Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,141
Bendigo
Citing Wikipedia. KV55.
KVC

“Three days before the discovery of KV55, Ayrton uncovered a recess in the rock (now designated as KVC) located immediately above the entrance to KV55 and containing jars of 20th dynasty type.[15] This recess may have been an unfinished tomb commencement, and its content may be analogous to the embalming cache found in KV54, but because the find was never properly published, the precise nature of its contents, the date of the jars, and its relation (if any) to KV55 are now unclear.[15][16][17]

This is not evidence to base any case on, sorry. If this is all the evidence there is for a 20th dynasty entry of KV55, then it is no evidence at all.

I’ll stick with Stephen Cross. Unless something more can be presented. I mean evidence. Not just Egyptologists ‘stating’ the tomb was entered in the 20th dynasty, no matter how elaborate and lucid their fantasy reconstructions are.

So, who entered KV55 in the early part of Ay’s Reign? Who removed Tiye (and where did they put her)? Who consigned Akhenaten to eternal nothingness by removing his name, and mocked him while doing so by bending a pectoral (collar) around his head to make him a mockery-Queen, shuffled hieroglyphs on his coffin so they made no sense (Sir Alan Gardiner states the hieroglyphs were put on the coffin and they made no sense: poor workmanship or a nasty joke?), disposed of his penis (an insult to any man’s memory, Ancient or modern), and maybe dropped a rock on his face? Ay would seem to have had something to do with it. Or someone in his reign whether he knew about it or not.

I do not suggest btw that my answers have to be ‘the’ answer. But this is where my mind is leaning at the moment. And if I speak as if I ‘know’, really, I am just enthusiastically putting forth my thoughts. They change readily and often. So I am not fixed totally to anything.
 
Mar 2019
220
Peterborough, Ontario Canada
I think it's a hypothesis related with the content of KVC [Jars which look from 20th dynasty]. From what I can learn around, the tomb got resealed in a not perfect way.
Read this book (attached) and the excavations by Lyla Pitch Brock.

Reeves also discusses the re-entry during the excavations for Ramesses IX’s KV6 here:

The Enduring Mystery of KV55 (1997)
 

Attachments

Nov 2016
761
Germany
But certainly one gets the sense that Nefertiti was very special from the beginning
Nefertiti was supremely confident and influential from the beginning.
I would like to break down the religious significance attributed to Nefertiti as Akhenaten's wife in order to give a clearer picture of her deified status that far surpasses the corresponding status of any other royal woman before and after her. To get a deeper understanding of this, one must go back a long way in the history of religion.

From the beginning, the decisive criterion for divinity was the capacity of fertility, which, according to a widespread opinion that can hardly be refuted, was attributed exclusively to women in Palaeolithic times, whereas man's contribution to reproduction was most probably only recognized in the Neolithic (in the context of cattle breeding). The consequence was that the first prototypes of deities had a female gender (the so-called Primal Mother) and, like their earthly models, the human women, were considered capable of parthenogenesis, i.e. fertility without male contribution.

When the first male gods appeared in the Neolithic, they were, according to the above logic, pure fertility gods symbolized either as bulls or, if anthropomorphic, in ithyphallic manner (erect phallus). The Egyptian god Min, who goes back to this archaic type of god, is a well-known example of this. Still Yuya, the founder of the Yuya House and father of Queen Tiye (and probably of Ay), was a Min priest in Akhmim, where Min was the dominant god.

The oldest Egyptian goddesses known to us, Neith and Hathor, go back to the parthenogenetic Primal mother type, i.e. they originally have no husband and produce their offspring out of themselves (Horus, son of Hathor = Hat-Hor = house/womb of Horus). The oldest historically handed down goddess (since Dynasty I) is Neith, who was worshipped as creator of the world and mother of the sun god Ra. In our context the goddess Hathor plays a special role, because she was as mother of the king god Horus and also of the sun god Ra closely connected with the pharaonic ideology. As the mother of Horus, she was automatically regarded as the divine mother of the pharaoh identified with Horus.

