Tut's Tomb

Luxor is ancient Thebes and has a fascinating past. Share your knowledge or ask your questions here.

Moderators: DJKeefy, 4u Network

User avatar
Brian Yare
Royal V.I.P
Royal V.I.P
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:11 pm
Location: Worcester, UK
Has thanked: 720 times
Been thanked: 647 times
Gender:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by Brian Yare »

In the event that the proposed corridor or chamber contains a burial, why is Nefertiti the prime candidate? Might we even find a cache containing Akhenaten, his daughters, Smenkare, etc.? Only time will tell. But well done to Nicholas Reeves for the results so far.


A-Four
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 4154
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:04 pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 905 times
Been thanked: 1113 times
Gender:
United Kingdom

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by A-Four »

Brian Yare wrote:In the event that the proposed corridor or chamber contains a burial, why is Nefertiti the prime candidate? Might we even find a cache containing Akhenaten, his daughters, Smenkare, etc.? Only time will tell. But well done to Nicholas Reeves for the results so far.
Well, I am going to let you Brian, and our few loyal followers on this site into a little secret, but don't tell the usual riff raff that these days frequent the Marsam

Dear old Nick Reeves years ago, did a little work with the Japanese on WV 22. Now if you look careful at the floor plan of that tomb, you will see a similarity to that of KV 62, though the scale is much reduced in Tutankhamen's tomb. Study carefully where the sarcophagus of Amenophis III is placed. In the same part of KV62 this was walled up.

Look carefully at the two separate chambers in WV 22, and first you will notice that these were cut supposedly for Amenophis's two wives, to be interned on death, whether they were is debatable. However that is not important, what is, is the fact that Reeves is now looking at two walled up tombs on the north and western walls of KV 62 that are in the exact same positions that are relevant to those as known in WV 22.

Not a lot of people know this,........A-Four :wi .
Frater0082
Top Member
Top Member
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 170 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by Frater0082 »

A-Four wrote:
Brian Yare wrote:In the event that the proposed corridor or chamber contains a burial, why is Nefertiti the prime candidate? Might we even find a cache containing Akhenaten, his daughters, Smenkare, etc.? Only time will tell. But well done to Nicholas Reeves for the results so far.
Well, I am going to let you Brian, and our few loyal followers on this site into a little secret, but don't tell the usual riff raff that these days frequent the Marsam

Dear old Nick Reeves years ago, did a little work with the Japanese on WV 22. Now if you look careful at the floor plan of that tomb, you will see a similarity to that of KV 62, though the scale is much reduced in Tutankhamen's tomb. Study carefully where the sarcophagus of Amenophis III is placed. In the same part of KV62 this was walled up.

Look carefully at the two separate chambers in WV 22, and first you will notice that these were cut supposedly for Amenophis's two wives, to be interned on death, whether they were is debatable. However that is not important, what is, is the fact that Reeves is now looking at two walled up tombs on the north and western walls of KV 62 that are in the exact same positions that are relevant to those as known in WV 22.
I figured something like this would come up but I just thought i was the only one that was thinking about it. I admit, I feel like there could be something behind these walls but Nefertiti, I do not(BUT I CAN BE PROVEN WRONG). I feel that this is an extension to yet another tomb that has been deliberately closed up because there was extra space to bury Tut in. The reasons why they chose this Tomb can't be because of relations with a previous monarch but simply because the space was available.

If whatever it is was a tomb for Queen Neferneferuaten/Nefertiti then the tomb would have been far grander than what it is. Now, another thing that I would like to bring light to is the name Neferneferuaten. There were so many female royals that occupied this name for all we know that Queen that is attested Neferneferuaten could all of them. Personally I favor this(Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, Neferneferuaten-Meritaten, and Ankhkheperure- Neferneferuaten aka Ankhesenpaaten). According to Manetho, Neferneferuaten was a "King's daughter" which could rule out Nefertiti as Neferneferuaten(only as the sole ruler after Akhenaten). But she did rule as Neferneferuaten during the times of Akhenaten as his Queen.

