Talk:Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun

Image copyright

I'm uncertain about the copyright of some images in the article, as well as some that I would like to include. All the photos that I've used in this article were taken in 1925 or earlier (obviously aside from the recent, user-uploaded photo of the mask), but although they're all found on Commons, which labels them as public domain, I'm not so certain in some cases. Photos by Burton that were published in the first volume of The Tomb of Tut.ankh.Amen are all right, because it was published in 1923 and is therefore public domain. But ones that were published in the second volume in 1927, such as File:Tuts Tomb Opened.JPG and File:Howard Carter opening mummy of King Tut cph.3b08637.jpg, don't become PD until next year—unless they were published first in other venues, such as newspapers, before 1927, as many photos of the clearance process were. I'm completely confused about photos that come from this Commons category and the four others that are named similarly. They all come from this set of digitized volumes, which seem to mostly be photos that were not published in Burton's lifetime. The expiration of their copyright may depend on the date of publication, which I can't find.

None of this stuff should matter—Burton died 82 years ago, and of course the photos were taken nearly a century ago—but I'd appreciate if anyone can clarify the copyright-related niceties. A. Parrot (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can offer absolutely no help in this area. I too would like clarification about the situation since I would also love to use Burton photos to further illustrate 317a and 317b mummies but I guess I have to wait until they enter the public domain in a decade? I was (probably very wrongly) under the impression that the Griffith Institute still had control over the Burton photos as their website says none of the contents of the pages may be reproduced in any form without prior permission?? So I guess we just have to scan the photos when the publications go PD? If I recall correctly the Met Museum has duplicate negatives, so I can hope they will put them online CC0 for the centenary haha. Merytat3n (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Further detail: File:The Moment Carter Opens the Shrine.jpg was taken from the New York Times photo archive, here, which implies that the photo is from a story that ran in February 1923 (when the burial chamber was opened for press viewing), but the shrines were not opened until January 1924, so the photo must have been taken then. Whether the photo ran in the New York Times in 1924, I do not know, but it was certainly published in Carter's second volume in 1927, so like them it will fall into the public domain this coming January, if it isn't there already. As for the photo archive on the University of Heidelberg site, the site says the images are public domain, though as I said, I can't tell for sure whether they are. A. Parrot (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Further: after looking through Riggs 2019 some more, I have found that File:Tuts Tomb Opened.JPG was published in the Illustrated London News on 6 February 1926. It may not have been published in the United States until much later (Riggs says it didn't start showing up in books about the tomb until the 1990s). A. Parrot (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I searched variations of "Howard Carter" and "Tut" on the TimesMachine for between 1/1/1924 and 12/31/1926, but I wasn't able to find that particular photo. The only photograph of inside the tomb I saw was this. It seems the newspaper mostly published images of the hieroglyphics and sketches of the artifacts and tomb setup. There were +700 results though, so I can't promise I didn't miss it. Tkbrett (✉) 19:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I expect the website's description was in error and the NYT acquired their copy of the image long after the tomb clearance. The Griffith Institute and Metropolitan Museum of Art claim joint copyright over Burton's photographs (they ended up with duplicate sets of negatives decades ago and hashed out their claims with each other in the 1950s), but the photos have circulated so widely at this point that the claim is pretty meaningless in practice. A. Parrot (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Political aspects of the article

A good deal of this article is about the political dispute over the tomb clearance. The political significance of the discovery, and the Egyptian perspective on it, seems to be receiving progressively greater attention in the sources. Frayling 1992, which includes an excerpt from an essay by Edward Said, is the only 20th-century source I know of that gives significant attention to Egyptian viewpoints on Tutankhamun, whereas they are a central feature of Colla 2007, Reid 2015, and Riggs 2019 and 2021. Egyptology in general seems to be going through a period of soul-searching over its colonialist background right now (see this article for a general impression of what's going on), partly occasioned by the upcoming centennial of the discovery.

