Luxor4u

Late night channel hopping when I should be going to bed and I've landed on Ch 5 again. They are showing two episodes back to back of Secrets of Tutankhamun's Treasures and I have to admit I'm finding it interesting, or perhaps I should say there are bits that taking my attention. I've no idea if this is a repeat or not, but I'd hazard a guess that it's a fairly recent programme as it is referring to the new Cairo Museum and items never before seen from the old store room. I'm very impressed by his leather armour.

Possibly worth watching for those interested in the subject matter.

http://www.channel5.com/show/secrets-of ... treasures/

They are repeats....but none the worse for that. i think I first saw them earlier this year.

It's interesting to see the efforts being put into restoration and conservation at the GEM. The reconstruction they've performed on some of the items from KV62 is remarkable - particularly the shoes and gold harness decorations. Carter did his best but the conservation techniques of a100 years ago may have done more harm than good to the more delicate artifacts.

Tutankhamun went to the afterlife accompanied by 6 chariots, hundreds of bows and arrows, armour etc....and also 300 walking sticks!. The debate continues over whether he was a sickly, semi-crippled king who died as a result of illness exacerbated by genetic defects......or a brave young pharaoh who led his armies into battle and died valiantly fighting Egypt's enemies!

It was also interesting to see the German conservator, Christian Eckmann dismissing claims that the death mask was made, at least in part, for someone other than Tutankhamun.

Nick Reeves has, for some time, been pushing his theory that the mask surrounds was made for Nefertiti - claiming an overwritten cartouche as evidence - but Eckmann, who has had far greater access to the mask than Reeves. seems to dispute this

newcastle wrote:The debate continues over whether he was a sickly, semi-crippled king who died as a result of illness exacerbated by genetic defects......or a brave young pharaoh who led his armies into battle and died valiantly fighting Egypt's enemies!

I only know a number of his walking sticks show considerable wear.

I am some what rather worried about what we call restoration, and the different ideas of such work. No where in the world have seen such different methods put in to play than in Egypt. Different international institutions have their own ideas as to what lengths one should go to help the general public see an antiquity brought back 'to life' as though brand new 'just out of the box' or preserving what we already have.

In the past forty years, I have seen varying amount of differing ideas of restoration from simple restoration of the Ceilings of the Greek main temples in Upper Egypt to the outrageous paint job By The Getty in a certain tomb in the Queens Valley.

My main worry today, is that The GEM has a brilliant restoration department in its basement, my worry is will certain ancient corrections and faults on many of the Tutankhamoun collection be 'smoothed out'. Will the new museum simply show only the walking sticks that are perfect with the 'glint of gold', or the others, where not only can it be detected for how long the item was used for, for example length of stick for a boy and later, for a man, or for that matter tell us whether the person was left or right hand. Simple,.......no mystery, simple fact, and no more daft books. It is evident the person was disabled from birth. All these sticks and canes were on show in the old museum, the question is how many will be on show in the GEM to prove this point. There are other major items in this collection that discredit the general thinking, that could be 'restored', before going back on display.

On the subject of restoration, a major archeological work has been carried out on the WB recently, nothing has really been written up about it either here or elsewhere, or a mention of the usual tricks employed on such work,.............I'll bring you up to date in a few days.

........ the outrageous paint job By The Getty in a certain tomb in the Queens Valley.

What an ignorant, and outrageous, claim!

The Getty Conservation Institute did not apply one drop of paint to the tomb of Nefertari.

The GCI work entailed stabilising the walls. cleaning and restoration......NOT painting.

Perhaps A Four knows better he is going to inform us further in a few days?

carrie wrote:Perhaps A Four knows better he is going to inform us further in a few days?

More likely he'd overheard a few tourists remarking how the tomb walls looked like they'd been painted yesterday.

Edited by Horus to remove unsuitable comment.

For anyone who hasn't had the good fortune to see this restored tomb. here's a 3D tour :





And a fascinating documentary on the restoration project with interesting shots of Luxor some 30 years ago.



In particular, please note the use of the "trattegio" technique......thin lines of water colour applied over small arears of missing paint to give the visual effect of continuity and avoiding a general repainting This is why the technique is regualrly used in conservation of ancient frescoes. The colour can easily be washed off.

Thank you very much Newcastle, fascinating video! I've wanted to visit Nefertari's tomb for many years, and hopefully will be able to do so in January. It will be interesting to see the restoration, having seen the techniques applied; as an artist myself, I appreciate the painstaking work demonstrated in the video. Thanks again.

newcastle wrote:It was also interesting to see the German conservator, Christian Eckmann dismissing claims that the death mask was made, at least in part, for someone other than Tutankhamun.

Nick Reeves has, for some time, been pushing his theory that the mask surrounds was made for Nefertiti - claiming an overwritten cartouche as evidence - but Eckmann, who has had far greater access to the mask than Reeves. seems to dispute this

I came across this lecture by Nick Reeves regarding his theory about the mask and other burial artifacts. I must say I find Reeves" arguments quite persuasive.



An interesting lecture....although Reeves' delivery is a bit soporific after a while