Tut's Tomb

[Yildez]

Thank you A-Four for an informed response! Nice change!

I think it far more likely that the Tomb of Ay in the Western Valley was originally meant for Tutankhamun, and that Ay appropriated it! As soon as you enter you know that you're in a Royal tomb, albeit an unfinished one, which is definitely not the case in Tutankhamuns tomb.

As for finding Nefertiti behind the wall of Tutankhamuns tomb? Let's say I'm sceptical to say the least! But you never know, watch this space!

[newcastle]

Perhaps the most important initial indication that there may be a separate burial within K.V. 62 is given by the two life size wooden guardian statues. These were used to protect the tomb from would be robbers. They were always placed either side of the enterance of a burial chamber. Most people do not notice but, they were carved so that the face and eyes were carved inward, so that their faces and eyes would meet the face of any intruder. Therefore, there is a left statue and a right statue. BOTH those in Tutankhamen's tomb are LEFT statues.

What an odd idea.

The eyes of both statues stare straight forward as far as I can see....and the statues actually faced each other in front of the entrance to the burial chamber.

[A-Four]

Thank you A-Four for an informed response! Nice change!

Well, Yildez, I may surprise you to learn that in my early days on this site, I wrote an essay on the real reasons why Ay's tomb in the Western Valley was initially that of Tutankhamen, and gave many reasons, one being that the outer most shrine over the sarcophagus had been very roughly cut, (last minute job), to fit another tomb.

K.V. 62 evidently previously had been dug out early in the early/mid 18 Dynasty, (like Yuya and Tuya), the crazy shape of this tomb evidently gives rise to speculation that it could not possibly be a kings tomb. However the main mystery has to be, why are there two odd guardian statues. The British Museum (BM) has five of these such statues, three are on display, it is only when you look carefully that you realise that the faces and eyes are not looking directly at you. Therefore, if there was already a pair of these guardian statues already in that tomb, it is quite easy, being that good light was unavailable, a mix up could quite easily occur.

The builders of these tombs, especially in the 18th Dynasty, created vast tunnels, we only have to look in the tomb of Senenmut to realise that. It is not too difficult to imagine a directs link with WV 22, which is the tomb of Akhenaten's father. The Western wall of KV 62 could reveal a long passage way, and God only knows what could be there.

[A-Four]

Perhaps the most important initial indication that there may be a separate burial within K.V. 62 is given by the two life size wooden guardian statues. These were used to protect the tomb from would be robbers. They were always placed either side of the enterance of a burial chamber. Most people do not notice but, they were carved so that the face and eyes were carved inward, so that their faces and eyes would meet the face of any intruder. Therefore, there is a left statue and a right statue. BOTH those in Tutankhamen's tomb are LEFT statues.

What an odd idea.

The eyes of both statues stare straight forward as far as I can see....and the statues actually faced each other in front of the entrance to the burial chamber.

No, I am sorry Newcastle you are wrong, like the ones in the BM, those of the Tutankhamen collection in Cairo are the same. One member of this forum I took her around the BM collection, and she found it difficult at first to notice this fact, then with careful study realised what I say here. The ones in Cairo are almost the first two item you come across as you progress through the collection, though they are placed together and it can be a little difficult to notice this fact. Most kings tombs had these such statues placed at the end of the corridors before the entry to the tomb its self. The reason why many European museums have these statues, is that they are made quite simply, and of wood, all gold leaf removed.

It is true they faced each other in KV 62, obviously because they were removed from another tomb that had a corridor, but the moment Carter saw these two statues he knew that a royal sarcophagus was behind that wall, and wasted no time in making a hole in it before the then chief inspector arrived there.

[newcastle]

We'll have to disagree then A-Four. The pictures I have of the statues now in Cairo do not look either way.

Incidentally, which kings' tombs are you referring to which had statues at the end of the corridors....statues that were there when 'discovered' in the 19th /20th century.

