A ROOM WITH A VIEW PT 2.

[A-Four]

In part one of this essay I dealt with K.V.55, now I need to move on to discuss tombs K.V. 23, 54, 63, and perhaps 57', and then back for the final twist, that may bring us back to K.V.55.

First we need to deal with K.V. 54, known as the Tutankhamoun cache, this was discovered by Theodore Davis in 1908, what he had found was a collection of items that were part of a banquet held by the immediate relatives of the dead pharaoh, also embalming fluid, bandages and a few items of little value that identified them with that pharaoh. Davis thought that he had found the remains of Tutankhamoun, and therefore his tomb. The bones were sent to Cairo to be analysed, they were found to chicken bones, this was the final straw for Davis, and gave up his concession in the King's Valley. Howard Carter knew from this information that this pharaoh was defiantly buried in the Valley, the question was, where.

We all know about Carter's glorious find and the moment of 'I see wonderful things', but I want to take you back three days before that event. At the bottom of those now famous steps, Carter was confronted by a sealed wall, that he quickly realised had not once but TWICE officially had been opened up. (This has often been associated with the two brake in by ancient robbers, though these small, and quite separate.) When he removed this wall he was faced by a nine foot square entrance some twenty foot long tunnel full of rubble, that took a further two days to clear. Carter was careful to study the removal of the rubble, and, although not much publicity was given, he found items from the reign of Tuthmosis III, and Amenhotep III.

Now at the end of the third day Carter was faced by another wall, that again had been dismantled and rebuilt and re-sealed by the authority the chief guardian of the royal necropolis, a man called Maya. He had also re-sealed the only two previous small break-ins and therefore although Carter at this point did not think for one moment that he had found the tomb of Tutankhamoun, he thought that whatever cache he was to find, he was certain it would be intact.

As we all well know the great story, I shall move on to a few things that are generally not known, or not accepted. When we come to the actual burial chamber itself, it was discovered that one of the shrine belonged to a burial for Smenkare. When we look at the sacophagus of Tutankhamoun, it is generally accepted these days that it has been re-cut. When we look at the three coffins, it is quite clear that the facial image is very different on the middle coffin in comparison to the other two.

Carter in the past has been highly criticised, because of the way he removed the body of Tutankhamoun from the solid, one inch thick gold coffee, however when it is realised that no other pharaoh has ever been en-tombed in a such manner, we can understand that the process of mummification will be quite different from the status-quo, especially when at least two bucket full of embalming fluid was thrown in the coffin before being sealed up in an air-light box.

When Carter finally started to clear the treasury of this tomb, he discovered that this room had been cut out very roughly, as though at great speed, evidently to give it a sense of royal proportions, rather than those required for a noble tomb. Also in this area Carter discovered two ushabti figure, and a further one, against a wall in the Antechamber. Carter's numbers for these figures are 326a, 330c and 458, each one of which is very different from the other. Also discovered in the Treasury was a piece of wood, that had once been part of a wooden box, engraved in the wood are the two cartouches of both Akenaton and Smenkhkare, which proves there was a period of co-regency, but really the main question should be,........What on earth were such items doing in K.V. 62 ?

It's now time to have a look at K.V. 23 in the Western Valley, but we will return to K.V. 62 for one short visit, but a revealing moment. The tomb of Ay is of a royal standard, although small, the proportions are correct. It was always thought that the tomb had not been used. Although first discovered back in the days of Belzoni, no real archeology had been carried out on this tomb until 1972 by a then quite young Ottoman Schaden, there in the debris was discovered the lid of a sacophagus, it was further found that the actual sacophagus was smashed to pieces in a very brutal action. Today as we now see this tomb we can easily observe that wherever we expect to see the cartouche of Ay it has been viciously attacked and removed in what can only be described as in a frenzied manner. It is interesting to note that neither a coffin or body has ever been found of the pharaoh Ay, therefore we can assume that this was desecrated if not shortly after his death, then certainly in antiquity.

