egyptologists believe that Ankhesenamun could have made a desperate effort to save the throne. Some tablets, which are dated towards the end of the Amarna period, were revealed. These tables appeared to be from Ankhesenamum to the Hittites asking for help. The Hittites were rivals of Egypt at the time. Some Egyptologist’s strongly associate this letter with Ankhesenamun as the last choice in the hopes of saving her throne and her status. She informed the Hittite king, Suppiluliumas, to lead a son to wed her. She visibly stated her embarrassment and her feelings of being concerned. The Queen pointed out the loss of her husband and said, “Never shall I pick out a servant of mine and make him my husband. I am afraid!” Was this servant Ay she was talking about? The Hittite son who was sent to be married never made it to Egypt. He was killed on his journey to Egypt, and the marriage never occurred. Could Ay be the person to blame?
Horemheb assassinated King Tut. As the writer of Mysteries of Egypt observed, Horemheb was a man of low birth, and was later on appointed to General under Tut’s father, Akhenaten. When Akhenaten died Tut became pharaoh, and promoted Horemheb to commander-in-chief of the army and the deputy of the king. An ex-ray of Tut’s skull showed a blood clot at it’s base. So he was probably hit over the head. After Tut's death Ay became pharaoh. But Horemheb's plan was to become pharaoh after he killed Tut. But Ay beat him to it.
Ca. 1323 BCE. Both artworks are from the same location, Thebes, but there are some differences when both works are compared. The Coffin of Tutankhamen belonged to a very young unimportant king who died at the young age of 18, and was closely related to Akhenaton. The works is much more rich in value when compared to the coffin of Tentkhonsu, it was found with rich gold jewelry and semiprecious stones. The vast differences could hint different social class rankings and also how men were superior than women during this
King Tut was a fascinating pharaoh at most. There isn’t much on who king Tut was or when he was born or how he died. But some people have dedicated there lives to find out who he was. He was born during the Golden Age. He became king a surprisingly young age. He achieved many things and had an important job. His death was and still is a mystery to most. It was said he wasn’t in his original tomb. But he was eventually found. King Tut became a Pharaoh at a really young age and he had many achievements but died at a relatively young age. (Hawass 29-56)
There are many wonders that we have not found out of King Tut, one of the most intriguing ones is how did the young pharaoh die. Many hypothesis have been made, but will the truth ever come out. King Tutankhamen was found to be in a very early age when we died, how could all of a sudden be told as dead. He had many injuries that were confirmed during an autopsy. Some of these injuries were a cut on Tut’s cheek, Tut’s rib cage was missing, and a fragment of bone was found in his skull due to a hit to the head. You can clearly tell that all those damages could have been caused by someone. All this evidence points out that it was Queen Ankhesenamun who murdered the Pharaoh Tutankhamen.
Although the heroic journey of Odysseus and Luke Skywalker resemble one another with similar heroic steps, the difference in Odysseus’s journey distinguish him as the exemplary epic hero.
First of all Epictetus argues that we shall not grieve over death because death is something we cannot control. If death is not something we control, then why do we implement services that honor the dead that are going to activate our uncontrollable emotions? We struggle with accommodating death because of the attention that death receives. Grieving is a natural emotion, the more the person is reminded of something the more emotional they will become. The more significant the loss the lengthier the grieving process lasts. Epictetus believes that our feelings are expressions of what seems right to us based upon our opinions and values. If we reevaluate our judgments or beliefs, then our feelings will be corrected as well. If we cannot control
King Tut or Tutankhamun (reigned 1343-1325 BC), Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th dynasty, the son-in-law of Akhenaton, whom he succeeded. He became Pharaoh about the age of 9 and ruled until his death; which was about the age of 18. Peace was brought to Egypt during his reign as the worship of Amon, abandoned under Akhenaton, was restored and Thebes, the city sacred to Amon, was again made Egypt's capitol.
Sophocles’ tragedy, Oedipus, made the tragic hero. In the play, a prophecy comes along that says the namesake character Oedipus will kill his father and impregnate his mother. Oedipus tries to avoid doing these things (which ironically makes Oedipus the only person without an Oedipus complex, but that’s besides the point). One day an old man tries to run Oedipus off the road with his chariot and in response, Oedipus kills him. Later, Oedipus solves the Riddle of the Sphinx (here’s a hint, its man), saving the city of Thebes. Oedipus in return is crowned king and receives the widowed queen as his bride. Everything is now just swell, until a mysterious plague comes over Thebes. Oedipus consults an oracle who says that the plague will continue until the murderer of the previous king is brought to justice. Oedipus ...
