Talk:Howard Carter

Unplundered?

I would question that KV62 is unplundered. Markh 11:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Is this wording acceptable? –Hajor 13:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there some plausible conspiracy that he actually found the tomb years before, plundered it then restored some of the artifacts years later for the 'discovery'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstackx (talk • contribs) 4 September 2006

Criticism

I think it's irresponsible to not make mention of the questionable ethics involved in the colonialist British policy of ransacking Egypt's historical burial sites in general, not to mention the multiple controversies that surround Howard Carter specifically. To quote Dr. Christian Loeben, an Egyptologist at the August Kestner museum in Hanover, Germany, "All objects from the tomb should be in Egypt, and if they're not in Egypt, they didn't get out legally". Carter was an eager participant in this Western grave-robbing fad, violating even what little law was in place to protect these sites. "A little-known document written by a member of Carter's team, Alfred Lucas, in 1947 claimed that Carter knocked a hole into the doorway linking the antechamber to the actual burial chamber, and illegally entered it without waiting for Egyptian officials".

In addition, Howard Carter was caught on a number of occasions stealing or attempting to steal artifacts from the various sites for his own personal possession and use. Carter and his compatriot, the Earl of Carnarvon, "gave a clasp that showed the pharaoh on a war chariot as a present to Egyptian King Fouad I, for example. American oil baron Edward Harkness received a gold ring". There is evidence that the looting and historical damage goes beyond what history has recorded: "Doubts about Carter's methods are not new but the debate keeps resurfacing with the discovery of Tutankhamen artefacts in museum collections around the world. This, Egyptologists claim, suggests that they were secretly brought out of Egypt by Carter or members of his team". In additioning to the multiple incidents of material losses, it is a real tragedy that "experts claim that his actions did lasting damage to research into ancient Egypt, because it will never be reliably known what the tomb looked like when he found it".

It is also worth noting the fascinating fact that Carter "never went to university and taught himself Egyptian and hieroglyphics".

I'm also posting this in the KV62 talk section. SymWebb (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's more complicated than what is presented above. The convention of the period was that excavators shared with the Egyptian authorities the proceeds of what was recovered from a tomb. The Egyptians lacked the funds to carry out the work themselves so rich foreign patrons were encouraged to spend their money on the basis that some reward would be given from items recovered.

The rules were changed during the period these excavations were taking place and there was ambiguity relating to what was termed a "sealed tomb", i.e. an intact tomb was supposed to be excluded from the agreement, but in this instance some robbing had taken place not long after the King was buried. Caernarvon had spent a small fortune in the Valley of the King without "recompense" prior to Carter's discovery of the tomb and they believed that they would receive some of the contents. They probably didn't regard it is as theft and neither did the Americans who received the items. It took a long time before Caernarvon received recompense in the form of money for the costs incurred in the dig but that left the problem of what to do with objects already taken.

Whilst a colonial mindset may be a contributing factor it's worth noting that Carter in particular mixed with the local people, spoke their language, and was respected by them. His own relatively humble background perhaps played a part here.

Carter immediately sought and obtained the help of experts in the field of Egyptology as soon as the tomb was found, people like James Henry Breasted and Alan Gardiner and the experts from the Metropolitan Museum were readily made available to him. He trained under Flinders Petrie and kept meticulous records, backed up by photographs, of every stage of the excavation. It took his team ten years to empty and catalogue the tomb, so it is quite wrong to suggest that his work was incompetent, for its day it was actually quite advanced. The way the Kings body was handled is another matter but apparently that doesn’t annoy people today judging by the way the Royal Mummies continue to be treated in order to make documentaries that satisfy our puerile curiosity.

As best I know most of the small artefacts which were taken from the tomb have now been returned but modern Egypt doesn’t regard this as purely an issue relating to the Tomb of Tutankhamen. Much of what we see in American and European museums was taken by people who didn’t have our modern notions relating to the cultural past of other countries. It’s ironic that one of the most iconic images of ancient Egypt (Nefertiti Bust), that the present authorities claim was stolen and want returned, is presently residing in the homeland of the scholar who is so harsh on Carter. As regards the reference to robbing the American treasury, all I can say is that many people think has has been well and truly done on a vast scale, and not by a foreign power, by what has happened since 2008 and nobody has been brought to justice. Greed is not limited by nationality or geographical boundaries. If you doubt this try asking an Native American. Yt95 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Most present-day critics don't understand the difference between items of monetary value and items of archaeological value, Carter and his teams were allowed by the Egyptian government to keep items of little or no archaeological value as recompense for their expenses as these items were already represented in finds from other tombs, and hence little more could be learned from them. All the significant finds, such as the famous gold head dress, etc., were presented to the Egyptian government and were subsequently displayed in Cairo museum, which is where they remain.