It's perhaps interesting now as we leave this tomb, to pay a quick visit to Ay's successor Horemheb K.V. 57., why they place this king in the 18th Dynasty beggars belief, however as a general, we can easily see from his tomb that this man was quite uncomfortable, even after more than 20 years, as being pharaoh. He evidently fears his tomb and body may be destroyed, that perhaps befell his predecessor within Horemheb's own life time. The actual tomb itself, depicts 'the Book of Gates' upon one wall, this is the earliest representation, where even the pharaoh himself was subject to moral laws. In a small separate room, a wonderful depiction of Osiris, although a royal god, he was mostly associated with the 'common man'. Directly behind the sacophagus of Horemheb we see depicted on the wall, 'the Weighing of the Heart', which really was not required of a pharaoh. The most interesting thing about this tomb, is that, the moment it was realised this pharaoh was dead, work on it came to an abrupt end. It is possible to estimate quite accurately how many men were working at that moment, being 30. They say in Egypt, that generals who become kings, sooner or later become hated.

Finally, we now return to K.V.62, for almost one hundred years, tourist have been attracted to this tomb, many have read in detail about it long before they arrived in Egypt, they have looked in amazement at that box and the wall painting on the background, but one moment there is one thing here that is very interesting and most revealing. We see something that is rather unique in the Kings Valley, it is a scene depicting what is 'the opening of the mouth' ritual, a final act before the dead pharaoh is finally laid to rest. It is performed by a man dressed with a leopard skin wrapped around him, therefore the High Priest of Amoun, BUT, one moment, that's not all we learn about this man, he wears the Blue Crown, therefore is a royal pharaoh, above him is written ,......Pharaoh of Upper and Lower Egypt, Son of Ra,.......Ay. He must therefore be already married to Tutankhamoun's widow Ankhesenamun, to gain access to the Royal harem. How could all this be so before his predecessor is even buried in this tomb, let alone allowing the paint to dry, informing 'us' of this future event.

We now need to return to the man Maya, remember he was chief guardian of the Royal Necropolis, it is his seal that we find throughout this era, we know that he was still alive at year 8 of Horemheb's reign, so how come we find K.V. 62 treasures almost intact, for this we have to understand the loyalty of Maya and the humbleness of Horemheb. We also have to understand that flash floods were frequent, and the fact that in many places in the Valley today,the paths to the tombs are some 10 feet high than in the days of Tutankhamoun.

As we now bring our little story full circle, it is interesting to note that the tomb K.V. 62 is just over 50 feet from K.V. 55. As we look at the death mask of that not so great pharaoh in Cairo Museum,..............are we really seeing the face of Tutankhamoun.

A - Four.

[carrie]

Can't take all this in will have to read and re read, I have a question from part one though, the bones that were found in KV 55. They were sent off by Davis who believed them to be bones of Queen Tiy, on investigation they were found to be the bones not of an old woman therefore not Tiy, but those of a young man. Now Hawass decided that they were the bones of Ahkenhaten but I thought that Ahkenhaten didn't die a young man but was well into his 40's. Am I right so far? If so how old was Smenkhare when he died? Don't seem to be able to find out.

[newcastle]

Can't take all this in will have to read and re read, I have a question from part one though, the bones that were found in KV 55. They were sent off by Davis who believed them to be bones of Queen Tiy, on investigation they were found to be the bones not of an old woman therefore not Tiy, but those of a young man. Now Hawass decided that they were the bones of Ahkenhaten but I thought that Ahkenhaten didn't die a young man but was well into his 40's. Am I right so far? If so how old was Smenkhare when he died? Don't seem to be able to find out.