[carrie]

Now all you clever so and so's out there don't start on me, just asking. I was speaking to an Egyptian Egyptologist last week about Tut's tomb, I said look at the treasures that the tomb contained and he was only a minor pharaoh, what splendor's must Ramses tomb have contained.
He said he thought Tut's was a one off because the Priests were so glad to be re-instated after the cult of Amon that they piled precious objects in his tomb as a kind of thank you. That Ramses tomb didn't necessarily contain all that much "treasure".
I would like to know what others think?

[A-Four]

We'll have to disagree then A-Four. The pictures I have of the statues now in Cairo do not look either way.

Incidentally, which kings' tombs are you referring to which had statues at the end of the corridors....statues that were there when 'discovered' in the 19th /20th century.

Yes, I do see your point here, they were discovered at that time, and yes it gives no direct proof that these statues were ever placed at the points, I suggest however, with the angle of face of both statues, placed either side of a known general size tomb, their gaze would both come upon you at about five foot from the tomb chamber doors.

[newcastle]

We'll have to disagree then A-Four. The pictures I have of the statues now in Cairo do not look either way.

Incidentally, which kings' tombs are you referring to which had statues at the end of the corridors....statues that were there when 'discovered' in the 19th /20th century.

Yes, I do see your point here, they were discovered at that time, and yes it gives no direct proof that these statues were ever placed at the points, I suggest however, with the angle of face of both statues, placed either side of a known general size tomb, their gaze would both come upon you at about five foot from the tomb chamber doors.

This is just speculation on your part then. But I will make a point of having a really good look at the Cairo statues next time i'm there. Just in case someone's doctored the excellent photos I have

[A-Four]

We'll have to disagree then A-Four. The pictures I have of the statues now in Cairo do not look either way.

Incidentally, which kings' tombs are you referring to which had statues at the end of the corridors....statues that were there when 'discovered' in the 19th /20th century.

Yes, I do see your point here, they were discovered at that time, and yes it gives no direct proof that these statues were ever placed at the points, I suggest however, with the angle of face of both statues, placed either side of a known general size tomb, their gaze would both come upon you at about five foot from the tomb chamber doors.

This is just speculation on your part then. But I will make a point of having a really good look at the Cairo statues next time i'm there. Just in case someone's doctored the excellent photos I have

It will be a simple procedure Newcastle, as with a portrait, stand three feet to the left of the statue, then three feet to the right,........then discover for yourself.

[Robbo70]

I didnt get to study the pair in cairo but the BM pair definately do not look straight. It was hard for me to get the line up as I'm blind in one eye so I see in 1D not 3D, but thankfully it was quiet enough that day for me to move about till I lined them up. Cairo museum was busy and I had heathen hubby with zero interest tagging along

[newcastle]

It will be a simple procedure Newcastle, as with a portrait, stand three feet to the left of the statue, then three feet to the right,........then discover for yourself.

I've seen portraits in the National Gallery that, if you move from one side to the other, give you the impression that the eyes are following you. It's a well-recognised optical illusion

[newcastle]

I didnt get to study the pair in cairo but the BM pair definately do not look straight. It was hard for me to get the line up as I'm blind in one eye so I see in 1D not 3D, but thankfully it was quiet enough that day for me to move about till I lined them up. Cairo museum was busy and I had heathen hubby with zero interest tagging along

Your visit to the BM wasn't after a pub crawl with A-Four by any chance?

[newcastle]

One of the intriguing (irritating?) aspects of egyptology is that a theory, repeated often enough, morphs into fact.

The idea that the tomb of Ay was intended originally for Tutankhamun has been around for decades.

Is there ANY objective archaeological evidence to support this assumption?

I mean linking that tomb specifically to Tutankhamun?