For these reasons, I would especially appreciate other editors' input on these political aspects of the article, as well as related ones such as the disposal of artifacts and the excavators' handling of the mummy. A. Parrot (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I suspect you are far more knowledgeable about this than me and with more recent and varied sources, as the only source I can immediately recall as touching on the politics and disposition of artefacts, plus the possible reasons, is T. G. H. James' Howard Carter: The Path to Tutankhamun (1992) which is now 30 years old. I see you have this book, and you've already covered it in the article that given the terms of the permit, a division of finds was probably expected and that "a few pieces taken 'on account'" would probably have been okay given the attitudes at the time; support being offered with the expectation of a share in the division, etc etc (pp.262-263, and p.270). James also suggests that Carter may have had a box of small pieces from his days as an antiques dealer, and that generally what he was giving out to visitors were not pieces that originated from the tomb. The objects in Carter's possession are also discussed on p.447-449 and 469-471. I'm sure more modern sources cover it though. It is a tricky subject, but as long as we provide historical context and commentary by modern sources where possible we should be fine. For what its worth I think you are doing a balanced job so far! Merytat3n (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Image check

First, congrats to the editors with this wonderfully interesting article, and a fine TFA today.

One question: the top image says "[Carter] opens one of the shrines enclosing". Actually, we see that three shrine doors are opened. Maybe change to "looks at the sarcophagus inside three (4?) opened shires" [assume shrine #1, the outer one, was removed at this moment?; more photo research needed]. DePiep (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW, mainpage blurb image has similar mistake. DePiep (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

More background: image is at Griffith's, catalog Burton p0643:

Looking at the sarcophagus.

Howard Carter (kneeling), Arthur Callender and an Egyptian team member in the Burial Chamber, looking through the open doors of the four gilded shrines, towards the quartzite sarcophagus. Photographer: Harry Burton. Date: January 4th, 1924

Burton photo. p0643. Colourised version

— Griffith Institute, Oxford, http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/4acphot.html

As said, research may be needed on the 4th shrine in this image. Space? Also, some questions were raised about the date (reenactment of "opening forst time"?). -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In the Main page blurb, the caption has been adjusted (MP/Errors talk). DePiep (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the outermost shrine had been dismantled at the time this photo was taken (it is of distinctly different design. You can identify the engraving on the doors of the second and third shrines from the original negatives published by the Griffith Institute of the University of Oxford (second shrine, third shrine). Particularly the open doors of the second shrine in this photograph and the inside of the door of the third shrine in this one. The door to the fourth shrine looks to be open but the detail on it is not visible in the photo we have posted - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, #1 shrine being dismantled here is a plausible theory. Visible logic, and exploring date sequence, plus actual space they have for this between walls & doors (while the room was very tight) -- something to research. However, the image is strong & true & a good one for the article top. DePiep (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

lol Griffith probable date mistake: see GI Burton p0623 "Date: January 30th, 1923 [sic] Burton photo. p0623", more likely is "December 30th, 1923"? (or 30 Jan 1924??)

The images for December 1923 show dismantling and removal of the outer shrine, #1. So, #1 will have been absent in the bespoke 30 Jan 1924 image.

Then: Date: January 4th, 1924 Burton photo. p0626: "Howard Carter looking through the doors of the second shrine (Carter no. 237)". DePiep (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Uniqueness of Tutankhamun tomb near-intact discovery statue