It's notoriously difficult to determine age with any great accuracy from bones once the growing period has passed....usually by the early twenties.....and even then. individuals differ in their bone development. The age of the bones in KV 55 has been the subject of argument ever since they were discovered. The archaeological evidence suggests Akhenaton would have been 40-ish at death and Smenkare probably younger. Beyond that you won't find much agreement amongst egyptologists. All you can say is that there's nothing about the bones that rules them out from belonging to either. At least it was possible to determine they belonged to a man

Incidentally, I referred earlier to DNA evidence confirming the mummy in KV55 as the father of Tutankhamun. I've realised this is a statement too far!! The DNA indicates a close relationship...it could equally be Tut's brother.

[A-Four]

First Carrie I check the way you spell the name Akhenaten, often by the way different people write this and other names in Egyptology, we usually detect which school of thought you belong, but as I have written on here before, it matters not how we spell the name or for that matter, how we pronounce them, which I find people have such a problem with at public lectures. The truth is none of the names as we call them today would be recognised by any of them.

Hawass brought about a new school of thought, that quickly became the 'authorised' version, argue with it, and you was not allowed to ever work in Egypt., even today many of the greats of Egyptology refuse to return 'even though the wicked witch is dead'. Always remember this subject is not a pure science.

It seems to me that even in 1910 you were regarded as middle-aged when in ones mid 40's.

[A-Four]

Sorry Carrie missed your main question, Smenkhkare.

He must have been in his late teens being that it is proved there was a co-regency, therefore Akhenaten was preparing his eldest son for the future, further more it lasted only a couple of years at the most.

Tutankhamoun would still have been regarded as a minor.

[carrie]

A Four please dont read anything into the way I spell anyone's name, I have no school of thought, I realise how little I know about Egyptology and this has given me the spur to learn more so thank you.
When the power situation allows I am now trawling different web sites to try to make sense of who is who and who married who. Sometimes I end up more confused than ever but hey ho might just know what every one is talking about one day.

[A-Four]

Believe me Carrie, use the internet only as a guide, you can not trust it for detailed information. It a little like the old Hollywood films if 'x' and 'y' were going to be in it, then it was well worth seeing, today's films actors are only as good as their last film, if you get my meaning.

Today you only have to put up Ay, and you will come across a certain women who lives on the WB, who's only reason for posting is so she can advertise her product,...........shame on her.

[Frater0082]

Very interesting

Its my belief that Tutankhamun took all the gold and riches from The original Amarna burial as the mask of Tutankhamun highly resembles the face of Queen Tiye It may have been molded a bit too look like him but that is her face.

The next coffin in which I believe to be the older man one is that of Akhenaten. And the last one is Smenkhare. Funny enough its kind of sort of in order of thier deaths but Smenkhare disappears before Akhenaten though. I don't even think KV55 is where Tut placed Akhenaten either, if he was the one that removed his body.

[Frater0082]

Can't take all this in will have to read and re read, I have a question from part though, the bones that were founof in KV 55. They were sent off by Davis who believed them to be bones of Queen Tiy, on investigation they were found to be the bones not of an old woman therefore not Tiy, but those of a young man. Now Hawass decided that they were the bones of Ahkenhaten but I thought that Ahkenhaten didn't die a young man but was well into his 40's. Am I right so far? If so how old was Smenkhare when he died? Don't seem to be able to find out.

He was some one arranged to marry Meritaten. According to her the Priest had something to do with his disappereance

Oh you got me so heavy on this subject. As of Smenkhare's age, think of him as two times Tut's age, which was probably 17 or 18, granted that this was still Akhenaten's era. Come to think of it he did look like a bigger version of Tut but that doesn't mean anything.

[newcastle]

A Four please dont read anything into the way I spell anyone's name, I have no school of thought, I realise how little I know about Egyptology and this has given me the spur to learn more so thank you.
When the power situation allows I am now trawling different web sites to try to make sense of who is who and who married who. Sometimes I end up more confused than ever but hey ho might just know what every one is talking about one day.