So it all boils down to Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten who were the last two older princesses.

Meritaten was already married to the previous co-regent Smenkhkare thus when he died she was. There has been evidence found that Neferneferuaten's name read as Ankhkheperure-mery-Neferkheperure or Ankhkheperure-Meryaten-Neferkpherure, having Meritaten's name in the middle of it. there is no doubt in my mind that Meritaten was Neferneferuaten because she was the Eldest, the fate of her family rested upon her and she wasn't about to let the priests throw her father's visions down the drain, so she went to drastic measures to prevent such. I believe that Meritaten acted out of desperation and wrote to the Hittite King. Now, I know that some of you are going to argue that evidence suggests that it was Ankhesenamun due to a ring found with the name of Ay's name on it, but who's to say that he didn't tried them both. One refused and got booted and the other one gave in but ultimately Tutankhamun Became the king as he was supposed to.

Tutankhamun was crowned in Amarna just a year before the passing of Akhenaten himself. He was the designated heir from the very beginning all those co-regents acted on his behalf because the following Heir was far too young to rule. It was almost an identical scenario as the time before Amenhotep III's rule where his mother had to acted as his regent until he was fully old enough to rule on his own. I see a pattern here in death. I see Tuthmosis IV dying at 31 then his son living to be at least 60, and Akhenaten dying with his late 20s to early thirties.

As far as I see this, A)one of these chambers could hold Smenkhkare and some rich treasures that he earned as co-regent. B) Its a cache of princesses dating from Amenhotep III, C) this could just be a sealed off tunnel to an already existing tomb. or D) That this could be the tomb of Queen Nefertiti after all. Only time will tell.
Frater0082
Top Member
Top Member
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 170 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by Frater0082 »

You know I want to talk about something found in Kv63 that people have seem to overlooked. In one of the jars Egyptologists found seal impressions with the name Pa'aten in it. They assume that it was for Tutankhamun's wife Queen Ankhesenamun since her name used to be Ankhesenpaaten. However no one ever questions as to why she used this name instead of her new name Ankhesenamun.

Clearly it has been noted that both Tutankaten and Ankhesenpaaten changed thier names and the Aten part of thier name was lost and never to be used again. So that left me with the question as to what's the point of using it then?

The seal doesn't bare the name Ankhesenamun but Ankhesenpaaten could be a sure sign of that Tuts q queen Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit or Ankhesenamun still holding on to her old name.

I think that its clear evidence that this points to Tut's queen was Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit who may have died already in child birth.

I want to say that either Ankhesenamun wanted to do tjis for old time sake or to be rebellious but Im finding it hard to picture it seeming how the priest dawned Atenism and everything associated with it. To me this points to who Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit really was.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by newcastle »

A-Four wrote:My dear Newcastle, take a look at the images of the British Museums collection website, search out - Wooden funerary guardian statue from the tomb of Rameses IX, enlarge on this photo, then look very carefully at the face. Admittedly, not too clear to determine, I agree, but I assure you when face to face with this object, then the evidence is clear.
You may or may not be right about OTHER ka statues.

But the two in KV 62 are, as far as I can see, identical facewise i.e. looking straight forward.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by newcastle »

Frater0082 wrote:You know I want to talk about something found in Kv63 that people have seem to overlooked. In one of the jars Egyptologists found seal impressions with the name Pa'aten in it. They assume that it was for Tutankhamun's wife Queen Ankhesenamun since her name used to be Ankhesenpaaten. However no one ever questions as to why she used this name instead of her new name Ankhesenamun.

Clearly it has been noted that both Tutankaten and Ankhesenpaaten changed thier names and the Aten part of thier name was lost and never to be used again. So that left me with the question as to what's the point of using it then?

The seal doesn't bare the name Ankhesenamun but Ankhesenpaaten could be a sure sign of that Tuts q queen Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit or Ankhesenamun still holding on to her old name.

I think that its clear evidence that this points to Tut's queen was Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit who may have died already in child birth.