User A. Parrot reverted my edit claiming that my statement was incorrect. However, there has never been another tomb discovered that was partially-robbed. Every other tomb was either fully robbed or not robbed at all. Therefore, Tutankhamun's neat-intact tomb status is unique. Cerebrality (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the argument, but, similar to my reasoning for this edit, I'm not sure the sources explicitly support it. They compare Tutankhamun's tomb to those that were discovered before 1922 to explain why it was such a big deal. But they don't explicitly compare it to subsequent discoveries, except to note that Psusennes' burial was never robbed (and many of them don't even note that much). A. Parrot (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a known fact that there are only a few tombs that were found not fully-robbed. Out of those few, Tutankhamun's was the only one to have evidence of some robbing. References for this are readily available. Cerebrality (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What qualifies as "not fully robbed"? Montet found other burials at Tanis that had been robbed but still contained some of the burial goods, e.g., that of Osorkon II, which was plundered but retained enough jewelry to cause Egyptologists to reassess the wealth of Egypt in his time. It certainly doesn't seem to have been comparable to the riches of Tutankhamun, but I don't have a source that explicitly says that. A. Parrot (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The primary reference on which pharaonic tombs were robbed, and which were not, is this article: "The Only Intact Egyptian Pharaohs Tombs Ever Discovered." An excerpt of the article reads:

Tanis used to be the capital of Ancient Egypt. And after ten years of effort, in the spring of 1939, Pierre Montet found stone slabs. Then a small gold item, whose quality indicated there was something special nearby. This was not the floor of a temple, but the roof of an underground necropolis. Thieves had been there in Antiquity. Montet entered the hole they dug to find an empty tomb. But it was the tomb of a Pharaoh, Osorkon II. Then another sarcophagus was found, again emptied by robbers.

The article is explicitly clear that the tomb of Osorkon II was emptied by robbers in antiquity. The article continues on to state that the other 3 tombs found at that Tanis location were untouched, as in fully-intact; that of

• Psusennes I
• Amenemope
• Shoshenq II

Hence, since the tomb of Osorkon II was emptied, this leaves Tutankhamun's tomb as the only near-intact pharaonic tomb discovered. Another [article] from Ancient Egypt magazine gives explanation was to why some significant objects were found in the tomb of Osorkon II.

The tomb, NRT-I (Nécropole Royale de Tanis), was found to consist of four separate chambers. Located in the largest of these was the huge granite sarcophagus of Osorkon II (c.874-850 BC), a king of the Twenty-second Dynasty. Within his sarcophagus were found canopic jars and funerary statuettes, and behind it lay a further smaller sarcophagus inscribed for one of his sons, Prince Hornakht... The first task [Monet] set himself was to remove further stones from Osorkon II’s vault in NRT-I in order to give better access to the damaged sarcophagus of Hornakht. He found that grave robbers had only been able to penetrate one end of the sarcophagus because a large stone block had collapsed on top of the lid. So, although the robbers had removed some of the grave goods, other objects including an attractive assortment of small figurines were left behind.

The reason why the sarcophagus of Osorkon II's son, Prince Hornakht, and some of its contents were left is that a large stone was blocking the robbers. The last sentence describe the significant objects left, namely "attractive assortment of small figurines". This is probably what Bob Brier was talking about in his book Egyptian Mummies that is cited under the tomb subsection of the Osorkon II page. By the way, that tomb subsection has an error in it. I have a copy of that Egyptian Mummies book, and Bob Brier never refers to jewelry in the quote used in the tomb subsection. Bob Brier actually writes:

"Another room contained the funerary equipment of his other son, Prince Hornakht. Although these tombs had been plundered, what remained was of such high quality that existing conceptions of the wealth of the northern Twenty-first and Twenty-second dynasties had to be revised."

This must be corrected on the Osorkon II page. In overview, all of the references point towards the tomb of Osorkon II being thoroughly plundered except for the objects that were accessible due to the large stone that fell. Hence, my original claim about the uniqueness of Tutankhamun's tomb's near-intact status stands. Cerebrality (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

But is there a source that explicitly compares Tutankhamun's tomb to those other discoveries? A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

There may be, but that source is not necessary because it follows from basic deductive reasoning that I have just outlined. I'm not doing original research here. The uniqueness of the near-intact status of Tutankhamun's tomb is an immediate consequence of the information I have just cited.

I see that the Tomb of Yuya and Thuya was also in near-intact status, but Yuya was not a pharaoh.

Cerebrality (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence. Apologies for being so persnickety. A. Parrot (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)