In her first years as queen Nefertiti wore a headdress made of cow horns and a sun disk (symbols of Hathor) and feathers. The first queen with a Hathor headdress was Tiye, the mother-in-law (or mother?) of Nefertiti. This is a further indication for the assumption that Nefertiti - especially since she was very young at the beginning of her queenship - was ideologically controlled by the king mother Tiye, which becomes even more understandable when one interprets her as the daughter of Tije (and sister of Akhenaten), as for example Marianne Luban does, who doubts the genetic findings of 2010 (Nefertiti & Akhenaten = cousins) as understated. But no matter whether daughter of Tije or, as daughter of Ay, a niece of Tiye, Nefertiti remains a scion of the house Yuya and thus, as I still believe, an important instrument of this house for the acquisition of the royal power in Egypt, which Nefertiti then (possibly) fully exercised after Akhenaten's death for a few years and which Ay also nailed down after the Tutankhamun reign for three years.

But the actual point of Nefertiti's divine status lies elsewhere, namely in her identification with the goddess Tefnut, who followed her identification with Hathor and is of much greater importance because of its connection with the Aten cult.

The first beginnings of an Aten cult date back to the time of the Middle Kingdom. In the New Kingdom some predecessors of Amenhotep III took up the idea and developed it further. Amenhotep III then had the first actual temple of Aten built and appointed priests who specialized in the cult. As an epithet, Amenhotep III chose the name ´Dazzling Aten´. So it is clear that the Aten cult was already strongly pronounced before Akhenaten got the opportunity to imprint his own note on it.

Amenhotep III´s emphasis on the Aten cult had also (or predominantly?) power-political reasons. The Amun priesthood had accumulated so much wealth in his eyes that it seemed advisable to put an alternative cult in the foreground in order to cut the ground from under Amun´s feet (i.e. of his priests). For this purpose the Aten cult seemed suitable. In order to understand how this cult is related to Nefertiti's Tefnut identification, it is again necessary to go back in religious history.

Since the time of the Old Kingdom, there have been two important creation myths that have rivalled each other: the story of the Ogdoad and of the Ennead. In short, the Hermopolian Ogdoad consists of eight primordial gods who bring forth the sun god Ra. In the Heliopolitan Ennead the god Atum is the only primal god who brings forth the other gods .The first pair of gods created from Atum´s seed by masturbation are the air god Shu and the fire goddess Tefnut. For a long time it was assumed that Tefnut was associated with humidity, but now the view is established that Tefnut was originally a goddess of fire. The following generation of gods, produced by the siblings Shu and Tefnut, are the earth god Geb and the sky god Nut, which in turn produce the four deities Osiris, Isis, Nephthys and Isis.

I would just like to briefly point out that Atum, as a single-procreating primordial god, is a patriarchal inversion of the older motif of the single-procreating mother goddess. The priesthood of the myth poets could not help but describe this process of procreation as masturbation. For our connection with Nefertiti, however, the composition of his offspring, Shu and Tefnut, is decisive.

The missing link from this construction to the Aten cult is the merging of the gods Atum (Ennead) and Ra (Ogoad) to Atum-Ra, as shown in the pyramid texts. Thus the father of Shu and Tefnut got a solar aspect, and Tefnut could be interpreted and worshipped as the daughter of the sun god, which opened the way to the cult around Aten and his children Shu and Tefnut, as it was practiced by Akhenaten during his reign.

It is unclear whether Amenhotep III or Akhenaten introduced this triadic cult. Followers of the co-regency theory naturally believe that it was Amenhotep III who, in his identification with Aten, included his son and the princess Nefertiti as Shu and Tefnut in the cult. Sceptics at the co-regency attribute this idea to Akhenaten. I assume that the latter is the case, whereby the idea could also have come from Tije, who probably pulled the strings in the first years of Akhenaten's reign. That there was a cult in the royal house around the triad Aten = father / Shu = Akhenaten / Tefnut = Nefertiti is undisputed in professional literature. The well-known family scenes are not official representations of this cult, but I think they clearly reflect it:

1560862638608.jpeg

Akhenaten has revered the Aten as his "father" ("As my father the Aten lives, I shall make Akhetaten for the Aten my father in this place" and many more examples). Now, inscriptions show that Amenhotep III was identified with the Aten (e.g. as "dazzling Aten of all lands"). Akhenaten himself never went that far, he always saw himself ´only´ as son of the Aten. From this one can easily conclude that Akhenaten's Aten cult contained a lot of father worship, which perhaps even formed the main motive of his allegedly religiously motivated revolution. From a psychoanalytical point of view, it comes as no surprise that this paternal love was closely linked to a paternal hatred that showed up in Akhenaten's angry campaign against the Amun cult, as he must still have associated Amun with his father. As is well known, Akhenaton is never seen as a child in portrayals together with his father, and most likely felt despised by his father, possibly because of his physical abnormality, which is not certain, however, as the images may also have a stylistic background.

