howardcarterandtutankhamun.com Copyright © 2021 Michael J. Marfleet

M Y S T E R I E S, M Y T H S & T H E S E S by MICHAEL J MARFLEET

The plausible ideas addressed within the forthcoming string of essays & chapters derive from a number of elemental allegories & beliefs. Each may require a leap of faith. All are questionable.

Ramses II & ?Nefertari Karnak Mysteries, Myths & Theses June 30th, 2021

There are mysteries in abundance in . Although Egypt has plenty of monumental remains, the scattered, piecemeal scraps of intriguingly tangible evidence 'dug up' from time to time make it a fruitful playground for the curious, the academic, the forensic, the problem-solvers and the creative. Theses are formed based upon evidence available at the time. Sometimes multiple theories are developed from the same evidence. As more clues surface these theses inevitably mature - some become altered; others upheld. Through- out the process it is essential the interpreter maintains an open mind. Example: Dr. Nicholas Reeves, FSA, has long held a thesis that Neferneferu- aten nefertiti was ultimately buried in a tomb in the the deeper reaches of which were subsequently sealed off to facilitate the unexpected burial of the boy king, (Essay VII, appearing September 10th). There is evidence aplenty that much of the burial equipment in KV62 has been re-used, evidence of its provenance erased, and the name Nebkheperure (the throne name of Tutankh- amun), inscribed in its place, (Technical Essay 5 December 31st). After examining probably the most famous of all ancient Egyptian treasures, the gold mask of the boy king, Reeves published tangible evidence the mask had originally been intended (perhaps used) in the burial of Neferneferuaten nefertiti*. This revelation tempts us to reject one myth, namely that originally the mask had been made for Tutankhamun, and accept another: it had first been made for Nefertiti, the faceplate later replaced with the likeness of the boy king. His conclusion is based upon recognition the Nebkheperure cartouche engraved upon the inside of the shoulder portion of the mask clearly over-writes an earlier cartouche. The vestiges of the original engraving are indisputable and can be interpreted to match (in part) hieroglyphs that according to Reeves transliterate to Ankhkheperu- re Neferkheperure - a much longer cartouche. However, there could be a simpler interpretation. The most obvious vest- iges of the earlier engraving more or less perfectly match what could have been just a smaller version of the current cartouche - Nebkheperure. Also, the first inscription is at a slightly different angle to that of the later; ie: the later cartouche - the throne name of Tutankhamun - may represent a larger, clearer version of the original. The original, because it was smaller, may also have incorporated the birth name - Tutankhamun - extending further to the left in a manner not dissim- ilar to Reeves' reconstruction of the Nefertiti cartouche; or the original Neb- kheperure cartouche was just too small and had been executed at an angle un- acceptable to the artisan who originally created it. I use this example as a reminder that apparently convincing, even attract- ive conclusions can be drawn from ambiguous evidence - all too typical of the fragments 'dug up' in ancient Egypt - and an allegory becomes created from what is little more than a belief. In this particular example the scholar has a thesis that Nefertiti lies undiscovered in the unplumbed depths of KV62 and much of her burial regalia has been re-employed for the interment of the boy king. Reeves may be right, of course, but the argument for his conclusion is unidirectional and does not appear to consider alternatives. He cites only the evidence that supports his thesis. The approach is not uncommon. You will find it repeated in other papers by experts in the field of Egyptology, and in some of my essays. When one develops an original idea, in researching evidence in support of your thesis it is all too easy to avoid the counter-argument and negligently ignore the negative while readily accepting the positive. It is extremely difficult to remain rigidly objective. So, as I recommend in 'Author's Introduction II' and repeat in the précis above, '…question everything'. As to the mysteries, the myths and the theses addressed in the essays and chapters to come:

THE MYSTERIES (This list is not all-inclusive)

• Why were the valleys chosen to be the necropolis for New Kingdom Kings? • When did burial activity begin in the Valleys of the Kings? • Why were there (apparently) only two kings buried in the West Valley? • Where are the mummies of Ay, Horemheb, Ramses VII, VIII, X & XI, and more importantly the AMARNA Period royals: Amenhotep IV, his Great Wife and co- regent, Neferneferuaten nefertiti, and his so-called successor, Smenkhkare? • Why did all three AMARNA Period royals disappear from the record virtually simultaneously in c1334bc? • Where are the tombs of Ahmose I, , Tuthmosis II & Ramses VIII? • Do any tombs of XVIIIth Dynasty queens remain undiscovered in the Valleys of the Kings? • How did Tutankhamun die? • Where did much of the KV62 burial equipage come from? • Is there an undiscovered extension to KV62? • Will there be another treasure the like of KV62? • What are the histories of KV39 & KV55? • Why did four of the smallest tombs in the Valley of the Kings yield the greatest bounties? • Are there more king tombs awaiting discovery in the Valleys of the Kings?

