Copyright © 2021 Michael J. Marfleet Published August 27th, 2021

How did tomb design evolve in the Valleys of the Kings? How did the ancient Egyptian stonemasons go about cutting the tombs? Did they record the tombs' extent & their positions in the valley?

VI. Tomb cutting in the Valley(s) of the Kings c1570 to c1070bc by MICHAEL J MARFLEET

Evolution of tomb design New Kingdom tomb design steadily matured - from freeform through bent to linear with steadily wider and taller corridors; from crude to exacting; from steeply inclined to sub- horizontal; from undecorated to comprehensively decorated; from simple and asymmetric through complex, asymmetric and then symmetric. Some situational and architectural characteristics are shared. All king and queen tombs have their entryways proximal to a dry watercourse; all but one lie beneath the main escarpments; many have their entryways purposely aligned with the summer solstice sunrise, particularly XVIIIth Dynasty tombs; and several appear to have their principal burial chamber aligned toward what may be considered a 'satellite pyramid' - a cenotaph peak of lower altitude than the iconic 'pyramidal' peak el-Qurn that overlooks both valleys, (Essay IV). The tombs share many architectural elements: an entry stairway; one or more contiguous corridors; one or more further stairways; one or two anterooms; up to eighteen storerooms/niches (KV11/Ramses III), otherwise less than ten; one or more doorways; pillared halls; and burial chamber(s), over time becoming pillared and vaulted. About half the tombs include a well room, but only those in the period c1450 to c1202bc - with one exception, KV11, c1151bc. The tombs that do not have a well, like KV62/, KV23/ & KV16/Ramses I, include who died within a few years of their accession, so for reasons of expediency their tombs had to be adjusted; ie: foreshortened or usurped and refashioned. All tombs after that of Ramses III/KV11 appear smaller (shorter) because to a lesser or greater degree they are unfinished. Queen tombs are fundamentally different. They are much smaller in overall size and proportion. After the entry stairway they include just the one corridor before a second stairway usually leading via a second corridor directly to a burial chamber with one or occasionally two central pillars. A few king tombs include additional burial chambers for their senior queens - KV7/Ramses II, KV17/ & KV22/Amenhotep III. No tomb was cut without a plan. The 'plan' was more conceptual than exacting. It indicated the intended number and layout of the rooms, corridors, niches, stairways, inclines and doors in relative, imprecise proportions. We know this by comparing the one plan that has survived the ravages of time with its completed tomb - KV2/Ramses IV. This plan also shows the position of the four shrines, the canopy and sarcophagus in the burial chamber. This layout of the principal burial equipage is identical to that discovered in the burial chamber of KV62 which had received its interment c200yr earlier. Clearly some fundamentals of the design remained unchanged for hundreds of years. These included the sequence and types of rooms, and equipment in the burial inventory itself, (many pieces found in the unique, virtually complete inventory found in KV62 recognizably reappear in the fragmentary remains recovered from several of the violated tombs). Cutting methodology We can deduce the ancient Egyptians' cutting methods from incomplete tombs in the valleys - KV18, KV19 and KV25 are helpful examples. From the stepped shape of the partially worked 'coal face' of these abandoned and foreshortened tombs it is clear the masons worked from the ceiling downward and from the left and right walls inward, (Bib. 68; & Figs. 1 & 2).

Also the massive tomb KV8/Merenptah, shows us that in order to permit ease of access during the cutting of deeper portions of the tomb, the well - in a completed tomb usually located about halfway to the burial chamber - would not be dug out until the entire tomb had been finished, (perhaps the interment also). KV8 is complete but for its partially excavated well. Fig. 3 shows that the well was cut from the center outward to the walls, opposite to the manner in which the corridors were cut, but clearly more practical for a vertical shaft.

In the case of pillared rooms, unfinished rooms like that in KV6 (Fig. 4) indicate these rooms were cut from the walls inwards to the pillars.