In any case, since Karl Abraham's findings in 1912, the theory that Akhenaten's Aten love and Amun hatred are symptoms of his ambivalent fatherly relationship has established: According to that, Akhenaten projected the father love on Aten and the hatred of his father on Amun, whereby this hatred was so deep that Amenhotep III´s own distancing from Amun did not even carry any weight, the decisive factor was probably that the hated father carried the name of the god in his name (Amenhotep = Amun is satisfied), which is unconsciously enough to identify the father with Amun.

But back to Nefertiti:

As Tefnut she represented now in the royal ideology the only female deity, as far as all other goddesses were eliminated, at least in the context of the royal cult. Moreover, with Akhenaten=Shu, her mythological brother, she formed the only link between the Creator and Sustainer of the world, the Father Aten, and humanity or the people of Egypt. Normal people were denied in this construct the right to turn directly to Aten, just as they had been able to turn to other gods to express personal concerns. Instead, it was the royal couple who were to be worshipped by humans as gods and who formed the medium through which the power and goodness of the Aten benefited humans. Of course, this construct was only minimally accepted by the people, although there were some who were able to come to this belief.

Be that as it may, the importance of Nefertiti in this construct was enormous, since practically all goddesses who populated the Egyptian world of gods condensed in her. She alone represented the feminine cosmological principle, even more than Akhenaten represented the masculine principle, since as the son of the almighty Father Aten, he had to share the representation of the masculine principle with his father.

In this view she surpassed Akhenaten in religious significance.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Corvidius

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,141
Bendigo
Read this book (attached) and the excavations by Lyla Pitch Brock.

Reeves also discusses the re-entry during the excavations for Ramesses IX’s KV6 here:

The Enduring Mystery of KV55 (1997)
I have re-read the Reeves article again. He states that workers in the tomb did not finish a chamber and he speculates it was because they heard a hollow sound which indicated another tomb and that they stopped work and would have gone and investigated.

I am just not convinced this is a great explanation, but I am limited in my own guesses because I have found no photographs of the unfinished chamber. In the Wikipedia article four chambers are mentioned which are undecorated and unfinished (according to the Wikipedia entry). Without seeing photographs, it impossible for me to know exactly what Reeves or the wiki writer are actually describing. There are descriptions of other chambers too in the Wikipedia article. So I am at a loss to know exactly which chamber would be in close enough proximity to KV6 to be the chamber Reeves mentions. My concern would be, how long did the workers chip away in the chamber Reeves mentions before they started getting the hollow sound? How much of the chamber was excavated before it became clear that there was a substantial hollow space on the other side, indicating a tomb? How much Stone was removed from the chamber before the workers could tell that there was substantial reason to stop excavating?

Tombs, from my understanding are rarely or never completely finished, for all sorts of reasons. So when a chamber or tunnel stops being worked on may not be for any other reason than it was time to entomb the relevant pharaoh.

Where the hollow sound was heard (citing Reeves) was not, I am guessing, near the mouth of the entry tunnel of KV55. So I would imagine it would have been a major undertaking to locate the entrance of the tomb, due to the layer of flood cemented debris that concealed KV55, KV62 and KV63. Where to start looking?

Maybe Reeves is right, and the workers stopped working because of concerns of breaking into a nearby tomb. I have read somewhere about this actually happening in one of the VoK tombs, but not off hand which one. My problem would be the workers deciding to spend time finding the mouth of KV55, I am purely guessing, searching for an unknown ‘void’ to them, likely a tomb to them, then doing the large amount of work to go dig into it, having no idea what lay within? A cache? An unused tomb? An unfinished tomb? A host of treasure? It would be a gamble IMO. Take a lot of time all up. Tomb raiders, if they got wind of it, might well put the time in, but would official tomb workers know a need to search for, find and and explore an unknown tomb? To open a tomb for curiousity by officials would seem the wrong thing to do. Not sure.

