King Tut Analysis

1589 Words 7 Pages
The discovery of King Tut's tomb, was the greatest archaeological find of the twentieth century, due to its relative completeness and lack of looting. In Carter gives a very detailed account of how the he and his team went about finding, preserving, and cataloging all of the wonderful treasures found in the tomb. He begins with describing the initial process of preserving any fragile pieces first, and then photographing everything for later reference. Carter then goes on to describe how they moved larger pieces out of the tomb, and where they would be placed. Finally carter describes the condition of the tomb in relation to looting and its damages.
When one thinks of King Tut's tomb, and all the riches that were recovered from inside it, they
…show more content…
The tomb was in fact looted, but not the kind of looting most people would think. What makes King Tut's tomb the greatest archaeological find in the world, is because of its relative completeness. Many other tombs in the Valley of the Kings had been looted and in some cases burned, so the looters could collect the gold leaf of the boxes and such. Many of these tombs had been looted later in history, while king tut was looted soon after the burial. Now this is very surprising, because the egyptians were very religious people who strongly believed in the afterlife and curses. Curses that could be brought upon those who disturbed the eternal resting place of their god kings, like king tut. Carter explains how the looters had ransacked the first chamber causing all kinds of havoc, but must have been interrupted in their deplorable deed, because the inner chambers were relatively undisturbed, and many items were left behind, like a cloth filled with gold rings. This means that the robbers retreated fast for some unknown reason. Carter also describes how the tomb was cleaned up after the looting, but in a haphazard way, which is also interesting because one would think that superstition would have driven them to make their former king happy by doing a good job at clean up. After the tomb was cleaned up the holes made by the looters were resealed, and the entrance …show more content…
In the example of the copper axe, copper was no easy thing to find, smelt, and cast. This made it a very valuable material, the kind of thing the common person in america would not have. This means that it was reserved for the wealthy or was a sign of once importance in that society. A copper axe, was a tool, it's technomic purpose, but it was also a status symbol. To own a copper tool, meant that that person was above others for some reason and was of higher status than the common people who didn't own a copper tool. This can be compared to the samuri sword of feudal japan. Only the samurai were permitted to carry the sword, which was a tool, but it was also a status symbol. This is supported by the evidence that copper tools found in america tend to be found in graves, meaning that they held a purpose other than utilitarian. This leads into Binfords third concept of ideotechnic importance of an artifact.
Ideotechnic refers to an items religious or ideological importance. These copper tools being found in graves means that they also had religious aspects to them. Meaning that the tool also embodied the owners own personality or spirit if you will. This leads to the conclusion that so few copper tools are found, because they were not passed down to later generations, because they held a spiritual tie to the original owner and were either destroyed upon the owner's death or buried with

Related Documents