Carrie - Egyptology is a far from exact science. Over the span of 3,000 years we're concerned with, there is very little of it we can assert categorically.There are no absolutely certain dates and many relationships are asserted on the level of probabilities. In reality, most of the information on the pharoanic period is missing and egyptologists do their best to fill in the gaps based on reasonable inferences.

I find it quite irksome when people write that "so-and-so" did "this & that" ....as if it were a an incontrovertible fact. Egyptologists are undoubtedly the most argumentative bunch of people you're ever likely to come across.

New information & discoveries are turning up all the time, refining our knowledge - eliminating some hypotheses and creating new ones.

For these (and other) reasons I try to refrain from debate on any particular episode where someone has a "view" as to what happened. I might pick up on some inconsistency or, rarely. a factual error, but at the end of the day most views are tenable with varying degrees of probability.....and even the probabilities get argued over!

[newcastle]

A good example of the dangers in asserting something with any definiteness is A-Four's apparent belief that Ay married Tut's widow Ankhesenamun.

What archaeological evidence do we have? One glass ring bearing the prenomen of Ay & the cartouche of Ankhesenamun. This may be indicative of a marriage but is hardly "proof". There are many examples of artifacts bearing the cartouches of people who were not married! We have letters written by an Egyptian queen to the Hittite king, referring to her wish for him to send a son for her to marry and to rule Egypt, her own husband having died, she being without sons and mentioning "en passant" her desire not to have to marry a servant. Could this queen (who is not named) be Ankhesenamun and the servant, Ay? Quite possibly...it fits with a widely held picture. But did she marry Ay? Apart from the ring....?

Marrying Ankhesenamun would certainly have bolstered Ay's claim to the throne....does that constitute evidence that he did? Ay was the most powerful man in the kingdom, referred to himself as "God's Father"....and it seems there was no obvious alternate heir. There is some (slight) indication that Ay may have been the father of Nefertiti and a brother of Queen Tiye (wife of Amenhotep III). Such a powerful courtier could have stepped into the line of succession without further ado. To seal his position he had himself portrayed on the wall of KV62 performing the opening of the mouth ceremony....usually the prerogative of the heir. So the evidence that Ay actually married Ankhesenamun is scant....personally I think the scenario unlikely (for a variety of reasons I won't bore you with)....but maybe he did!

[Frater0082]

Keep in my the body of Meketaten is missing too and I now wonder....what if the mummy found in kv35 between Tiye and Nefertiti is not Tutmosis but instead Meketaten

The mummy is the right age for it to be her and there is no clear evidence that the body is a boy what if this mummy is Meketaten.

Now that I mention it suppose we assume that this is Tutmosis one may have to ask where was he originally buried? where is his tomb? because I'm sure he had one. It makes no sense to assume that, that mummy is Tutmosis or Wenebsu, the son of Amenhotep II.

Why didn't they include this mummy in the DNA analysis. A number of information could've stemmed from her or him.

[newcastle]

Keep in my the body of Meketaten is missing too and I now wonder....what if the mummy found in kv35 between Tiye and Nefertiti is not Tutmosis but instead Meketaten

The mummy is the right age for it to be her and there is no clear evidence that the body is a boy what if this mummy is Meketaten.

Now that I mention it suppose we assume that this is Tutmosis one may have to ask where was he originally buried? where is his tomb? because I'm sure he had one. It makes no sense to assume that, that mummy is Tutmosis or Wenebsu, the son of Amenhotep II.

Why didn't they include this mummy in the DNA analysis. A number of information could've stemmed from her or him.

Getting silly now Frater

The mummy to which you refer has an uncircumsised penis! I'd say that was pretty clear evidence that it's male

[carrie]

Frater I admire your knowledge of ancient Egypt, but can you please make it clear in your posts that which there is some evidence for and that which someone told you. I really am trying to understand.

[A-Four]

A good example of the dangers in asserting something with any definiteness is A-Four's apparent belief that Ay married Tut's widow Ankhesenamun.