Anyway, just my two bits worth. I will keep searching.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,187
Italy, Lago Maggiore
I've found the article written by Gardiner, on the Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology, about the famous graffito of Pawah in the tomb of Pere. [Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology Vol.14 : The Egypt Exploration Fund : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive].

As you can see the graffito is well longer than what usually is mentioned. Gardiner is enough kind to transliterate the hieratic inscription in good hieroglyphics. So it's more easy to read it. This means that we can compare the translation offered by Gardiner with what we see [here you can read Gardiner's translation Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology Vol.14 : The Egypt Exploration Fund : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive].
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,141
Bendigo
I've found the article written by Gardiner, on the Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology, about the famous graffito of Pawah in the tomb of Pere. [Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology Vol.14 : The Egypt Exploration Fund : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive].

As you can see the graffito is well longer than what usually is mentioned. Gardiner is enough kind to transliterate the hieratic inscription in good hieroglyphics. So it's more easy to read it. This means that we can compare the translation offered by Gardiner with what we see [here you can read Gardiner's translation Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology Vol.14 : The Egypt Exploration Fund : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive].
When I read the translation, I was struck by the phrase ‘House of Ankhkheperure’. Is that linked to the idea of ‘Great House’ (from memory) meaning ‘horo? I only ask because it crossed my mind that maybe this phrase might signify Ankhkheperure as being sole rule, though still reminding of her entitlement to be horo when citing her connection to Akhenaten?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,187
Italy, Lago Maggiore
When I read the translation, I was struck by the phrase ‘House of Ankhkheperure’. Is that linked to the idea of ‘Great House’ (from memory) meaning ‘horo.’ I only ask because it crossed my mind that maybe this phrase might signify Ankhkheperure as being sole rule, though still reminding of her entitlement to be horo when citing her connection to Akhenaten?
No, not in that way. But, where is Akhenaten? Two persons talk about the House of Ankhkheperure giving to it a pivotal importance ... totally ignoring Akhenaten.

I don't think this was advisable if Akhenaten was still alive.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,141
Bendigo
I
No, not in that way. But, where is Akhenaten? Two persons talk about the House of Ankhkheperure giving to it a pivotal importance ... totally ignoring Akhenaten.

I don't think this was advisable if Akhenaten was still alive.
Thanks for that. Yes, something about that inscription suddenly made me wonder again if Ankhkheperure was acting alone because she was alone. Can’t put my finger on it, just a feeling.


On the issue of the 20th dynasty entry into KV55, I have hit a brick wall. I believe that there may be some chance that after the workers suspected a tomb lay in close proximinity to KV9 (Reeves), an entry was made into KV55 entering the tomb between the first and second wall in its tunnel of KV55 initially. Subsequently, both walls had openings made in them and whatever was removed from the tomb was taken out. I just can’t find anything to confirm this occurred. I know Brock made a second excavation of the tomb but I cannot access her account anywhere on the net so can’t find out of it was her who made this discovery. Reeves does not mention an entry but not where it was made. I presumed he meant the tomb entrance. Can anyone point me to where I can find the account of the first entry between the two walls in the tunnel? I am going back through many articles but have drawn a blank so far.

Edit:
Wikipedia under KV55.
“KVC Three days before the discovery of KV55, Ayrton uncovered a recess in the rock (now designated as KVC) located immediately above the entrance to KV55 and containing jars of 20th dynasty type.[15] This recess may have been an unfinished tomb commencement, and its content may be analogous to the embalming cache found in KV54, but because the find was never properly published, the precise nature of its contents, the date of the jars, and its relation (if any) to KV55 are now unclear.[15][16][17]”

This is a reference to the 20th dynasty, but not direct evidence of an entry to KV55 IMO. This cache lay above the tomb entrance. A recess in the rock. I guess they mean solid rock. Three days later the actual tomb entrance is found. Sadly, there does not appear to be any description of the state of flood debris, which from memory, was a substantial layer. No mention if there had been an ancient disturbance to the 200 year old flood layer debris burying the tomb entrance.


