Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ronald Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Khazar-khum Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > And absolutely NO ONE noticed
> until
> > NOW???
> > > >
> > > > Am I alone in wondering what the
> > hell????
> > >
> > > Hey, you have to recall what was the
> purpose
> > of
> > > 19th and early 20th century
> Egyptologists.
> > Recall
> > > that most 19th century excavators were
> in for
> > the
> > > "big haul" - gold, silver, and that sort
> of
> > thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Items of everyday life certainly
> didn't
> > interest
> > > them at all - and that apparently
> included
> > > Carter.
> >
> >
> >
> > Katherine,
> >
> >
> > I do not agree with this. Carter made a very
> > detailed inventory of the tomb, it took him
> years.
> > In this, he was on the contrary completely
> > different from his predecessing,
> contemporaneous
> > and even, for some time, succeeding
> colleagues.
>
> If you'll notice my second post in this thread, I
> gave an example where he noted an object, but then
> never actually followed up with recording it
> properly (i.e., Aprons - 15 of them, to be exact).
> One can list an item, as Carter did, but still not
> record it properly, insofar as to let one know
> what they were (a thorough description is what I
> mean here), what became of them, etc.
>
> I think O'Connor's quote puts the matter into
> perspective:
>
> Egypt is overflowing with antiquities, and the
> original finders of Tut's tomb may have thought
> some of the less spectacular objects were not
> worth taking to the Cairo museum, O'Connor said.
> More surprising is that the boxes of seals in the
> tomb itself were somehow overlooked, he said.
>
> Philadelphia Inquirer, 1 September 2007
>




> There's a good chance the jars of fruit were
> listed in a Carter inventory, but their full
> description and/or final disposition was never
> recorded by Carter - for that, it's just as likely
> that Carter did not record properly those "items
> of everyday life" because he placed no value upon
> them.
>
> I stand by my comments.


Katherine,


I am convinced that this does not discredit Carter's inventory-work, which was the very fist detailed and scientific founded in its sort. Carter was not one of the archaeologists who was only after gold, silver, and that sort of thing. His work was a revolution in those days.


Ronald.