The Death of King Tutankhamun.
He is the most famous pharaoh who ever lived, and he barely lived at all — a boy who took the throne as a child and was dead by about eighteen, his small body sealed into a cramped tomb that escaped the robbers and made him immortal three thousand years later. For most of the century since Howard Carter opened that tomb, the question has hung over the golden mask: what killed the boy-king? Murder was the romantic answer. Modern medicine tells a sadder, more complicated one — and still cannot quite close the case.
AnomalyDesk is reader-supported. Articles may contain affiliate links to books and primary-document collections. Read our full funding disclosure.
What the Tutankhamun death question is, in a paragraph.
Tutankhamun was an Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty who came to the throne as a young child and died around 1323 BCE at roughly 18 or 19 years old. His nearly intact tomb (KV62), discovered by Howard Carter in 1922, made him globally famous, but it left his cause of death unknown. For decades a popular theory held that he had been murdered — specifically that a suspicious fragment or area at the back of his skull, seen in a 1968 X-ray, indicated a fatal blow to the head, possibly by a rival for the throne. Modern imaging has discredited this murder theory: a 2005 CT scan of the mummy showed that the skull features were consistent with the embalming process and post-mortem damage (some caused during Carter's handling), not a lethal blow, and found no evidence of murder. The CT scan did reveal a fracture of the left lower leg that appeared to have occurred shortly before death, raising the possibility of an injury (perhaps from a fall, or in popular framings a chariot accident) that became infected. A landmark 2010 study (led by Zahi Hawass and colleagues, published in JAMA) combined CT imaging with ancient-DNA analysis and concluded that Tutankhamun was a physically frail individual: he had a club foot and bone disorder (consistent with Köhler disease / avascular necrosis affecting the foot), walked with the aid of canes (many were found in his tomb), and — significantly — carried DNA evidence of malaria (Plasmodium falciparum). The study proposed that a combination of factors — an inherited bone condition, a possible leg fracture, and a bout of malaria — could together have caused or contributed to his death, perhaps with the leg injury and infection compounded by malaria in an already weakened young man. The DNA work also confirmed extensive royal inbreeding: his parents were likely full siblings (his father identified as the mummy known as KV55, generally considered Akhenaten), which would have predisposed him to congenital weaknesses. Subsequent researchers have debated these conclusions — questioning, for example, the malaria interpretation, the club-foot diagnosis, the reliability of ancient-DNA from Egyptian mummies, and whether the leg fracture was peri-mortem or a result of Carter's excavation — and alternative or additional causes (such as a genetic disorder, sickle-cell disease, epilepsy, or other conditions) have been proposed. The result is that, while the murder theory is rejected and a picture of a frail, possibly malarial, injured young king is widely favored, no single cause of death is confirmed, and the case remains an active scholarly question. The death of Tutankhamun is therefore best understood as a genuinely open historical-medical puzzle — not a hidden murder, but a multi-causal mystery in which modern science has reframed the question from “who killed him?” to “which combination of frailty, disease, and injury ended a fragile young life?”
The Tutankhamun case is unusual in this archive because the “mystery” has moved toward evidence rather than away from it. Two popular stories have to be set aside first: the murder plot, which rested on a misread 1968 X-ray and was dismantled by CT imaging, and the “curse of the pharaohs”, a press invention that followed the 1923 death of Lord Carnarvon and has no basis in the actuarial record of those who entered the tomb. What remains is a real paleopathological investigation, with its own genuine uncertainty: modern CT and ancient-DNA work has produced a coherent picture of a frail, disabled, malarial young king, but the specific chain of events that killed him — and the reliability of some of the DNA claims — are still argued in the medical literature. This file holds the confident conclusions (not murdered, not cursed, physically frail) apart from the contested ones (exactly which disease or injury delivered the final blow).
The documented record.
The murder theory is discredited
No fatal blow occurred. Verified The 2005 CT scan showed the skull features once read as a death blow are consistent with embalming and post-mortem damage; no evidence of murder was found [1][2].
The leg fracture and frailty
He was physically frail. Verified Imaging revealed a peri-mortem left-leg fracture and a club foot/bone disorder; numerous walking canes were buried with him [1][2].
Malaria and inbreeding
DNA evidence was reported. Disputed The 2010 study reported malaria DNA and confirmed close-relative parentage (likely full siblings), proposing a combination of malaria, bone disease, and injury as contributing to death — findings later debated [2][3].
The tomb itself documents his frailty
The grave goods corroborate the medical picture. Verified KV62 contained around 130 walking sticks and canes — some showing wear consistent with use, not just ceremony — along with medicines and remedies, exactly what would be expected for a young king who had difficulty standing and walking [1][2].
The “curse of the pharaohs” is a media myth
The famous curse does not survive counting. Verified The idea took hold after Lord Carnarvon, who funded the dig, died of an infected mosquito bite in 1923. But studies of those present at the tomb's opening found their lifespans were unremarkable; Howard Carter himself lived until 1939. The “curse” was newspaper theatre, not a pattern [4].
No single confirmed cause
The exact cause is unsettled. Verified Despite the frailty picture, no single cause of death is confirmed, and the 2010 conclusions have been challenged [3][4].
The competing positions.
The older popular theory was murder (a blow to the head); newer popular framings favor a chariot-accident injury or a specific disease. Claimed The 2010 study's malaria-plus-bone-disease-plus-injury model is the most cited, while critics propose alternative genetic or infectious causes [3][4].
