Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

the race to bury king tut
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:06 am    Post subject: the race to bury king tut Reply with quote

has anyone watched this documentary? i found it interesting but found problems with it, and wonder if i am just being thick?

1) the say the ancients hurried in 70 days to get everything organised for tut's burial. but didn't they take a year or more to bury him?

2) they say the sarcophagus was recarved from someone else, and would take 8 mths to do. they had some stone masons working on york cathedral carve a the face of isis from the sarcophagus, and the length of time (a month) it took for a modern mason they then 'figured out' how long the full work would take. they also said that one end was more detailed than the other, and that was inbteresting and supports the idea it was unfinished.

3) the shrines. i knew they were not assembled correctly. but they also said they were not originally tuts, and that one weighed half a tonne? i had not realised the insides were covered with texts either.

4) reeves was saying that the mask was also reworked from neferitit's equipment. i knew most of tuts equipment was not made for him, and a lot came from neferneferuaten. reeves pet theory is she was nefertiti, but i thought the mask itself, the face was reworked to fit the mask, but who was the headress and collar made for then?

5) they also mentioned ay swapping the tomb around and being the successor because he buried the king. they said it was unique. is there other evidence who ever buried the ing became king afterwards? did i read that?

6) the paintings in the tomb. the are life size, which i did not know! and are squat, but i thought it was because the shrines were in place when the painting was done? and they were saying it was very shoddy work, but except for the proprtions i can't see that (squat). thutmose IV has very quick and ill defined paintings in his tomb.

7) the tomb. the tomb was designed for ay they said, but could not fathom why wv23 was not a full tomb by the time ay was buried there. they said because the rock is limestone, it should have been completed in 18 mths?! ramses I started a tomb and had 2 years, and he had the first well room completed as did wv23, so i don't know why they would think tut's tomb would be finished? how long would it take to constuct one? thutmose IV was a 10 year reign wasn't he? his tomb was carved but undecorated.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds interesting but I've never seen it.

It has long been recognized that Tut's burial is more than a bit improvised - suggesting his early death came as a surprise - and much of his equipment was recycled from his predecessors, the removal of the royal dead from the Amarna tombs making such reuse easy and convenient.

The AEs don't seem to have had a problem with cannibalising the funerary suites of others. Possibly the fact that the dear departed had initially been sent off with a full set was enough to establish them in the Afterlife and all that was necessary to maintain them was seeing that their bodies were kept safe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's an older discussion here:
http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=285

Dates to 2004, but there is a discussion there about the time of the funeral based on the flowers (and fruit) found in the tomb.

Might be interesting ...
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thank you anneke, i had forgotten about that one. they did not mention any of those points regarding flowers in the documentary.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3711
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is also a very interesting article about the possibility that KV 62 is a reburial and not the original one :

Rosemarie Drenkhahn : Eine Umbettung Tutanchamuns?. - In: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo - MDAIK - 39. - 1983. - pp. 29 - 37.

The author provides several hints for doing so, and at the same time very logical explanations for various oddities, such as the disorder, or the introduction of defective furniture as tomb goods, etc.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what do they mean by reburial lutz? that tut's tomb was looted at some point?
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1031
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
what do they mean by reburial lutz? that tut's tomb was looted at some point?


If I recall the argument, the author was surmising that perhaps the original burial for Tutankhamun may have been in KV 23, which was later used by Ay.

From the Theban Mapping Project, which gives the initial outline of an earlier theory:

Some have theorized that when Tutankhamen died suddenly at an early age, a tomb that was originally planned for him in the West Valley (KV 23 or KV 25) was not ready. It may have been decided to bury Tutankhamen in the main Valley in a tomb originally intended for Ay when he was still a God's father, near the Amarna cache (KV 55). According to this theory, Ay later took the West Valley tomb (KV 23) after succeeding Tutankhamen to the throne.

HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

as in the orginal tomb designed for him was kv 23, or he was actually buried there and then moved to kv 62?

i have never heard of the latter, so that would be interesting.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3711
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have somewhere a copy of the article. Please be patient, I have to find him first ...

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3711
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There is also a very interesting article about the possibility that KV 62 is a reburial and not the original one … Rosemarie Drenkhahn : Eine Umbettung Tutanchamuns?. - In: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo - MDAIK - 39. - 1983. - pp. 29 - 37. ...

The author provides various circumstantial evidence that speak for a reburial of Tutankhamun. There is probably consensus about that KV 62 is not to address as a King's Tomb. It is likely to be a tomb that was created as a special favor for a senior official.

Beginning with Amenhotep III granite sarcophagi were used for Royal burials. In KV 62 is a quartzite sarcophagus. This was too low for the coffin - ensemble of Tutankhamun, resting on the stretcher made of gilded wood. It was therefore necessary to treatment from the lid of the outer coffin at the foot end (the wood remains in addition to the cutout tool remained in the sarcophag). The name of Tutankhamun is two times written wrong on the sarcophagus, may be a character for node work.

KV 62 is to small for the compiled grave inventory. Individual ritual objects were for sure essential but a reduced number of non-ritual grave goods would make more sense with look on the small tomb (food, oil, ointment, chests, beds, furniture, chariots, clothing, could easily and without problems be reduced in number). But if the grave inventory of KV 62 was compiled for a tomb with larger space all these objects (which were magical and consecrated now) needed in case of a reburial being also a part of the new burial in KV 62.

The wrong installation of the shrines was necessary because of the focus on the shrine with the canopic jars. The coffin chamber in WV 23 is twice as large as that in KV 62. The shrines and the shrine with the canopic jars had can be put up here ritually correctly to each other.