Nicholas Reeves: The Enduring Mystery of KV55
“The condition in which Davis discovered KV 55 was clearly not the condition in which this reburial had been left at the end of the 18th Dynasty. As the blocking evidence shows, the tomb had subsequently been entered, though not, apparently, by robbers. But when? The answer is suggested by a curious feature in the tomb of Ramesses IX, KV6. During the quarrying of the south-west side-room of this tomb, which directly overlies the principal chamber of KV55, work had been brought to an abrupt halt. Why? The answer, we may reasonably guess, is that the rock had begun to sound hollow, drawing the stone-cutters’ attention to the presence of the forgotten KV55 below; in order to avoid breaking through into an earlier chamber and compromising the security of KV6, tools were evidently downed for the workers to explore.”

The entry point cannot be where the hollow noises were, directly above the burial chamber of KV55. I have two guesses, the entry was made either from KV9 down between the two walls in the tunnel, as is one theory I encountered, or through the entrance of the tomb. If down between the two walls in KV55 tunnel, I wonder what brought the 20th dynasty excavators to dig just there? And wouldn’t there be an anomaly in the floor of KV9 between solid rock and whatever material the hole was filled with when the hole in the floor (?) of KV9 was refilled? This does not seem a good explanation to me. The entrance to the tomb seems to be the best option. But by anyone from the 20th dynasty is not all confirmed IMO. I still trust Stephen Cross on this. But... is there more to this that I can’t find at the moment?
 
Last edited:

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,141
Bendigo
This post is kind of ‘off thread’, even though, at a deeper level, it’s very relevant to to the whole issue of inquiry in my view.

I have had cause in the last day to stop and take a long look at myself and how I conduct myself. Which is IMO not a bad thing to do now and then. Anyhow, in doing a bit of research - rather than relying too heavily on my own inner workings - I found this really fascinating talk. And, yes, I see myself as both soldier and scout. If anyone cares to watch the YouTube clip I cite below, you’ll understand what I mean.

TEDx talk: Why you think you’re right - even when you’re wrong - Julia Galef.
 
Likes: Kyla
Mar 2019
220
Peterborough, Ontario Canada
I


Thanks for that. Yes, something about that inscription suddenly made me wonder again if Ankhkheperure was acting alone because she was alone. Can’t put my finger on it, just a feeling.


On the issue of the 20th dynasty entry into KV55, I have hit a brick wall. I believe that there may be some chance that after the workers suspected a tomb lay in close proximinity to KV9 (Reeves), an entry was made into KV55 entering the tomb between the first and second wall in its tunnel of KV55 initially. Subsequently, both walls had openings made in them and whatever was removed from the tomb was taken out. I just can’t find anything to confirm this occurred. I know Brock made a second excavation of the tomb but I cannot access her account anywhere on the net so can’t find out of it was her who made this discovery. Reeves does not mention an entry but not where it was made. I presumed he meant the tomb entrance. Can anyone point me to where I can find the account of the first entry between the two walls in the tunnel? I am going back through many articles but have drawn a blank so far.

Edit:
Wikipedia under KV55.
“KVC Three days before the discovery of KV55, Ayrton uncovered a recess in the rock (now designated as KVC) located immediately above the entrance to KV55 and containing jars of 20th dynasty type.[15] This recess may have been an unfinished tomb commencement, and its content may be analogous to the embalming cache found in KV54, but because the find was never properly published, the precise nature of its contents, the date of the jars, and its relation (if any) to KV55 are now unclear.[15][16][17]”

This is a reference to the 20th dynasty, but not direct evidence of an entry to KV55 IMO. This cache lay above the tomb entrance. A recess in the rock. I guess they mean solid rock. Three days later the actual tomb entrance is found. Sadly, there does not appear to be any description of the state of flood debris, which from memory, was a substantial layer. No mention if there had been an ancient disturbance to the 200 year old flood layer debris burying the tomb entrance.


