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 Previous  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
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Were foundation deposits found for kv62 or wv23?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No. As far as I know Carter did not found some for KV 62. In WV 23 it was probably too late when someone (Schaden ?) finally tried to find them. In the meantime, if still present, they were covered up by modern buildings for securing the entry.

But a foundation deposit in the Valley of the Kings can also be more a miracle than helpful. For example the ones from WV 22 - Amenhotep III give the name of his father, Thutmosis IV, whose tomb is KV 43... Confused The deposits found by Carter for KV 38 - Thutmosis I give no name.

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


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:47 am    Post subject: KV62 Reply with quote

I thought that KV62 was prepared for Tut as he died unexpectly and the tomb he had intended for himself (not sure wich one) was no where near finished. So KV62 was hastily adapted within the mummification period.
They could not postpone the burial so a tomb needed to be ready and KV62 had to do.

The same with his grave goods. Many of them seem to have had other original owners. Nicholas Reeves has given an interesting lecture for a New York institution that only the face was remade from a different source of gold and the rest of the mask was made for another Pharaoh (Reeves thinks that was Nefertiti).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:01 am    Post subject: Re: KV62 Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
I thought that KV62 was prepared for Tut as he died unexpectly and the tomb he had intended for himself (not sure wich one) was no where near finished. So KV62 was hastily adapted within the mummification period. ...

This is the most frequently suspected scenario. Unfortunately, it can not explain the described inconsistencies (referring to Drenkhahn, MDAIK 39, 1983) to me really.

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


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: KV62 Reply with quote

However KV62 was clearly decorated for Tutanchamun would that not be a bit much if it had not been his original grave and only was a reburial? Would that not have resulted in taking much of the gold from his tomb in order to finance plans for the new pharaoh?

Or are you suggesting he was reburried by someone who cared so much about him that special decorations were applicated and he got all the treasures that were found in KV62?

Im not sure who would be that caring to Tut, his wife may have cared that much but Anchesenamun seems to disappear shortly after her husband's death.

Aye as an old man when he succeeded needed all the grave goods for himself as he could not have expected a very long reign.

Horemreb may have been elevated to important positions during Tut's reign and even was his appointed successor but he also errased all memories of Tut's reign. So it would seem rather odd that he would have ordered the reburial and iclude Aye in the depictions as well.

Only the early Ramesides may have been aware of the existance of Tut and Aye so that would leave only a very short time frame for his reburial in KV62.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:47 pm    Post subject: Re: KV62 Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
... Or are you suggesting he was reburried by someone who cared so much about him that special decorations were applicated and he got all the treasures that were found in KV62?

Im not sure who would be that caring to Tut, his wife may have cared that much but Anchesenamun seems to disappear shortly after her husband's death. ...

Sorry, but unfortunately I have the impression that you have my previous posts in this thread do not really read. Before a discussion is possible you should do so. I have no desire to repeat myself constantly.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is also the rather puzzling KV 54 associated with the burial of Tut.

According to the Theban mapping Project
http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/sites/browse_tomb_868.html

Description: This cache is located in the southeast wadi. KV 54 is a small pit, perhaps an unfinished shaft cutting, that was reused after the reign of Tutankhamen as a storeroom for his funerary equipment.

Noteworthy features: This tomb is unique in that it was a cache containing embalming material and elements of a funerary meal.

Soon after the burial of King Tutankhamen, his tomb (KV 62) was robbed at least twice. After it was first robbed, objects found in the entrance corridor were removed and reburied in KV 54. The entrance of KV 62 was then filled up with limestone chippings and resealed.


To find items from the funerary meal out here is rather interesting. It is rather far away from KV 23 I think. And it's even some distance from KV 62 itself.

The Oriental Institute has some items from this cache on display and it's interesting to see the little cups that held food from the funerary meal. I remember seeing a small cup that had writing on it indicating it had held some grapes.

I was looking for other places nearby that could be original tombs, and it's rather close to KV 16, 17 and 18 which are the burials of Ramesses I, Sety I and Ramesses X respectively.
I'm not all that convinced that either one of those could be the original tomb for Tut though.
But having the burial originally in Kv 23 with the funerary meal near KV 54 seems not so likely either?

Puzzling!
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:10 pm    Post subject: Re: KV62 Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
However KV62 was clearly decorated for Tutanchamun would that not be a bit much if it had not been his original grave and only was a reburial? Would that not have resulted in taking much of the gold from his tomb in order to finance plans for the new pharaoh?


I've wondered about that last myself. Judging from Tut's own reused equipment the AEs had few if any scruples about robbing their own dead as long as their mummies were left intact. If Aye DID decide to take over Tut's Pharaonic tomb as his own he deserves full credit for not 'borrowing' some of his fancy equipment as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
There is also the rather puzzling KV 54 associated with the burial of Tut. ... But having the burial originally in Kv 23 with the funerary meal near KV 54 seems not so likely either? Puzzling!

