T.E. W. (terez93) reviewed on 11/20/2019 + 323 more book reviews

I'm an ancient historian, so, obviously, I set the bar pretty high, but, at the same time, I do read a fair bit of what I could call "pedestrian history," or that which speaks to a broad audience and engages the public. I spend a fair amount of time criticizing my own beloved profession as little more than elitist academics arguing with each other, and the message of why we do what we do is lost to all but a small minority, so I really like when authors try to engage members of the public inclined to read a 300+ page book. In honesty, however, that's about the limit of this book's value. I much prefer accounts such at Bob Brier's work, such as "Daily Life of the Ancient Egyptians," which I've recommended to students and used for my own lectures, as it's exhaustively researched and it doesn't have the theatrical element to it, as here. It makes the past come alive, without the pretention.

I'm not going to harp on the details, but I noticed quite a few glaring errors, particularly in the "fictional" narrative account of the "characters" in the story; having taken multiple courses on Egyptology, there was a fair bit about the material that just "irked" me. I know it's the "historic fiction" aspect of the book, but it should at least be believable. Having the two kids, Tut and his sister, sneaking out of "class" and being caught by the royal vizier who would eventually be charged with killing them both, portraying him as grabbing the young pharaoh, is pretty unforgivably unbelievable: the pharaoh was divine. No commoner, no matter how powerful, would dare such a feat and expect to escape with his life. And the teacher's admonition "practice your hieroglyphics!" LOL. In fact, most rulers were illiterate. The power of written language was held by a very small group of scribes, who were instructed at a special school from a young age. Most rulers, including pharaohs, were illiterate. Why go to all the trouble learning the very cumbersome script(s) when there was an entire cast of servants to do it for you, most in multiple languages (Hebrew and Akkadian were the most common).

It also irked me that the author tries to imply that it was HIS original idea that Tutankhamun was murdered (he also keeps referring to the king as "Tut," which makes me nuts), when, in fact, that idea has been floated around for decades, and investigated by far more capable researchers than this author. In fact, Bob Brier rode that wave for quite some time, before the (questionable) test results seemingly conclusively determined that it was not a calcified blood clot, suggesting blunt force head trauma, which killed him, but sepsis from an infected leg caused by a fracture. In my opinion, the jury's still out. Even if it were the former, to me, it's more plausible that it was an accidental death: even falling from a chariot is more likely to me than murder, although I don't think the matter will ever be conclusively solved. I did also bristle at the suggestion that his wife was in on the "conspiracy" to have him murdered, if that ever even happened; there is NO evidence, and quite a bit to the contrary, to suggest otherwise, to judge from the numerous pieces which depict them in intimate settings. His wife, at least portrayed in contemporary art, was his constant companion. It just seems bad form to accuse someone who isn't around to defend herself. I get that that's what the book was supposed to be about, but that part took a much more accusatory tone than I think was warranted, in suggesting that she was somehow in on this theoretical plot.

As other reviewers have noted, I cringed at how much this author wrote himself into the story, which wasn't a bad one. Aside from the multiple glaring errors, it was engaging, and accessible, albeit rather simplistic, I think geared more for a young audience than an adult one, but the amount of time the author spent talking about himself was excessive and unnecessary. In fact, the way that the chapters are divided up, some of which are no more than a page and a half long, suggests to me that the author is engaging in some shameless "padding," trying to take up space to achieve a full-length book. In fact, the whole reads more like a lengthy popular journal article, ala "Archaeology Magazine" or "Time Magazine," without all the narrative about the author and the peripheral tangents. I think focusing the narrative, including much more rich, detailed material about the daily life of the ancient Egyptians, which is what intrigues people in the first place, and perhaps juxtaposing the account of Howard Carter, an opportunistic treasure hunter desperate to achieve his own immortality (which he accomplished, in the end, I suppose, although he didn't live long to enjoy his renown, or infamy) would have been more effective. I think this book yielded some interesting things, but just a bit more work would have made it so much better.

Back to all reviews by this member
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details