The scholarly position is that murder is rejected and a multi-causal death in a frail, inbred young king is most plausible, but the precise cause — and the reliability of some DNA and diagnostic claims — remains debated. Disputed This archive treats the case as genuinely open, accepts the discrediting of the murder theory and the evidence of frailty, and presents the malaria/injury model as the leading but contested hypothesis rather than a settled answer [1][3].
The unanswered questions.
The precise cause of death
It is not confirmed. Unverified Whether infection from the leg fracture, malaria, an inherited disorder, or a combination killed him cannot be established with certainty [2][3].
The reliability of the ancient DNA
Some results are contested. Disputed The malaria and kinship DNA findings, and the club-foot diagnosis, have been questioned on methodological grounds [3][4].
When the leg broke
The fracture's timing is debated. Disputed Whether the leg fracture occurred before death or during Carter's 1920s excavation and rough removal of the mummy from its resin-adhered coffin is not fully resolved [1][2].
Whether he rode chariots at all
A popular image may be backwards. Disputed The romantic “died in a chariot crash” story sits awkwardly with the frailty findings; a member of the research team stated flatly that with his foot condition “he was not riding the chariots.” If so, the leg injury needs a different explanation — a simple fall, perhaps — and the chariot narrative is itself a myth [2][3].
Primary material.
The death of Tutankhamun has been investigated in three waves — X-ray, CT, and DNA — each revising the last. Read together, they trace how a murder story became a medical one.
The 1968 X-ray and the murder theory
The origin of the “he was killed” idea. Verified A 1968 X-ray of the skull showed a dense area at the base that some read as a blood clot or a fatal blow to the head, spawning decades of speculation about assassination by a rival for the throne. It was always an inference from an ambiguous image, never a finding [1].
The 2005 CT scan
The scan that cleared the “murder.” Verified A full CT study of the mummy showed the skull features were consistent with the embalming process and post-mortem damage, with no sign of a lethal blow, and revealed the left-leg fracture that reframed the case around injury and infection rather than homicide [1][2].
The 2010 JAMA study (CT + ancient DNA)
The most comprehensive investigation. Disputed Zahi Hawass and colleagues combined imaging with DNA from Tutankhamun and related mummies, reporting Plasmodium falciparum (malaria) DNA, a club foot with Köhler-type bone necrosis, a cleft palate, and parents who were likely full siblings — proposing malaria plus bone disease plus the leg injury as a combined cause. Its conclusions are the most cited and the most contested [2][3].
The tomb inventory
Grave goods as clinical evidence. Verified Carter's meticulous 1922 records catalogue the roughly 130 walking sticks, plus remedies, buried with the king — independent corroboration of a young man who needed help to walk [1].
The critiques and alternatives
The live scholarly debate. Disputed Later researchers have questioned whether ancient Egyptian mummy DNA can be reliably recovered and typed, whether the “malaria” and “club foot” readings hold, and whether the leg fracture was peri-mortem or excavation damage; alternatives floated include sickle-cell disease, a genetic disorder, epilepsy, or seizure-related injury [3][4].
The sequence.
- c. 1332 BCE Tutankhamun becomes pharaoh as a young child, restoring traditional gods after his father Akhenaten's religious revolution.
- c. 1323 BCE He dies at about 18–19 and is buried in the small tomb KV62.
- 1922 Howard Carter discovers the near-intact tomb.
- 1923 Lord Carnarvon dies of an infected mosquito bite, launching the “curse of the pharaohs” press sensation.
- 1968 An X-ray of the skull prompts the “blow to the head” murder theory.
- 2005 A CT scan discredits the murder theory and finds a left-leg fracture.
- 2010 The Hawass JAMA study reports malaria, bone disease, and sibling parentage — a multi-causal model later debated.
Full bibliography.
- The 2005 CT scan of the Tutankhamun mummy (Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities / Zahi Hawass team).
- Zahi Hawass et al., “Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family,” JAMA, vol. 303 (2010).
- Howard Carter's excavation records and the KV62 tomb inventory (including the ~130 walking sticks); the mummy and KV55 (likely Akhenaten) for kinship analysis.
- Subsequent Egyptological and medical critiques and alternative diagnoses (sickle-cell, genetic disorder, seizure-related injury); analyses debunking the “curse of the pharaohs.”
Frequently asked questions.
How did King Tut die?
No single cause is confirmed, but the leading picture from CT and DNA studies is of a frail young king who died from a combination of factors — a bone disorder affecting his foot, malaria, and possibly an infected leg fracture — rather than any one dramatic event. He was about 18 or 19.
Was Tutankhamun murdered?
Almost certainly not. The murder theory came from a 1968 X-ray of the skull, but a 2005 CT scan showed the features once read as a fatal blow are consistent with embalming and post-mortem damage. No evidence of murder was found.
Did King Tut have malaria?
The 2010 DNA study reported genetic traces of Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite behind the most severe form of malaria, and suggested he had suffered multiple bouts. Some researchers have questioned the reliability of ancient-mummy DNA, so it is the leading but not undisputed finding.
Were Tutankhamun's parents related?
DNA analysis indicates his parents were likely full siblings — his father identified with the mummy KV55, generally considered Akhenaten. Such close royal inbreeding would help explain his congenital conditions, including a club foot and cleft palate.
Is the “curse of the pharaohs” real?
No. The curse story grew from the 1923 death of Lord Carnarvon, who funded the excavation, from an infected mosquito bite. Studies of those who entered the tomb found ordinary lifespans, and Howard Carter lived until 1939. It was a newspaper sensation, not a pattern.
How old was Tutankhamun when he died?
About 18 or 19. He became pharaoh as a young child, around age nine, and reigned for roughly a decade before dying around 1323 BCE.