DEVELOPMENT OF THE BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY ROYAL TOMBS(1) Nozomu KAWAI* Introduction As far as it can be determined, no burial in the Valley of the Kings escaped being disturbed to some degree. Only the tomb of Tutankhamun gives us the opportunity to study the burial goods in great detail. The tomb of Tutankhamun is, however, atypical in its small size and scanty decoration. The time in which Tutankhamun lived was also unusual, falling at the very end of Amarna period, when Egyptian society was making transition back to the pre-Amarna traditional order. These factors may have combined to make his burial unusual in many respects. In fact, it is generally accepted that the evidence from the royal tombs in the New Kingdom is insufficient to show comprehensively the overall royal funerary practices of the period. Any synthesis of this material, however, should proceed from the available data as much as possible. Fortunately, some Eighteenth Dynasty royal tombs such, those of Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, and Horemheb as well as KV 55 were discovered with some of their grave goods still present. Thus, it is very important to compare the contents from the tomb of Tutankhamun with those from other Eighteenth Dynasty royal tombs in order to understand the character of the royal burial assemblage in the Eighteenth Dynasty. Not much attention has been paid to the burial goods found in the royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings. Studies have mainly focused on its ownership, religious texts, decoration and architecture of these tombs(2). The funerary objects from the royal tombs have been published in several excavation reports(3). William C. Hayes(4) and Aidan Dodson(5) have studied royal sarcophagi and canopic equipment of the Eighteenth Dynasty, respectively. Nicholas Reeves has published a useful study of the burial objects from the tomb of Tutankhamun and he slightly discusses some parallels from other royal * Ph.D. Student, Department of Near Eastern Studies, The Johns Hopkins University Vol. XXXV 2000 35 tombs(6). But comparative study of the overall burial assemblage has never been undertaken. Recently, Stuart Tyson Smith wrote an article on the intact private tombs of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties from Thebes. In it he briefly discusses the royal burial assemblage of the Eighteenth Dynasty in comparison with private tombs(7). He pointed out the numerous similarities among the assemblages of the Eighteenth Dynasty's royal tombs and compared them with private burials of the same period(8). But he only made cursory examination of royal burial assemblages and it was beyond the scope of his study. I suggest an examination of funerary equipment between royal tombs contributes to a deeper understanding of the development of royal funerary beliefs from the archaeological perspective, and sheds light on areas not discussed in the texts. This paper intends to synthesize studies of royal funerary objects and present an overview of them to increase further our understanding of the royal tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Analysis of Objects Since only the tomb of Tutankhamun has largely escaped plundering, the existing archaeological sample of the Eighteenth Dynasty royal tombs is highly subject to bias resulting from the different preservation, albeit accidentally so, of unrepresentative types. It is fully to be expected that certain kinds of artifacts will be overlooked because of some accident of preservation, or some bias in the sample. It is impossible to reconstruct all the royal burial assemblages of this period, but this does not mean that a study of this evidence is not worthwhile. Objects found in a well-documented context such as those from the tomb of Tutankhamun are invested with important information in addition to their mere existence as examples of this or that type of artifact. By looking at regularities and consistencies in the choice of burial goods in the royal tombs we can attempt to gain some insight into the pattern of burial systems. Due to the dearth of material, it may be difficult to discuss the character and development of the royal burial assemblage of the period. But I suggest that the quality of craftsmanship and materials as well as the variation of the same type of object does explain the development of the royal burial system in the course of the Eighteenth Dynasty. I discuss the royal funerary objects by grouping them into several categories for the purpose of this discussion. The first is "objects for the tomb," 36 ORIENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY…… and the second is "objects of daily life," which are already grouped by Stuart Tyson Smith in his study on private burial(9). In addition to those two, there is "objects of royal authority," which I consider to be connected the kingship. It should be mentioned, however, that the following discussion does not include the objects for which we cannot make comparisons due to the lack of material. 