I want to say that either Ankhesenamun wanted to do tjis for old time sake or to be rebellious but Im finding it hard to picture it seeming how the priest dawned Atenism and everything associated with it. To me this points to who Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit really was.
The answer, Frater, is that tomb goods include stuff predating Ankhesenamum's name change.

Also found in the tomb were items with the name Tutankhaten.

You shouldn't draw any inference from such data.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by newcastle »

@ Frater

Your analysis linking king Neferneferuaten to Meritaten is faulty. Howard Carter found a box fragment in the entrance of KV62 bearing the names Akhenaton, king Ankheperure-mery-Neferkheperure Neferneferuaten-mery-Waenre and queen Meritaten. It would take tortured logic to make the last two the same person!

You've confused ...mery....(beloved of...) with Meritaten.

We can also rule out Neferneferuaten-tasherit as king Neferneferuaten. Why would she, at a tender age, be elevated to kingship ahead of her elder sisters. ...and prince Tutankhaten?

The preponderance of evidence points to king Neferneferuaten being Nefertiti and efforts to link this king to anyone else requires strained convolutions.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by newcastle »

Tutankhamun: Great golden face mask was actually made for his mother Nefertiti.

New research by the British Egyptologist, Nicholas Reeves, has revealed that it was originally made for a female pharaoh, probably the famously beautiful ancient Egyptian queen, normally known to the public today as Nefertiti.

The evidence that Dr Reeves​ has found,​ suggesting​ that ​Tutankhamun's large​, elaborate gold death mask​ was (apart from its personalized​ facial features) made for his mother​ (or possibly step-mother), Nefertiti, has come from a detailed re-examination of an inscription on the artefact assigning it to Tutankhamun. Very careful examination of the hieroglyphic text shows that the king’s names were actually inscribed over an earlier individual’s names which appear to have given the full official nomenclature used by Nefertiti after she had become co-pharaoh of Egypt – namely Ankhkheperure-Meryt-Neferkheperure Neferneferuaten (literally meaning ‘Living Manifestation of the Sun God, Beloved of Akhenaten, Beauty of Beauties of the Disk of the Sun’).

A decade after Akhenaten and Nefertiti had launched their religious revolution, some evidence suggests that Egypt may have been hit by a terrible epidemic. Desperate to ensure the continuation of his new monotheistic religion, and perhaps fearful of death, Akhenaten decided to appoint his queen, Nefertiti, as co-ruler. He did so just in the nick of time – for within a few months he did indeed die. His young eight year old son, Tutankhamun (at that stage called Tutankhaten), became pharaoh and Nefertiti (now only using her new longer pharaonic name) continued as co-ruler with him, says a leading historian of the period, Dr Aidan Dodson of the University of Bristol, author of two major books on the era – Amarna Sunrise and Amarna Sunset.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 53156.html
A-Four
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 4154
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:04 pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 905 times
Been thanked: 1113 times
Gender:
United Kingdom

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by A-Four »

newcastle wrote:
The evidence that Dr Reeves​ has found,​ suggesting​ that ​Tutankhamun's large​, elaborate gold death mask​ was (apart from its personalized​ facial features) made for his mother​ (or possibly step-mother), Nefertiti, has come from a detailed re-examination of an inscription on the artefact assigning it to Tutankhamun. Very careful examination of the hieroglyphic text shows that the king’s names were actually inscribed over an earlier individual’s names which appear to have given the full official nomenclature used by Nefertiti after she had become co-pharaoh of Egypt –
I know that quite recently I wrote on here about this very fact above, and came to the same conclusions, through my own very careful observations, but long standing members of this section of the forum will remember, it's not the first time I have stated this fact.


Back to the guardian statue,........Newcastle, look carefully at the true image of one of the statues, note, the position of the body is square, the belly button is set centre of the body, now look at the angle of the head from the body.
Frater0082
Top Member
Top Member
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 170 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by Frater0082 »

newcastle wrote:@ Frater

Your analysis linking king Neferneferuaten to Meritaten is faulty. Howard Carter found a box fragment in the entrance of KV62 bearing the names Akhenaton, king Ankheperure-mery-Neferkheperure Neferneferuaten-mery-Waenre and queen Meritaten. It would take tortured logic to make the last two the same person!