[A-Four]

Now all you clever so and so's out there don't start on me, just asking. I was speaking to an Egyptian Egyptologist last week about Tut's tomb, I said look at the treasures that the tomb contained and he was only a minor pharaoh, what splendor's must Ramses tomb have contained.
He said he thought Tut's was a one off because the Priests were so glad to be re-instated after the cult of Amon that they piled precious objects in his tomb as a kind of thank you. That Ramses tomb didn't necessarily contain all that much "treasure".
I would like to know what others think?

It much easier if I put this in a modern sense for you to understand Carrie. When Akhenaton closed all the Temples, like Henry VIII, he melted down all the gold, after his death, the Temples would not want to use it, being that it was tainted, and more than likely that solid gold coffin of Tutankhamen's was initially belong to Akhenaten.

You use the word 'treasure' but really if you look carefully at most of the items, they are of very thin plate. Many of the items from the tomb when you look very carefully are quite clumsily made and put together, for example the Hathor head in Luxor Museum, look behind it, and you can see quite clearly where the black stuka was allowed to drip behind one ear. The tomb also contained many items from the Amarna period. Then there are the collection of his favourite things. I am sure his successor would want rid of all items of a king that may or may not wanted to return to the old faith.

I am sure that when old Queen Mary (wife of George V) died, it was certain that she was buried in a full set of her favourite pearls. If after 1,000 years they discover her tomb, what would archeologists at that time think then.

Egyptian mythology teaches us that when dead, one of the spirits will remain in the tomb, therefore, most kings would want to ensure that their favourite things, chairs, beds, chariots, etc, would be placed in the tomb, and of course, to be expected of a king, these would not be your usual Argos rubbish, in the same manner as Queen Mary's pearls were not from a similar outlet store.

[A-Four]

I didnt get to study the pair in cairo but the BM pair definately do not look straight. It was hard for me to get the line up as I'm blind in one eye so I see in 1D not 3D, but thankfully it was quiet enough that day for me to move about till I lined them up. Cairo museum was busy and I had heathen hubby with zero interest tagging along

Your visit to the BM wasn't after a pub crawl with A-Four by any chance?

No, that came later.

P.S. -.........and a good time was had. .

[A-Four]

Well, got to sign off for the mo, just got back to London, Robbo and hubby are in London, and coming around soon, so it's out for a meal and booze, so if I do write on here later, it might be .

[newcastle]

Now all you clever so and so's out there don't start on me, just asking. I was speaking to an Egyptian Egyptologist last week about Tut's tomb, I said look at the treasures that the tomb contained and he was only a minor pharaoh, what splendor's must Ramses tomb have contained.
He said he thought Tut's was a one off because the Priests were so glad to be re-instated after the cult of Amon that they piled precious objects in his tomb as a kind of thank you. That Ramses tomb didn't necessarily contain all that much "treasure".
I would like to know what others think?

It's beyond doubt that many of Tut's more valuable grave goods were originally made for other members of the Amarna family.

Although they look spectacular in the absence of anything comparable, the wealth available to Tut would have been as nothing compared to, say, his grandfather Amenhotep III. Rameses II enjoyed a long reign and was a prolific builder (and usurper of others' buildings) and might well have had substantial wealth buried with him too.

We have no idea what was in the minds of the priests, or more relevantly, Ay....his successor.

The idea that the priests would favour Tut's burial especially isn't one I've heard....and I've heard a wide range of theories from the Egyptian egyptologists (more often they're just guides).

It's one man's theory...no more, no less.

[Frater0082]

You know what this is starting to sound like Dr. Reeves found a passage way to another tomb somewhere in the valley. I mean an already known tomb. Hmm time to study the nearby tombs.

[A-Four]

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.

[A-Four]

You've got me running around now on this internet thing to support my claim,.......check out the photo of one of Tutankhamen's guardian statues on ........02 November 2015 Egypt @ the Manchester Museum.

Look carefully at the statue square on, but look at the face of the statue.

That one page also give evidence to substantiate my claim that KV 62 was never the intended tomb for Tutankhamen.