In all cases it is clear that the tomb was not first 'roughed out' and then finished. Rather, as tomb cutting progressed, the walls, ceilings and floors were trimmed immed- iately behind the 'coal face'. In this way the stonemasons would have been better able to keep the corridors squared and straight. The last procedures were dressing the walls and decoration: first a red chalk grid system; second a rough draft in red of the figures and texts; third a final draft in black, (KV34/Tuthmosis III); fourth sculpting or engraving of the drafted figures and texts; and fifth painting, (KV17/Seti I, is arguably the finest example). Perhaps the best tomb to see the phases of decoration in progress is that of KV57/ where time to complete the work must have run out and the decorations in the burial chamber remain incomplete, as Harry Burton's photographs in 'The Tombs of Harmhabi and Touatankhamanou' by Theodore Davis ably illustrate, (Bib. 30, Pl. L through LXI). Recording A remarkable feature of the king, queen and noble tombs in the (VoK) is that although they were cut over a period of five centuries and many are grouped together in clusters, few of them 'collide'. There are just four documented physical encounters. All four can be explained. Other than these there are six close encounters, two or three of these very close indeed. These could all be lucky misses. Alternatively they may demonstrate the existence of some record, or records, of the subterranean arrangement of tombs through time, at least on a localized basis, and very precise survey techniques. We know the tomb builders made rough plans of their tombs, (cf: KV2, above). In their largely two-dimensional artistic world they also may have plotted where the finished tombs were positioned below ground. However, to my knowledge no evidence has yet been found of any systematic documentation of the arrangement and extent of VoK King/ Queen tombs. On the other hand the ruling priests of the XXIst Dynasty certainly knew where to find most if not all of the tombs, including those that were as yet un-plundered, (with the notable exception, of course, of KV62). So a XXth Dynasty map showing at least the locations of all, or most, New Kingdom tomb entrances probably did exist. Some of the tombs, in particular those that are cut into the most 'upstream' ex- tremities of the valley tributaries like KV20/, KV34/Tuthmosis III, KV35/ Amenhotep II, KV38/Tuthmosis I, KV42/Hatshepsut Meryet- & KV43/Tuthmosis IV (the earliest tombs in the VoK), plus those that, at the times they were cut, appeared isolated such as KV1/Ramses VII, KV2/Ramses IV, KV5/Sons of Ramses II, KV7/ Ramses II, KV21/Ankhesenamun? & KV49/Unknown, would only have required know- ledge that there were no existing tombs anywhere nearby. However, those that are clustered together and radiate like KV16/Ramses I, KV17/Seti I & KV18/Ramses X and KV13/, KV14/Tausert & Setnakht, KV15/Seti II & KV47/, or run parallel to one another like KV3/Sons of Ramses III, KV4/Ramses XI & KV46/Yuya&Thuyu, must have been cut in those directions because at least the approximate alignment of the neighbor was known. The layout of all the tombs in plan can be seen on Sheet 1 of the (TMP), Bib.68. Collisions and close encounters documented by TMP are listed below; (the later of the two paired tombs is in bold): 1. Collisions - These include KV12/Unknown & KV9/Ramses V&VI; KV10/ & KV11/Ramses III; KV32/Tia'a & KV47/Siptah; and KV60/Unknown & KV19/Mentuherkhepeshef/(Ramses VIII, [Essay III]). Explanations: KV9 'collided' with KV12, an anonymous mausoleum for pre-deceased offspring of some unidentified elite. As Room H of KV9 was being cut, it broke through into Chamber G of KV12. Being a nobles' tomb, KV12 likely had not been recorded. Also, many years earlier its entrance may have been lost under debris left by a flash flood. KV11 'collided' with the unfinished western extension to Room F in KV10 when Room D1a of KV11 broke into Room Fa of KV10. To avoid the obstacle the original alignment of KV11 was adjusted around it. Room Fa being incomplete and aborted likely never was recorded. Had the extension not been cut and KV11 had continued without any change in its direction, KV11 would have just missed the extreme end of KV10. This might suggest plain happenstance. That, or there were indeed accurate records available, at least for neighboring tombs the like of KV10 & KV11, with their entrances only 20m apart and just c50yr separating their construction. The KV32 /KV47 'collision' appears quite different. Rather than one tomb under construction blundering into another, the encounter is so 'exact' it could be deliberate. If so, the 200+yr gap between the cutting of KV32 and KV47 suggests fairly accurate records had been available for at least this period of time. Either that or KV32 was open and its proportions measurable at the time KV47 was being cut. (Why the connection was made is a mystery). The encounter nevertheless may be purely coincidental, an intended expansion of Room J1 in KV47 accidentally breaking through into the KV32 storeroom, (Fig. 5). The entryway to KV19 slices through the upper portion of the entryway to KV60. There is little doubt KV60 is one of the earliest tombs cut in the VoK. It is probably a cache, (Essay III). Likely all memory of its location was lost long before the cutting of KV19 was contemplated - perhaps some 300+yr later.