You've confused ...mery....(beloved of...) with Meritaten.

We can also rule out Neferneferuaten-tasherit as king Neferneferuaten. Why would she, at a tender age, be elevated to kingship ahead of her elder sisters. ...and prince Tutankhaten?

The preponderance of evidence points to king Neferneferuaten being Nefertiti and efforts to link this king to anyone else requires strained convolutions.
You right it was torture but who's to say that Meritaten didn't used the same throne name. Whose to say that majority of those stuff found in Tuts tomb were made in Amarna whike Akhenaten was alive.
Frater0082
Top Member
Top Member
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 170 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by Frater0082 »

newcastle wrote:
Frater0082 wrote:You know I want to talk about something found in Kv63 that people have seem to overlooked. In one of the jars Egyptologists found seal impressions with the name Pa'aten in it. They assume that it was for Tutankhamun's wife Queen Ankhesenamun since her name used to be Ankhesenpaaten. However no one ever questions as to why she used this name instead of her new name Ankhesenamun.

Clearly it has been noted that both Tutankaten and Ankhesenpaaten changed thier names and the Aten part of thier name was lost and never to be used again. So that left me with the question as to what's the point of using it then?

The seal doesn't bare the name Ankhesenamun but Ankhesenpaaten could be a sure sign of that Tuts q queen Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit or Ankhesenamun still holding on to her old name.

I think that its clear evidence that this points to Tut's queen was Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit who may have died already in child birth.

I want to say that either Ankhesenamun wanted to do tjis for old time sake or to be rebellious but Im finding it hard to picture it seeming how the priest dawned Atenism and everything associated with it. To me this points to who Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit really was.
The answer, Frater, is that tomb goods include stuff predating Ankhesenamum's name change.

Also found in the tomb were items with the name Tutankhaten.

You shouldn't draw any inference from such data.
Really? So far I've only heard that they've found seal inscriptions with the term Pa'aten not Tutankhamun's on it. The only things that possibly predated the tomb was the coffins everything was found to come would am old seal be of any use in Tutankhamun's burial process. Unless kv63 was used on another family member before hand.

I've been to the website for KV63 a few times and spent a great deal of time researching and collecting data its a now hobby. I tend took look deep in to areas that even Egyptologists even miss.

The way kv63 was set up (and this is my interpretation) it was an embalmers catch or possibly a place for Tuts unborn daughters. There are alot of questions that needs to be answered for KV63. You know I like what someone said earlier on here and I think its true. A lot of theories gets constantly reused and retold that it becomes factual to alot of people. I'm not saying that everything im saying is either.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by newcastle »

A-Four wrote:

Back to the guardian statue,........Newcastle, look carefully at the true image of one of the statues, note, the position of the body is square, the belly button is set centre of the body, now look at the angle of the head from the body.
I've looked.

Nope...everything is square on. There's an almost imperceptible lack of complete symmetry - hardly surprising in a hand carved statue.

If the sculptor wanted the statue to be glancing one way or another don't you think he'd have made it a little more obvious?

I think you need to go to specsavers :lol:
Last edited by newcastle on Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by newcastle »

Sorry Frater...I realise now you were talking about KV 63....not Tut' s tomb.

Ignore the comments about Tutankhaten.

But the point remains. It's unwise to draw the inferences you do from the presence of jars bearing the seal of Ankhesenpaaten.
Frater0082
Top Member
Top Member
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 170 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by Frater0082 »

newcastle wrote:Sorry Frater...I realise now you were talking about KV 63....not Tut' s tomb.

Ignore the comments about Tutankhaten.

But the point remains. It's unwise to draw the inferences you do from the presence of jars bearing the seal of Ankhesenpaaten.
You're right that is very vague. My apologies.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by newcastle »

13781

13777

The 2 ka statues of Tutankhamun in Cairo Museum

Any comments....anyone?