Ancient Greek and Christianity both have different vision of death. Therefore, the idea of death and the afterlife was contrarily shown in the two texts. Death permeates Hamlet from the beginning of the tragedy through the ghost of king Hamlet. Suicide was desirable way to replace suffering the life but it is forbidden by the Christian religion. Also Hamlet explains how the body return to dust at the end and what happen in the afterlife. However, death in apology by Plato was unknown idea thus Socrates does not fear it. In addition death is an honourable thing for men. For Socrates death is the nonexistence or the transmigration of the soul.
Death is an eternal mystery and the most controversial subject stemming from human inexperience. Its inescapability and uncertainty can give insights on the core principles and vulnerability of human nature. In Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet he skilfully makes use of death as a lashing force to explore the depths of his characters along the way illustrating man’s continual dilemma “To be or not to be”?
In Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates examines the first definition of knowledge that theaetetus gives that knowledge is perception. Socrates gives us many example that both supports and refutes that knowledge is perception. The basic claim from Protagoras is that truth is based on the perception of every man. This means that things are to any person as they seem to that person. Socrates explains to us Protagoras’s view with the cold wind example. He say that through Protagoras theory, the wind is cold to the person that feels cold, and the wind is warm to the person that feels warm. Both “the wind is cold” and “the wind is war” is true according to Protagoras and it is based on the perception of the person. Then we learn from Socrates that if knowledge and truth is based on perception then everything that has perception has his own set of knowledge and truth. Also sense Protagoras not considering himself to be a god, and is on the same level of us then wouldn’t the truth and knowledge he definite in his doctrine only be his own set truth and knowledge for he only knows his own perspective.
Everyone knows the famous Herakles also known as Hercules the hero. I believe Hercules is a great hero for many reasons. Let me sum up his history, Hercules is the son of Zeus and Alcmene. However, Zeus has a wife named Hera & he cheated on her with Alcmene who got pregnant with his baby. So Hera found out & was very angry, she vowed to make Hercules life dreadful since she couldn't make Zeus's life horrid. Hercules that married a beautiful woman of the name Megara they had two children, Hera took advantage of that & sent him a fit of rage in which he murdered his wife & children. He wanted forgiveness from Apollo to get rid of his pollution. Apollo told him to do 12 request for 12 years I which he will assist an
The work of Thucydides, an Athenian historian and general of the 5th century B.C.E war between Athens and Sparta writes Pericles Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue which share similarities, but are also quite different. In the funeral oration, the words given by Thucydides to the great leader Pericles is a message intended to illustrate Athenian supremacy. Pericles begins speaking to the people in hope to spark a fire inside the citizens of Athens who have become discouraged from war due to the grieving of the many men lost. Pericles praises the Athenians who have lived before them, and who, over the centuries, created a government that “does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them.”
Here is a story where Oedipus the King, who has accomplished great things in his life, discovers that the gods were only playing with him. He has everything a man of that time could want; he is king of Thebes, he has a wonderful wife and children, and great fame through out the lands. He has lived a good life, but in the end everything is taken from him.
The use of rock-cut tombs and burial caves was inherited by the Israelites from the Canaanites. However, while the Canaanite Bronze Age caves were mostly crude and undefined, one can see the deliberate shaping of rock-hewn tombs in Israel and Judah. The most common type included a square room entered through a small square opening which could be closed by a large stone. Rock-cut benches on three sides of the chamber provided space for three bodies. More elaborate examples had an additional rear chamber. Both cave and bench tomb burials remained consistent in plan, body treatments, and categories of mortuary provisions throughout the Iron Age. The only variations were in relative wealth, and beginning in the 9th century BCE, a few lavish individual tombs were cut in Jerusalem and Gibeon, and twelve of these were probably for important political and/or religious functionaries (Bloch-Smith 1992). From Judah, the total number of reported tombs are 24 cave and 81 bench tombs from the 10th through the late 8th century BCE, and 17 cave and 185 bench tombs from the late 8th through the early 6th century BCE (Bloch-Smith 1992).