The other items which are often accused of being 'looted' were for the most part taken with the consent of the serving governments of the countries in-which excavations were taking place, and were otherwise of little interest to the local people, which, if they had been, would presumably have been excavating the sites themselves. In addition, some items, such as those taken from the acropolis, were deteriorating, the local people seemingly uninterested in saving them, and would soon be gone if they remained where they were. Presumably the Herr Dr Loeben would also be similarly concerned with the items 'looted' by Heinrich Schliemann from Troy, and of various other items taken by his fellow countrymen from former Hittite and other sites, including thousands of cuneiform tablets that are now in various Berlin museums. BTW, Carter had photographs taken of the interior of the tombs and rooms before moving anything which have since been published in various books.

I should also add that Carter, sponsored by Caernarvon, spent years searching for and then excavating and cataloguing the contents of Tutankhamun's tomb, and it is extremely unlikely that the monetary value of entire contents of the tomb came even remotely close to the amount Caernarvon had spent on the search. Thus neither did it for the money. If they had been, they would have had better odds from betting on the horses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.96 (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Months instead of years?

I saw a NatGeoTV documentary where, as far as I remember, the search for the tomb of Tutankhamun has lasted 6 years. In the article it says 'few months' - might be that I am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.216.154 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 March 2006 no it did last 6 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.119.176 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ashmol Site

What's up with the Ashmol site (http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/)? It appears to be offline, which is very unfortunate because three of the four external links are on this site. And where are the references? As of now, this Wikipedia article has no references for the material here save for the books listed. The only other external link is just about Howard Carter's grave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greevous (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2 October 2006

Swaffham, Norfolk, England

I have just read an article in the Eastern Daily Press about Howard Carter 26.03.2007 that states Carter was born in Swaffham not Kensington ,London.The town of Swaffham is very proud of its link with Carter and is devoting large area of its museum to him .We will have to clear up this confusion of his birth place. Northmetpit 12:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the Howard Carter house

I have just come back from Thebes and the picture of the Howard Carter house in this article seems to be incorrect. The local Egyptians were conviced it was a house nearby, surrounded by trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffball70 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 January 2007

The depicted building is indeed the 1950 Stoppelaëre House, overlooking Carter House. --Hvd69 (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Carter himself?

There are 3 pictures in this article, which is in my opinion a little much for the size of this article, and not one of them is of Carter himself. It seems ridiculous to me to have this many pictures on such a short article and not have one of himself - no matter how relevant the current pictures are. I suggest removing the pictures of "KV62" and "Tutankhamun's tomb" as those pictures can already be found in their respective articles, and finding a picture of Carter himself. Anyone agree? --Kurotsyn 23:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Shweeet! Someone got a picture! :D Well, the "Tutankhamun's Tomb" section looks a bit cluttered with all those pictures. I still want to remove those images, but... I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do that myself. So... uhhh... hmmm..--Kurotsyn 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The fate of his canary

I read somewhere in a history book that a snake ate his canary. I don;t know how it is relevant but the book made it seem iconic. Any thoughts on adding something in? Reginmund 05:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

apparently the death of his bird was from a cobra after the discovery of the tomb king tut something to do with a mummys curse or so!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.165.239 (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Discoveries Of King Tutanhkansetamun

In the early 1920's the frequency of King Tut's. tomb was discovered by Howard Carter. Howard Carter is an archeologist also an Egyptologist. He was inspired by his father 'John Frawly Beckham Vincent Brumby Malinga Lee Carter'. So Howard Carter's real names is 'Howard John Frawly Beckham Vincent Brumby Malinga Lee Carter'. The discovery of King Tut's tomb was a draw of luck. One of his helpers(workers) had fell from walking in the heet of the deserts of Egypt. It did not feel xlike a rock so Howard and his men started digging. Then finally Howard's hard work had finally paided off he had found what he was looking for. The Tomb of Tutanhkansetamun. He was known as the world's best archeologist and Egyptologist of the year for achieving what he wanted. After six expeditions success struck. It was nothing but luck. He soon passed away when he reached the age of 64. He is remembered today as the discoverer of King Tutanhkansetamun.