I do see your point here Newcastle, and you and I could discuss this at a higher level, but I want others to understand a straight forward system. So, I will simply say that when her husband died, she still remained the Great Wife of the Harem, and as we all know, the seed (or egg, as we would call it today) was kept within what must have been a very rigid, jealous and incestuous harem.

Ay must have married this great wife, and if not, how come we see his royal titles, within a tomb that has been sealed for over three thousand years. Horumheb who reigned for, I think 28 years, had no children, therefore, that is why I suggested that he really has no right to be part of the 18th Dynasty.

[newcastle]

A good example of the dangers in asserting something with any definiteness is A-Four's apparent belief that Ay married Tut's widow Ankhesenamun.

I do see your point here Newcastle, and you and I could discuss this at a higher level, but I want others to understand a straight forward system. So, I will simply say that when her husband died, she still remained the Great Wife of the Harem, and as we all know, the seed (or egg, as we would call it today) was kept within what must have been a very rigid, jealous and incestuous harem.

Ay must have married this great wife, and if not, how come we see his royal titles, within a tomb that has been sealed for over three thousand years. Horumheb who reigned for, I think 28 years, had no children, therefore, that is why I suggested that he really has no right to be part of the 18th Dynasty.

I've never heard of your concept of the role of widow of a deceased pharoah in the harem....or any obligation on the heir to marry her...or whatever you're saying (don't really follow it all). What have the cartouches of Ay in KV62 got to do with this? They are there to identify him...no more, no less....as pharoah.

Horemheb may have had royal connections via his wife Mutnodjmet who may have been a sister of Nefertiti. A marriage to a royal lady was good enough to legitimise Tuthmosis I (whose ancestry is undetermined) For practical reasons it's sensible to stick Horemheb in 18th rather than have him in a separate dynasty all by himself.There was no break in the bloodline between the 17th & 18th dynasties for that matter. I wouldn't make too much of it. I think we're stuck with the dynasty terminology now.

And the problem with "simplifying" matters by presenting supposition as fact is that it is more likely to confuse the less-learned when they see apparently contradictory "facts" being spouted by so-called egyptologists. Whom do they believe?

[Frater0082]

Well at least we can all agree on one thing I too believe that Horemheb is in a league of his own and therefore should be dated to the 19th dynasty

[A-Four]

There would be no obligation for Ay to marry the widow of Tutankhamoun, but would be expected to marry with-in the harem, where the 'seed' of the future heir of the pharaoh (god on earth) would be held, but then again the widow would have been the best product, and certainly cancel out any rebellion in the harem, ( which as some will remember occurred in the reign of Ram III. This is why she sought a prince from another land, so that he (being of a royal blood line) would marry the great wife, and thus fertilise the seed of a future Pharaoh, or for that matter, any woman within the harem. The problem with Ay is that he was a commoner

With regards Horumheb, who like his successor were generals of the army, it would have been most unlikely that he at that time could have been married to a princess of the harem. I believe he had no ambition of being part of the old Dynasty, or for that matter wanting to be at the start of next Dynasty.

These days we have only the evidence of archeology, and even the books of the past 20 years or, can lead many astray. It is very difficult to find the books of the old diggers these day, and even more so to get hold of reports and the many important photographs, especially the one that were not published. Today they are far more important that was thought at that time.

[newcastle]

Well at least we can all agree on one thing I too believe that Horemheb is in a league of his own and therefore should be dated to the 19th dynasty

Hardly!

What will you do with Ramesses I and his successors who were unrelated to Horemheb?

If you call Horemheb the 19th dynasty then you'd have to renumber all the succeeding ones.

[newcastle]

A-four :Let's say we differ in opinion on the importance or relevance of the harem post the demise of Tutankhamun.

The apparent long "interregnum" between Tut's death & burial was probably full of intrigue...I doubt we'll ever know the full & accurate story.

Which reminds me You were going to elucidate on the "Tut was buried in KV23" statement you made elsewhere.