Nicholas Reeves: The Enduring Mystery of KV55
“The condition in which Davis discovered KV 55 was clearly not the condition in which this reburial had been left at the end of the 18th Dynasty. As the blocking evidence shows, the tomb had subsequently been entered, though not, apparently, by robbers. But when? The answer is suggested by a curious feature in the tomb of Ramesses IX, KV6. During the quarrying of the south-west side-room of this tomb, which directly overlies the principal chamber of KV55, work had been brought to an abrupt halt. Why? The answer, we may reasonably guess, is that the rock had begun to sound hollow, drawing the stone-cutters’ attention to the presence of the forgotten KV55 below; in order to avoid breaking through into an earlier chamber and compromising the security of KV6, tools were evidently downed for the workers to explore.”

The entry point cannot be where the hollow noises were, directly above the burial chamber of KV55. I have two guesses, the entry was made either from KV9 down between the two walls in the tunnel, as is one theory I encountered, or through the entrance of the tomb. If down between the two walls in KV55 tunnel, I wonder what brought the 20th dynasty excavators to dig just there? And wouldn’t there be an anomaly in the floor of KV9 between solid rock and whatever material the hole was filled with when the hole in the floor (?) of KV9 was refilled? This does not seem a good explanation to me. The entrance to the tomb seems to be the best option. But by anyone from the 20th dynasty is not all confirmed IMO. I still trust Stephen Cross on this. But... is there more to this that I can’t find at the moment?
1. Bell’s Armchair investigation that we’ve discussed previously mentions the entry (pertinent pages attached below);
2. Paul Nicholson and Caroline Jackson’s, “Glass of Amenhotep II from Tomb KV55 in the Valley of the Kings,” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 99 (2013), pp. 85-99, mentions on page 87 the accidental discovery of the KV55 by the workman carving Ramesses IX’s tomb directly above KV55, and it is maintained at this time the tomb’s contents are defaced (an article by Dennis Forbes in KMT entitled the Phantom Pharoah is cited in the footnote as mentioning the surmised priests involved in the defacement);
3. Dennis Forbes’ Tombs, Treasures, Mummies: The Tomb of Yuya and Thuya (KV46) and the Amarna Cache (KV55) discusses everything at length and contains photos of the tomb not illustrated in other publications I’ve yet come across, however, the discussion of the two walls where the second had been partly pulled down in antiquity and not built up again is on p 132-133. Apparently much of the confusion is due to Weigel glossing over the crumbled second wall which Davies and Emma Andrews both insist was there and was photographed (photos presumed lost but Aryton’s excavation report aptly records the crumbled second wall, and that it was ‘apparent to those present that this fill was purposely deposited and not flood borne...’ (see attached pages).
4. The excavation reports pertinent to the above issues that interest you are:
1996 Lyla Pinch-Brock, "The Theban Flood of 1994 and the Case of KV55," IUBILATE CONLEGAE; Studies in Memory of Abdel Aziz Sadek, Charles Van Sicklen (ed), Part II, Varia Aegyptiaca II, no. 1, (April 1996), pp.1–16.
1999 Lyla Pinch-Brock, The Real Location of KV 'C'? The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
Vol. 85 (1999), pp. 223-226
1995 Lyla Pinch-Brock, "Theodore Davis and the Rediscovery of KV55," in Valley of the Sun Kings, Richard Wilkinson, Editor, University of Arizona, Tucson, pp.34–46.
2013, Lyla Pinch Brock, "Shooting in KV55; New Light on Early Photography," Papers in Honor of Richard H.Wilkinson, P.P. Creasman, ed., University of Arizona, Arizona, NM, pp. 241–254.
2012 L. Pinch-Brock, "The Pottery from the So-Called 'Tomb of Queen Tiye,' Bulletin de Liaison de La Ceramique Egyptienne 23, Institute Francais d'archeologie orientale, Le Caire, 2012, pp.195-208.
2000 Lyla Pinch-Brock, "An Unpublished Photograph of KV55," Gottingen Miszellen, no. 175 (2000) pp. 65–69.
1997 L.P. Brock, "The Final Clearance of KV 55," in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East. Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell, J. Phillips, L. Bell, and B.B. Williams, with J. Hoch and R. Leprohon, (eds), (San Antonio, 1997), vol. I, pp. 121–136.
 

Attachments

Similar History Discussions