Howards last words were "King Tutanhkansetamun's death was sudden and it shall remain a mystery"

Written by: Fazan Jazoor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.114.220 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 16 October 2007

Years, not months, of fruitless searching

The article says "After a few months of fruitless searching" he found the tomb. Isn't that several years of fruitless searching? Riordanmr (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC Documentary

After watching a BBC documentary about the discovery of Tutankhamun I realised the influence of the archeologist Sir Leonard Woolley should be included in the article as according to the programme he suggested to search in the dig site which led to its discovery. HappyWanderer (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored the external links from before, and removed the phrase 'That is so stupid' which had no place in the text. Pikle (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gravestone

I think the additional sentence on his gravestone should be added "Egyptologist, discoverer of the tomb of Tutankhamun, 1922"

Ref: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pis&GRid=3665&PIgrid=3665&PIcrid=658430&PIpi=291612& 94.222.128.95 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Howard Carter (archaeologist) → Howard Carter
• Howard Carter → Howard Carter (disambiguation)

This appears to be a straightforward case of WP:PRIME, but I thought it would be a good idea to get some opinions first. The archaeologist is world-reknowned as the man responsible for the discovery of Tutankamun; the other two Howard Carters listed on the Howard Carter page (used as a disambiguation page) are a basketball player who doesn't seem very well known and a founder member of the Assemblies of God Church. Assuming last month was unexceptional in terms of visitor numbers, here's some quick evidence that most readers are after the archaeologist:

• Howard Carter (the disambiguation page) get ~6,000 views a month. The following articles are linked from there:

• Alfred Howard Carter (the man involved with the Assemblies of God Church) gets ~200 views a month.
• Howard Carter (basketball) (despite the article title, he is in fact a basketball player rather than a basketball) gets ~250 views a month.
• Finally, Howard Carter (archaeologist) gets ~11,500 views a month (more than the dab page).

From this, I think it's reasonable to draw the conclusion that most of the people who end up at Howard Carter are looking for the man who popularised Egyptology.

If this article was to be moved to the new title of "Howard Carter", the current Howard Carter page would need to become a disambiguation page. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• You present a compelling case. I'm somewhat hesitant only because of the fact that one of the articles involved deals with a sports personality. Fame has a tendency to skew the perception of notability (which is one of my fundamental problems with that guideline, but that's a whole difference subject). Essentially however, barring any significant opposition, I'll Support this.
  — V = I * R (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support as primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support: clearly primary topic. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Amarna

Though there's a redirect already in place, I've wikilinked and changed 'Tell el Amarna' to Amarna to be consistent with the usage and explanation here. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Was the Saqqara Affair an affray?

There was a recent edit that changed affray to affair in the sentence about the Saqqara Affair (see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Howard_Carter&oldid=491536484 ). I only discovered this when I was trying to figure out what the Saqqara Affair was all about (and saw the more descriptive affray in earlier versions of the article quoted elsewhere). I think affray is a better word choice (once I found the definition -- note: affray should be linked to associated article if its rightful place in the article is restored). Thoughts? --Jhfrontz (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it and linked the term. It would be great if someone could elaborate on the Saqqara Affair. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this page locked??

I thought wikipedia was open for everyone to edit. Silly users! =)174.19.142.36 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lymphoma is uncited

Please can someone locate a source for cause of death as lymphoma? I have been unable to find a source quoting this so far. The current NYT source does not mention cause of death, only date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.9.101 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"yes, it is wonderful" vs "yes, wonderful things"

Carter's diary entry for Nov 26, 1922 gives his reply to Carnarvon as "Yes, it is wonderful" rather than the oft-quoted "yes, wonderful things!".

https://web.archive.org/web/20070630024020/http://griffith.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/gri/4sea1not.html

Is there any indication that the later version is correct? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@73.149.246.232: Various forms of the quotation are recorded. Not long after the tomb was opened, Carnarvon gave Carter's words as "There are some marvelous objects here." But "Yes, wonderful things", which comes from Carter's book on the discovery, has become the most famous version. A. Parrot (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Not Carter only

At the beginning of the article it is written that Carter discovered Tutanchamon’s tomb. It MUST be written that he discovered it TOGETHER with Lord Carnarvon. I have noticed that the name Carnarvon doesn’t appear so often when the subject Tutanchamon is discussed. It is wrong and we must remember Lord Carnarvon as well. Without him Carter wouldn’t be there and wouldn’t discover anything.

It was actually the water boy that discovered it (as stated later in the article). Jame5 07961 (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Allegedly Jame5 07961 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Why no knighthood?

