This book was split into two halves: the first is the modern discovery of the tomb on Tutankhamen by Howard Carter, and the second half goes to ancient Egypt, to Tutankhamen's final year. The Carter story ended abruptly, and the second part bears no resemblance to actual history (as presented and documented on wikipedia). Even allowing for a scrundle of discoveries and scientific advancement from 1977 to today, the book wasn't very accurate. There was one concept that I found useful and likely true. In the first half of the book, the archaeologist Carter has developed an attraction to his noble sponsor's daughter (in real life, a pretty nauseating span of time separates them. He'd have been nearly 50 by the time she was 20). As they talk about the find of Tutankhamun's tomb, Evelyn says, "It seems to me that the only reality about any time in history is the sort that never leaves a trace. I mean the way people felt about their lives." Carter responds, "The trained mind can infer something of people's attitudes from the evidence. . .we piece together this idea and that one -" Evelyn interrupts: "The trained mind interprets. In the end one can interpret only by reference to one's own experience. It's a circle, isn't it? You may look into the past, but it's only a mirror, it can show you only yourself."It's this last idea that I found interesting. I think that there is a great element of truth in that. In any book, in any work, the nature and character of the creator are revealed. Holland's portrayal of murder and betrayal -which are now demonstrated to be inaccurate, and even in the time that Tut was discovered, murder theories proposed included a blow to the head, not poisoning- reveals more about the author than Tutankhamen or Carter.
What do You think about The Valley Of The Kings (1999)?