1) Objects for the Tomb Sarcophagi, Coffins, Shrines and Canopics William C. Hayes has already undertaken a comprehensive study of the royal sarcophagi of the Eighteenth Dynasty through the time of Amenhotep III(10) Sarcophagi were probably introduced for the first time in the reign of Thutmose II, but who the first king actually was is still unknown(11). Hayes pointed out that the size of the royal sarcophagi gradually increased toward the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty and suggested that the size of sarcophagi can be a clue to its contents. Since we know that Tutankhamun had three nested anthropoid coffins on a bier in a sarcophagus, it can be supposed that the sarcophagi of the same size as that of Tutankhamun also contained three anthropoid coffins. It was Thutmose IV who first made a gigantic sarcophagus in the Eighteenth Dynasty. Amenhotep III and Akhenaten followed almost the same size (Table 1). These might have contained three nested anthropoid coffins. As for the design of the coffins, the rishi(12) style had been apparently employed in the royal burial long after it went out of style in private ones. The earliest surviving Eighteenth Dynasty royal coffin is the coffin of Thutmose I (CG 61025) which was uncovered in the royal cache at Deir el-Bahri(13). Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the original decoration of his coffin since it was completely remodeled and reused by Pinejem I in the Twenty-first Dynasty. The next one is the coffin of Thutmose III (CG 61014), which was also discovered in the royal cache at Deir el-Bahri(14). Almost all the surfaces of the coffin were hacked away, probably due to the chiseling out of gilded ornaments and glass inlays by tomb robbers. Some areas, however, still remain and they show that the coffin was originally decorated with an incised rishi pattern. Evidence from the tomb of Amenhotep III(15), KV 55(16), and Tutankhamun(17) reveals that they had basically similar patterns of inlayed rishi coffins, albeit with some variations. Vol.XXXV 2000 37 The large shrine over the sarcophagus may have been introduced for the first time in the tomb of Amenhotep II. The plan of the burial chamber in his tomb is the first to introduce rectangular rather than the cartouche shape which had been used in earlier royal tombs, and the burial floor for the sarcophagus was cut deeper than other floors of the tomb. Dodson has suggested that these innovations explain the introduction of the large shrine over the sarcophagus(18). The shrines from the tomb of Tutankhamun are the only intact examples. *The unit is cm. This chart is based on the data from W. C. Hayes, Royal Sarcophagi of the Eigteenth Dynasty, Princeton, 1935; E. Thomas, Royal Necropoleis of Thebes, Princeton, 1966; G.T. Martin, Royal Tomb at El-'Amarna I, London, 1974 and O.J. Schaden, JARCE 21 (1984), 53. Table 1. Royal Sarcophagi of the Eighteenth Dynasty The royal canopic equipment has been thoroughly studied by Aidan Dodson(19). The following is a summary of the evidence. The earliest example of a king's canopic equipment dates to the reign of Hatshepsut; a chest bearing Thutmose I's name does exist, but it was made under the reign of Thutmose III. The next example is a chest for Hatshepsut's burial in KV 20. Both chests were made of quartzite, which was also the material used for their sarcophagi. Amenhotep II introduced a wholly new design of royal canopic chest using calcite(20) as a plastic medium and employing images of four protective goddess (Isis, Nephthys, Neith, and Selkis) at the corners of chest, who extend their hands to protect the contents. This type is basically followed by his successors. 38 ORIENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE OF THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY…… Akhenaten also possessed canopic equipment. The corner of his chest is adorned by the images of falcons instead of protective goddesses, but the lid is represented as an image of the king, like those of Amenhotep II. Tutankhamun's canopic equipment is the only complete example from the Eighteenth Dynasty(21). The chest is covered by a gilded shrine with images of four protective goddesses. The lid of the canopic chest is shaped like a shrine with inward sloping sides. The lid of the canopic jar is represented as an image of the king like that of Tutankhamun's predecessors. Within the jar, four coffinettes of beaten gold, inlaid in rishi pattern with colored glass and carnelian, were installed. Black resin had been poured into them, which was probably done before their introduction into the tomb.