THE MYTHS (A few of these are contradictory)

• Dynasties begin and end where there is a break in the familial line. • Burials in the Valley of the Kings began with the interment of Tuthmosis I, c1518bc, around fifty years after the start of the New Kingdom, and ended with the burial of Ramses XI, c1570bc. • Amenhotep I was the first New Kingdom to be buried in the VoK. • KV39 is the original burial place of Amenhotep I. • The architecture of KV39 is similar to that of the earliest New Kingdom tombs in the Valley of the Kings. • All king & queen tombs in the West Valley & the Valley of the Kings have an associated embalming cache, (pit/shaft 'tomb'). • Succeeding of the XVIIIth Dynasty were buried to the southwest of their predecessors. • XVIIIth Dynasty queens were buried in the West Valley & the Valley of the Kings; XIXth & XXth Dynasty queens were buried in the . • Smenkhkare, second of the AMARNA Period pharaohs, succeeded Amenhotep IV and reigned from c1336 to c1334bc. • Pharaoh Smenkhkare = Neferneferuaten nefertiti. • Neferneferuaten nefertiti (as Smenkhkare; ie: regent) married her eldest daught- er, Merytaten. • The last resting places of recorded New Kingdom kings - Tuthmosis II, Amen- hotep IV, Smenkhkare & Ramses VIII - are yet to be confirmed. • The poorly preserved mummy discovered in KV55 is Amenhotep IV, (Akhen- aten). • The androgynous iconography of Amenhotep IV reflects symptoms of a medical condition known as Frôhlich's Syndrome. • King tombs with multiple axes turn anticlockwise; queen tombs, clockwise. • In adulthood only women had pierced ears. • Tutankhamun's tomb, KV62, is actually just the (altered) upper portion of a much larger tomb in which Neferneferuaten nefertiti still lies buried. • Chamber 'J', the burial chamber in KV62, represents the uncompleted well of the tomb of Neferneferuaten nefertiti. • The painted decoration on the north wall of the KV62 burial chamber is a later over-painting of a scene originally depicting Tutankhamun administering the 'opening of the mouth' ceremony to his predecessor, Neferneferuaten nefertiti.

THE THESES

• Burial activity in the Valley of the Kings may have begun before the dawn of the New Kingdom. • The West Valley became the necropolis for kings who worshipped the Aten. • KV23 and KV25 in the West Valley were originally intended for the re-burial of Amenhotep IV and the eventual interment of Tutankhamun. • Amenhotep III was the first pharaoh to be buried in the West Valley; the last was Ay. • Ahmose I recognized the nature of the geomorphic features in the Valley of the Kings - that the orientation and dimensions were shared with his pyramid- shrine-tomb-temple complex at Abydos - and chose to duplicate this protocol in the Kings' Valley. • Pharaoh Smenkhkare = Neferneferuaten nefertiti and Amenhotep IV. • The androgynous iconography of Amenhotep IV was an intentional portrayal of Amenhotep IV and Neferneferuaten nefertiti as the single, hermaphroditic god king; ie: Smenkhkare. • The Amenhotep IV/Neferneferuaten nefertiti single god king (Smenkhkare) married 'his' eldest daughter, Merytaten. • An almost total eclipse occurring over the city of Akhetaten in the year 1338bc initiated the eventual downfall of the Aten faith. • With the exceptions of Ankhesenamun, Tutankhamun and Ay the AMARNA Royals all succumbed to a plague that infested Akhetaten. • Three of the four richest finds in the Valley of the Kings appear to share solar and ancestral ascendency protocol relationships. • There is more than one 'proxy-pyramid' in the VoK. • The tombs of up to four kings and nine queens (plus perhaps more than a dozen other hypogea) remain hidden in the VoK. • The geographical and celestial 'coincidences' apparent in and around the West Valley & the Valley of the Kings may have been pre-ordained. • In the XVIIIth Dynasty the azimuth of the summer solstice sunrise had ritualistic significance. • Neferneferuaten nefertiti will not be found in an extension adjoining the burial chamber in KV62, but the possible existence of one or more hidden ancillary storage chambers remains. • Tutankhamun was responsible for returning the restored remains of the AMARNA Royals from Akhetaten to Thebes. The boy king stored the mummies in KV55 while he prepared separate tombs for his parents, Amenhotep IV, Neferneferuaten nefertiti and Queen Tiye in the West Valley & the Valley of the Kings. • The AMARNA Royals - Amenhotep IV, Neferneferuaten nefertiti, five of their six daughters and Ay - ultimately were re-buried in KV39. Their disarticulated remains including their skulls (so far unidentifiable) were found in each of the three burial chambers. • During the economic imperatives of the XXIst Dynasty KV39 was used by the ruling Theban priesthood as a restoration 'factory' for the recovery of kings 'harvested' from the VoK. Their ultimate resting places would be in KV35, KV57 and DB320. • Before 1914 Carter had convinced himself he knew the most likely location of KV62 and had high expectations it remained inviolate. • The conspiracies leading to Carter's illicit acquisition of 'Object No.8', other articles of value, and the clandestine early penetration of the KV62 burial chamber were precisely conceived and included provisions that mitigated against the consequences of discovery by the Egyptian authorities. The Earl of Carnarvon, his daughter Evelyn, and members of Carter's initial team, Callender, Mace, Burton, and perhaps Hauser & Hall were all more or less complicit in the deception.

------* See: 'Tutankhamun's mask reconsidered', www.academia.edu, & for Reeves' description and the illustrations see 'The Gold Mask of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten', Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections Vol. 7.4, 2015, www.jaei.library.arizona.edu