Not if one assumes that the objects from KV 54 (the name tomb is to much for that, it is a small pit perhaps an unfinished shaft cutting, that was reused, Theodore Davis though it is the tomb of Tutankhamen) were originally deposited in the entrance corridor of KV 62, and only after the corridor has been filled with rubble to prevent a new robbery they were put down in KV 54.

And who says that there was not even close to WV 23 an "WV 54"? In the case of WV 22 - Amenhotep III there is a depot near the tomb. It is one chamber around 100 m from the entry to WV 22, today left open and accessible and a perfect place to have a break in the shadow, on the walk to WV 23:

Theban Mapping Project wrote:
"... KV A, located in the main wadi of the West Valley, is cut into the base of the cliff at the head of a water course 60 meters (197 feet) south of the entrance to KV 22. An entryway of rough steps (A) descends to a gate (B) that still retained much of its rubble blocking. The single chamber B inside the gate was partly filled with limestone chips and dirt. Numerous fragments of broken pottery vessels, some with blue painted decoration, were found in the debris. Jar sealings and dockets name Amenhetep III and give dates in his regnal years 32 and 37. Other artifacts are associated with tomb decoration, including limestone ostraca with sketches, ceramic fragments used for holding pigments, lumps of plaster, and rope.

Noteworthy features: The original blocking of gate B was found almost intact. ..."


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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Thieuke wrote:
However KV62 was clearly decorated for Tutanchamun would that not be a bit much if it had not been his original grave and only was a reburial? Would that not have resulted in taking much of the gold from his tomb in order to finance plans for the new pharaoh?


I've wondered about that last myself. Judging from Tut's own reused equipment the AEs had few if any scruples about robbing their own dead as long as their mummies were left intact. ...

I do not think the evidence base allows it to make such a statement. It is clear that certain items of equipment were apparently originally made for other people. But it is probably not determined that these were then used for / from their / s planned owners.
For me personally, it seems unlikely that, for example, the viscera of a king from the golden canopic coffins were removed to accommodate the one from another (most likely close related to the original owner).

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


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So the idea is there was a warehouse of unused (for various reasons) equipment that Tut's executors raided rather than reusing equipment 'borrowed' from the original owner possibly when the Amarna royal dead were reinterred in Thebes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMO Horemheb deserves full credit for not desecrating and robbing Tutankhamun's tomb (whose location and equipment he must have known) at a time when he was busily writing the late 18th dynasty pharaohs, including Tut, out of history. This supports the possibility that Horemheb had been genuinely attached to his protege, however he felt about the other Amarnan Pharaohs, had grieved at his early death and had no wish to disturb his happy afterlife.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
So the idea is there was a warehouse of unused (for various reasons) equipment that Tut's executors raided rather than reusing equipment 'borrowed' from the original owner possibly when the Amarna royal dead were reinterred in Thebes?

Well, I would not call it a department store but how about Treasure House? If I remember correctly (my crafty library is not available to me at the moment) the good old Maja was not only responsible for the administration of the royal necropolis but probably also for Pharaohs treasure houses. So it must have made ​​sense to combine the two offices in one person?

So far as I remember Reeves, by the way, is also assuming that some of the pieces found in Tutankhamun's tomb and made ​​for someone else, were not used for a burial before. Also the repeatedly held view the royal tomb at Amarna has been ransacked is not really substantiated. The destructions that we know today may also appear after the reburial in Thebes took place.

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 Oct 01, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
IMO Horemheb deserves full credit for not desecrating and robbing Tutankhamun's tomb (whose location and equipment he must have known) at a time when he was busily writing the late 18th dynasty pharaohs, including Tut, out of history. This supports the possibility that Horemheb had been genuinely attached to his protege, however he felt about the other Amarnan Pharaohs, had grieved at his early death and had no wish to disturb his happy afterlife.


I am not sure if we can say it was \horemheb who tried to eliminate all the kings from Akhenaten to Aye from history.
The first unmistakable attempt to amend the historical record accordingly is as we know Seti`s king list at Abydos. Horemheb did not leave a similar record, or at least none has come to light so far.

What Horemheb did do was to usurp many statues and wall decorations of his predecessors, mainly Tut. This of course happened many times before and after him and was basically a means for the new king to get many monuments in his own name in little time.
Apparently no harm was meant by this as the borrowing went on without any apparent hostility between the kings concerned. Often the own father`s monuments were usurped, and it is known that Ramses II took over quite a few statues from Amenhotep III whom he held in high esteem.

Bad intentions show in acts of blind destruction such as the damage that has been done in Aye`s tomb (by Horemheb?) or in the talatat depictions from Nefertiti and Akhi which were found re-used and re-assembled but upside down in Horemheb`s pylon at Karnak.

In these terms it really seems that Horemheb treated Tut better than them, but the reason for this and his real attitude towards him remains mainly guesswork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My pet theory is that Aye and Horemheb were dedicated to turning Tutankhamun into a classic New Kingdom Pharaoh and perfectly happy with their status as high officials and his chief advisors as well as quite possibly being personally fond of the boy - who they after all raised! Far from plotting his murder they regarded it as a total disaster and their own reigns as necessary stopgaps.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 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