Posted by Kate Phizackerley on Thursday, June 10, 2010

(Videos don't fit well into the available width so you may prefer to watch on YouTube.)

There is cut scene commentary (like on the old silent movies) but that doesn't detract from this great video about the creation of 3D replica of Tutankhamun's mummy for the exhibition in New York - his real body is of course still in his Valley of the Kings' tomb.

I am not a fan of replicas but this looks significantly better than most and is probably worthwhile, although whether it is ethical to copy somebody's body for public display is a separate issue.


tim said...

Hi Kate

This I love and believe that all of the royal mummies should be recreated but hopefully in materials that will last centuries.

I could not help but notice a couple of years back that when Unknown man "E" was put out for Bob Brier that under the mummies head was a considerable amount of debris which had apparently become detached from that mummy.

I would love to see long lasting replicas of all the mummies so that as the centuries pass we can look back at the condition they were in in 2010 and assess what their conditions in the distant future.

Stephanie said...

Interesting video, and I think that from the moral point of view all the mummies currently displayed anywhere should be replaced by replicas. Who would want for himself that his/her mortal remains are displayed to the public and being stared at by anyone? Certainly it is not just me who feels this way.
Besides as already pointed out it is a way to preserve the current looks of a mummie for longer because I think that a real mummy unevitably deteriorates even when
kept under the best possible conditions.

Stuart Tyler said...

Mixed views, so it would seem.

A replica of Tutankhamun's body is also on show in the UK- at Highclere Castle.

I was very impressed as even a trip to the VOK will only give you a "fairly close" view of his remains inside a contained sarcophagus.

I support Tim's comments that all royal mummies should be replicated. It would prove a valuable study source for centuries (providing the correct amount of care is taken to not harm the condition of the already very fragile mummies known to us).

Marianne Luban said...

I am not a big fan of making replicas of dead bodies. For me, it lacks a certain respect to turn a human being, albeit deceased, into an object for people to view. It is not the same as viewing the actual decedant, which is rather awe-inspiring given that the person lived thousands of years ago. A real privilege to look upon them.

But here's something else. When I was viewing the little babies from Tut's tomb on the documentary [one never got to see them for very long], the larger one appeared to have something on its head. Was it hair? At any rate, we must also consider that, if Tut was the father of the children, Ankhesenamun was not necessarily the mother, although that could, of course, be determined as she was his close relative. Another wife for Tut? Not unlikely at all.

See here:

Stephanie said...

When examined by Dr. Derry the larger foetus was indeed said to have some downy hair as well as eyebrows and eyelashes. But due to deterioration all of this seems to have disappeared. I think what we see now is rather part of the stuffing which protrudes through the broken skull.
Having read Marianne`s post regarding another wife for Tut I say that it is quite likely that one or another was added to the royal harem as this was the custom.
It has already been suggested (first by Desroches-Noblecourt and by others) that another lady who is also depicted in Huy`s tomb could have become a further wife for the king. She is a dark-skinned lady who rides in a cattle-drawn chariot and is dressed in a fine egyptian-style robe and heavily adorned.
The one suggested by Marianne could just as well have been intended for the royal harem, and maybe even both of them shared this "fate"!

Anyway, secondary wives or not, I still believe that the babies were Ankhesenamun`s due to the great care and respect they were treated with.
It does not pose a problem for me either that the genetic data of their supposed parents does not suggest a first degree relationship between them (the parents), at least not to me.
If Tut was Semenkhkare`s son he would not have been Ankhi`s brother but her cousin and, depending on Tut`s own mother, maybe her nephew too.

Anyway I`m longing for the release of more and maybe more accurate information from the DNA labs.

Marianne Luban said...

Stephanie, I think it is just the same lady in the tomb of Amenhotep, depicted more than once. I have seen the scene you refer to but didn't have a copy for my blog. At any rate, she is as gorgeously dressed and bejeweled as an Egyptian queen and seems quite important. No wonder Tut's burial was so lavish with gold--this marriage probably guaranteed him easy access to it.

Stephanie said...

We should not forget though that it is by no means certain that Tut married a Nubian lady, and I do not think that he needed to for access to Nubia`s gold.
He had placed a loyal and hardworking viceroy there who seems to have succeeded in gathering the riches of Nubia before the alleged marriage to a Nubian princess all of which is given to him (Tut) as tribute.
But I admit a marriage might have been arranged to establish friendly relationships with certain Nubian tribes as there is evidence that some sort of upheaval was put down by the Egyptian army at this time. This would then in turn have made the viceroy`s work a lot easier.
BTW I note that this thread of comments has nearly turned into a discussion forum. I hope nobody minds!

Marianne Luban said...

Stephanie, if you do not feel certain that this Kushite lady was included among the "tribute" for Tutankhamun, what would you say was the purpose in depicting her so prominently in this tomb? It was not unusual for foreign women to be given to the king of Egypt.

Kate Phizackerley said...

Stephanie,I encourage discussion and I've been followng the exchange with great interest.

Stephanie said...

Thank you Kate and Marianne for following and discussing this topic. I just want to add that I am not opposed to the idea that there may have been additional wives and that one of them may have been depicted in this tomb, but there is no certainty.

One thing has always disturbed me: That none of the suggested ladies is labelled by name and maybe with the title "King`s wife". Wouldn`t they have deserved to be distinguished from the rest of the "tribute" if they were just about to become King`s wife, even if it was just as a minor wife?

tim said...

Hi Kate

Even a secondary wife can dream to upstage the queen bee and as a result it might not be to wise to allow the ladies of the Harem too much publicity as to risk interference of the central ruling line.

I would expect also that by nature a secondary wife would have fewer monuments to start off with including small wooden statues of themselves that may have long decayed.

Even perhaps in a courtiers tomb the presence of the names of secondary wives may undermine the Kings great wife and risk the succession of the crown prince.

Marianne Luban said...

The status of the foreign lady is indicated by her gorgeous costume and the fact that she is shown alone, both in her ox cart and standing freely. All the other foreigners are shown in groups or in pairs. Since this is a scene of tribute, the existing caption is just right, since "the children [msw] of a great one of Kush" are a part of this tribute. The tomb belongs to the Viceroy of Kush and you can well believe it contains a scene of a great day in his life--the day the lady came to be the wife of his lord or there would be no point in depicting her at all. Or at least those here who require some greater proof have so far offered no alternative suggestion. This scene, as far as I am aware, is unique, but there is a parallel in writing--on what is called the Marriage Scarab of Amenhotep III. There only the Great Royal Wife, Tiye, has a title, but the coming of the foreign wife is the purpose of the inscription. "...a wonderful thing they brought to His Majesty, the daughter of the prince of Naharin, Satarna, Gilukipa, and the chief women of her entourage."

That is all. There is no proof that Amenhotep III ever had anything to do with this girl and nowhere is she depicted. All one gets is the intent--and the very same thing is shown in the tomb of Amenhotep.


Admin Control Panel