From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
   Anyway, you know the story...   
      
   King Tut dies, no male heir, and his widow is less   
   than in love with the idea of marrying a servant,   
   Ay, so she sends off a letter asking a neighboring   
   king for one of his sons to marry. The king honors   
   the request only for the Egyptians to murder the   
   poor boy, and Tut's widow is never seen or heard   
   from again. But...   
      
   But this wiki article is claiming that it's a   
   mystery. We have no idea who the Egyptian queen   
   might've been, and all of Egyptology is scratching   
   it's collective head in wonder.   
      
   hmmm...   
      
   Now, to me, there seems only two possibilities.   
   One is that the Egyptian pharaoh who died a widow,   
   was none other than our king Tut, and the other   
   is that it was Smenkhkare, his short lived   
   predecessor.   
      
   Both Tut and Smenkhkare were supposed to have had   
   no sons.   
      
   Now Tut is supposed to be Akhenaten's son, so he   
   can't be the recently deceased Pharaoh, further   
   restricting our choices to Tut or Smenkhkare. So   
   the final piece is the Amarna records...   
      
   Look. If Amarna was effectively shut down under   
   Smenkhkare -- which his name kind of means it was   
   -- then there can't be records in Amarna for   
   something that happened during Tut's reign. Which,   
   really kind of points to Smenkhkare!   
      
   Huh?   
      
   I'll be damned! The identification of Dakhamunzu   
   as Ankhesenamun, Tut's widow, is all but gospel   
   only it looks more like Smenkhkare is the better   
   candidate for the dead Pharaoh!   
      
       ...until we start arguing over Smenkhkare's   
   identity!   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   -- --   
      
   http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/177888867823   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)