The ensemble of the shrines of the Gods was separated and placed in wrong order. In addition, several figures were found in one shrine together. The ensemple of the ushebtis was separated and distributed over several rooms.
The setting up and again wrapping of the grave goods in WV 23 can be addressed as the cause of the incorrect filling of individual boxes and their overcrowding. Others remained for some quite empty.

The obvious haste would be better explained with a reburial then with restoration after break-in with a procession. For the latter, for sure enough time would be there to work more carefully. The former is in the history of the Valley not unique but has to regarded as state of emergency (in ritual sense).

Missing and damaged parts of the inventory can be explained also by a move. Overall the interpretation reburial is an explanation of all irregularities, while burglary / grave robbery / renewing service by officials / staging by Carter can explain only individual manifestations of disorder in the tomb.

I hope I was able to reflect broadly the content. Replenish by neseret would certainly help? Specifically on the issue of the stone sarcophagus, the author expresses some more details.

The possible reason for the reburial, the author does not comment really. However, when I look at the (in the Valley unique) representation of Aja with chepresch crown and panther skin ... Maybe he could not lead the first burial as sem-priest and therefore want to make up a ritual legitimacy of his claim to the throne by a reburial?

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanx lutz, that's very informative.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3711
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm in such cases (giving content of books and articles) always unsure if I express myself really and understandable, if my English is sufficient. If there are any questions ... will try to answer.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Lutz"]
Quote:

The possible reason for the reburial, the author does not comment really. However, when I look at the (in the Valley unique) representation of Aja with chepresch crown and panther skin ... Maybe he could not lead the first burial as sem-priest and therefore want to make up a ritual legitimacy of his claim to the throne by a reburial?

Greetings, Lutz.


That would mean that the reburial was conducted very shortly after the original burial because if Aye felt the need for further confirmation of his right to be king he would have wanted to get it soon.

Then I don`t understand why it wasn`t sufficient for him to conduct the original burial the way it was usually done and by which he could have confirmed his right to the throne as Tut`s heir. There was no need for him to be depicted with crown and cartouche as no successor to the throne was depicted like this.
And I see nothing that could have prevented him from being present then.
I think if KV 62 really is a reburial it might all come down to Aye`s wish of having a large royal tomb for himself.
Maybe KV62 was not completed at Tut`s death or maybe it didn`t even exist at all. After all we have no proof that it was originally intended to be Aye`s non-royal tomb.
If there was no alternative to WV23 at the time of Tut`s death Aye would have had to bury him there. He could then have commanded to carve or finish KV62, moved the burial over there and thus got conveniently a nice large tomb for himself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3711
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
That would mean that the reburial was conducted very shortly after the original burial because if Aye felt the need for further confirmation of his right to be king he would have wanted to get it soon. ...

Yes.

Sothis wrote:
... Then I don`t understand why it wasn`t sufficient for him to conduct the original burial the way it was usually done and by which he could have confirmed his right to the throne as Tut`s heir. ...

About this we can of course only speculate on current knowledge. Perhaps the decision that Aja took the throne fell at very short notice, after the first burial of Tutankhamun? Maybe there was initially another one a potential customer for the kingship (keyword: Dahamunzu)?

Sothis wrote:
... There was no need for him to be depicted with crown and cartouche as no successor to the throne was depicted like this. ...

Exactly ... Just why is he depicted with chepresh crown and cartouches if it is the first and only burial?

Sothis wrote:
... And I see nothing that could have prevented him from being present then. ...

Diarrhea? No, seriously, he was probably there. Only in what capacity?

Sothis wrote:
... I think if KV 62 really is a reburial it might all come down to Aye`s wish of having a large royal tomb for himself. ...

And why then he not decorated his nice big royal tomb like one? The scenes in WV 23 remember on a tomb of an official. Enough time for the attachment of a few royal books of the netherworld he had. Even the obligatory and probably quite important scene of welcome by the gods in the so-called "Well chamber E" is missing.

Sothis wrote:
... If there was no alternative to WV23 at the time of Tut`s death Aye would have had to bury him there. He could then have commanded to carve or finish KV62, moved the burial over there and thus got conveniently a nice large tomb for himself.

That would be another option. Albeit more boring than my suggestions, I think ... Cool

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Lutz"]
Sothis wrote:

And why then he not decorated his nice big royal tomb like one? The scenes in WV 23 remember on a tomb of an official. Enough time for the attachment of a few royal books of the netherworld he had. Even the obligatory and probably quite important scene of welcome by the gods in the so-called "Well chamber E" is missing.

Sothis wrote:
... If there was no alternative to WV23 at the time of Tut`s death Aye would have had to bury him there. He could then have commanded to carve or finish KV62, moved the burial over there and thus got conveniently a nice large tomb for himself.

That would be another option. Albeit more boring than my suggestions, I think ... Cool

Greetings, Lutz.


Hey, this is actually your own scenario of a reburial, only that I tried to figure out how KV62 fits in Smile

You`re right on the peculiar decoration of Aye`s tomb. It doesn`t go well with his supposed desire to have a large royal tomb.
Maybe he was just after a spacious accommodation but thought that fishing/hunting scenes were nicer than the royal religious stuff?
Or he liked to be reminded that he was a commoner for most of his life. He included his it-ntr title in his cartouche too.

Seriously, what could have urged Aye to take over WV23 if it was not the size and rather advanced state of it. It can hardly have been his own tomb from the start, four years would not have been enough.

Maybe the location (close to AIII and maybe his supposed sister Tiye) meant something to him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group