I can't see what A-Four's on about, but am prepared to be informed.
User avatar
Winged Isis
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 824 times
Been thanked: 766 times
Gender:
Australia

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by Winged Isis »

To my eyes both the sets of eyes look slightly askew; the top one to it's right, the bottom to it's left. They do not seem to look exactly straight ahead. Click on them then zoom in. So if placed opposite each other beside a wall, as in Tut's tomb, depending on which side you put them, they would seem to look towards the wall or the viewer, the latter the most logical if they are intended as protectors. That's my best summation from the given photos. In the "flesh" however, it may be different, and that's the only way to be sure.
Carpe diem! :le:
A-Four
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 4154
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:04 pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 905 times
Been thanked: 1113 times
Gender:
United Kingdom

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by A-Four »

Image from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Statue.jpg.


Please look carefully from the square on statue, the belly button tells you this, now note the angle of the head from the body. Now imagine one either side at the end of a corridor at the doors of the King's tomb.

This photograph is of one of the original tomb guardians. Remember most copies do not show this fact as I state here.
A-Four
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 4154
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:04 pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 905 times
Been thanked: 1113 times
Gender:
United Kingdom

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by A-Four »

Winged Isis wrote:To my eyes both the sets of eyes look slightly askew; the top one to it's right, the bottom to it's left. They do not seem to look exactly straight ahead. Click on them then zoom in. So if placed opposite each other beside a wall, as in Tut's tomb, depending on which side you put them, they would seem to look towards the wall or the viewer, the latter the most logical if they are intended as protectors. That's my best summation from the given photos. In the "flesh" however, it may be different, and that's the only way to be sure.
In truth WI, they were never made for the reason you say here.

They were place only in the corridors of most kings tomb at the doors before the actual tomb. They were positioned either side, so that when their eyes, in most cases inlaid, met your, a curse was placed upon you.

Tomorrow, I am hoping we can make further progress on the major subject. What do you say Newcastle. :wi :wi :wi .
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by newcastle »

I put iit all down to sculptor's vagaries as opposed to any intentional glance to curse ....which I maintain would have been easy to achieve , with an obviously turned head, if the purpose was to give anyone approaching a "p*ss off" look!

And who knows where they were positioned in regal tombs as none were recorded in situ, other than KV 62.

But let's leave the speculation. .and I've forgotten what the major subject is :lol:

Remind me....
A-Four
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 4154
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:04 pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 905 times
Been thanked: 1113 times
Gender:
United Kingdom

Re: Tut's Tomb

Post by A-Four »

In my time in Egypt, I questioned everything.

As a child I read the books studied carefully not just the Kings Valley, but the whole area of the WB in Luxor. When I first arrived there, I quickly learnt that you also need to be a bit of a surveyor, and then later, even your own detective to make true progress, even though it can be blatantly obvious that some things are not as the 'officials of the past' say, many miss this point.

For example, the so called Mortuary Temple of Hatchepsuit, way up there in the hills is ANYTHING but a mortuary temple. Where is there any evidence of homes to house the priests (or monks as we would call them today) who would have collected revenue to maintain the functioning of that place. (as was the case with the monasteries of old, in England.) all real mortuary temples had revenue coming in from farmed land owned by each king, that ensured this 'House of Eternity' was always maintained, and the temple priests were the tax collectors.

In the so called Valley of the Queen's, there are far more princes buried there than the very few queens, should we really not call this the Valley of the Princes to avoid confusion in the future ?

Yet today the 'doctors' are still trained in the old ways.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
  • Name That Tomb!
    by Winged Isis » » in History and Archaeology
    5 Replies
    804 Views
    Last post by Horus
  • Tut's Tomb (2)
    by newcastle » » in History and Archaeology
    38 Replies
    2821 Views
    Last post by Frater0082
  • New tomb discovered
    by jewel » » in History and Archaeology
    1 Replies
    472 Views
    Last post by Kaiserbernese
  • Tomb Robbers
    by Major Thom » » in History and Archaeology
    20 Replies
    2654 Views
    Last post by John Landon