The Discovery of the Burial Chamber and Sarcophagus of the Mayor of Thebes and Forth Priest of Amun, Karabasken (TT 391) (25th Dynasty):
"The Burial chamber was filled with flood deposit up to the ceiling."
"No inscriptions were found on the exterior surface of the sarcophagus."
"The interior of the sarcophagus was flooded after the first attempt."
The BM pdf (see link above) states that in 2006 the tomb courtyard was covered with a 4m thick layer of flood debris (partitioned into 6 separate flood layers) while the vestibule and pillared hall were buried under 2.5m of debris.
Apparently, no human remains were found. It was Lepsius who first observed the name and titles of Karabasken at the entrance to the first pillared hall. But there are clear signs that the site was occupied by locals and used as a stable. The walls appear to have been repurposed (there are indications that old decor and inscriptions were chiseled off and new graffiti was added).
The only slight askewity of the lid suggests that nothing of value was found inside the red granite box when it was first breached.
Their attributed provenance seems to be associative/contextual:
What is the evidence that this tomb was first hewn in the 25th Dynasty?
Does such a plain tomb seem characteristic of someone with those titles?
- [southasasif.wordpress.com]
[english.ahram.org.eg]
Also see: [www.britishmuseum.org]
"The Burial chamber was filled with flood deposit up to the ceiling."
"No inscriptions were found on the exterior surface of the sarcophagus."
"The interior of the sarcophagus was flooded after the first attempt."
The BM pdf (see link above) states that in 2006 the tomb courtyard was covered with a 4m thick layer of flood debris (partitioned into 6 separate flood layers) while the vestibule and pillared hall were buried under 2.5m of debris.
Apparently, no human remains were found. It was Lepsius who first observed the name and titles of Karabasken at the entrance to the first pillared hall. But there are clear signs that the site was occupied by locals and used as a stable. The walls appear to have been repurposed (there are indications that old decor and inscriptions were chiseled off and new graffiti was added).
The only slight askewity of the lid suggests that nothing of value was found inside the red granite box when it was first breached.
Their attributed provenance seems to be associative/contextual:
- "The royal features in the burial apartment and sarcophagus of Karabasken are a manifestation of the Kushite revival of past traditions and assimilation of royal and temple features in the elite tombs of this period."
What is the evidence that this tomb was first hewn in the 25th Dynasty?
Does such a plain tomb seem characteristic of someone with those titles?