Breakthrough between KV47 and KV32 - Left: BEFORE / Right: AFTER

2. Close encounters - KV5/Sons of Ramses II & KV6/Ramses IX (as close as 1.5m); KV5 & KV55/AMARNA Royals (also as close as 1.5m); KV6 & KV55 (4.5m); KV8/Merenptah & KV57/Horemheb (20m); KV9 & KV57 (14.5m); and KV9 & KV62 (7m). Explanations: In the cases of KV5 & KV6, KV8 & KV57 and KV9 & KV57 the XIXth & XXth Dynasty tomb builders must have had a pretty firm idea of the situation and alignment of the earlier tombs before they embarked upon executing their ambitious new commissions. Conversely the situations of KV9 & KV62, KV6 & KV55, and KV5 & KV55 suggest it is more likely there was no knowledge of the existence of the two XVIIIth Dynasty tombs, both of which originally had been nobles' tombs, likely unrecorded, and both of which had been buried and effectively lost beneath the debris of one or more flash floods occurring after KV62 had been sealed, (Chapter Thirteen, 'The Hundredth Day' appearing September 23rd, 2022). Also, since at the time of Ramses II the existence of KV55 was not known, the 1.5m close encounter of Room 4 - just one of the more than one hundred rooms and burial chambers making up the c1acre KV5 mausoleum complex - with the north corner of the KV55 burial chamber was a remarkably fortunate miss! While the existence of one, all-encompassing VoK record of tomb locations is unlikely, it is probable that at the time the cutting of a new tomb was about to begin existing older tombs in the vicinity - especially those predating the new tomb by more than a generation - had already been robbed and lay open to inspection. The application of rudimentary survey techniques could easily establish whether the design and extent of the new tomb had any chance of encroaching upon its neighbors. By way of example, take the cutting of KV8 across and over the existing KV57. KV57 was completed some 150yr prior to the cutting of KV8, plenty of time for KV57 to have been robbed and its location becoming common knowledge. Being aware of the layout, direction and inclination of KV57 and applying simple geometry the XXth Dyn- asty tomb builders would have been confident the intended plan for KV8 would miss the older tomb by some considerable margin. The same could be said for KV9 and KV57, although the time interval between these two is a little less than a century. KV6 runs eastward over the southern perimeter of KV5. One hundred years and twelve pharaohs separate the cutting of these tombs. Just 3m of solid limestone separate the roof of Room 4 of KV5 from the floor of Corridor B in KV6, and c50m further into KV6 barely 2m separates the roof of one of the burial niches in Corridor 10 of KV5 from the base of the sarcophagus well in the burial chamber of KV6. A lucky miss or, at the time KV6 was being cut, KV5 lay open and cleared of much of its contents, its full layout and elevation precisely known to the stonemasons cutting KV6?

Conclusion While following the progression of tomb design and decoration in the VoK is a relatively simple matter, and the ancients' methodology in cutting the tombs' corridors and cham- bers appears practical common sense, analysis of whether they surveyed the placement, size and attitude of older, neighboring tombs prior to cutting a new tomb remains an open question. Personally I find it hard to believe the sophistication and exacting control dem- onstrated in their design of the tombs, plus the precision of their cutting methodology and decoration, did not also extend to the discipline of survey and record.

Location map - Tombs noted in text

Next: ESSAY VII 'Neferneferuaten nefertiti & KV62' published September 10th, 2021