Today he would surely be Sir Howard Carter (or maybe even Lord Carter of Wherever). Do reliable sources have anything to say about this? Such as that perhaps it was not normal to knight people for that sort of thing in those days, or that the British Royal Family perhaps disliked people who opened Royal tombs, or that perhaps the establishment feared knighting him might draw the mummy's curse on them, or feared that it might cause anti-British sentiment and unrest among any Egyptians who saw him as a foreign tomb-robber, or that the mummy's curse stuff had perhaps made him unpopular among ordinary Britons, or that his later attempt, currently unmentioned in the article (but mentioned in Ella Al-Shamahi's recent Channel 4 TV programme (Tutankhamun: Secrets of the tomb), to raise money to look for Alexander the Great's tomb in Alexandria (implausibly, as Alexander died in Babylon) perhaps damaged his credibility, or because he was a loner or difficult to befriend or hot-tempered or thought to possibly be gay, or because British racists and/or francophiles could never forgive him for siding with the Egyptians against the French over the Saqqara affair in 1905, or because of criticisms already found in this Talk section such as here and here, or whatever? Al-Shamahi's programme makes clear that he received little honour in his lifetime,but doesn't really say why, and all we currently say on the subject is that interest in Tut declined over time, and we mention the Saqqara affair and that he was a loner or difficult to befriend or hot-tempered or thought to possibly be gay, but without giving these as reasons for his lack of honours.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Joyce Tyldesley says something about it in Tutankhamun: The Search for an Egyptian King (2012), pp. 100–101. "Given that he [Carter] lived in an age when prominent British archaeologists and Egyptologists were routinely rewarded with knighthoods—Sirs Flinders Petrie, Leonard Wooley, Max Mallowan, Mortimer Wheeler and Alan Gardiner were either contemporaries, or near-contemporaries—he might reasonably have expected something similar. His lack of a patron, lack of a supporting institution and, perhaps, lack of breeding did not help his cause, but it may simply be that his own complex personality was to blame. Opinion among his contemporaries seems to have been more or less equally divided over whether Carter was simply shy and insecure over his lack of formal education, or an overbearingly arrogant boor." A. Parrot (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"Howard Carter stole Tutankhamun’s treasure, new evidence suggests"

says a headline in The Guardian.[1] User:A. Parrot this might interest you. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was aware of Brier's book and intend to get it as soon as it becomes available, but I can use the Guardian story at Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun before the book comes out. A. Parrot (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Amazing that the crime is proven one hundred years later. --Mvqr (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@A. Parrot@MvqrAnd [2]. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Tangentially, this article mentions the allegation that "Carter and Lord Carnarvon kept secrets revealing the story of the Jewish exodus from Egypt", a notion that I have read before but that apparently isn't supported by the evidence. I didn't include it in the article on the discovery, but depending how widespread this belief is, I may have to add something about it. It goes back to an allegation by Thomas Hoving, whose book Tutankhamun: The Untold Story seems to be the starting point for serious historiography on the discovery despite not being very reliable. It made use of previously unpublished material that had been sitting in the Metropolitan Museum archives for 50 years, but Hoving had a habit of stretching the evidence to make for a sensational story—and because the book was published at the height of 1970s Tutmania, his exaggerations were widely disseminated. So people since then have had to tease out what parts of Hoving's account were well-supported and which ones weren't.

T. G. H. James, whose biography of Carter is from an undoubtedly pro-Carter perspective but is based on very thorough examination of the primary documents, said: "The report that during this period Carter went to see Allenby and threatened to publish papyrus texts from the tomb giving the Egyptian side of the events surrounding the departure of the Jews from Egypt in antiquity represents an unjustifiable interpretation of an implausible story said to have been told to Mr Lee Keedick by Carter himself during his lecture tour in America. The report, included in Mr Keedick’s notes on Carter, is quite unspecific as to place, time and even the person involved. There is no independent witness for the event, and it may best be treated as apocryphal. (Footnote: See Hoving, Tutankhamun. The Untold Story, p. 310. His interpretation of the Keedick account goes far beyond the facts as recorded by Keedick, and is too specific.)" A. Parrot (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Carter's birthplace

There has been some confusion about Howard Carter's birthplace. A quick Google search shows that some sources state Kensington and some state Swaffham, Norfolk. Obviously, these can't all be correct. Certain sources explain why this confusion is common. Here are several that state that he was born in Kensington, which when combined is the reason why I am restoring the status quo to Kensington.

• The History Channel says, "Howard Carter was born 9 May 1874 in Kensington, London to successful artist Samuel Carter. He was a sickly child and was sent to live with his aunts in Norfolk where he was given private home schooling." [3]
• National Geographic says, "Born in Kensington in 1874, Howard Carter was from a generational family of artists who worked around the Norfolk town of Swaffham...The youngest of eleven children, three of whom died in infancy, as a child he too was considered ominously sickly – enough for his parents to move his upringing from London to Norfolk, where he was raised largely by a nurse in the family’s Swaffham home." [4]
• The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea gov website says, "He was born and brought up at 10 Rich Terrace, now the site of Richmond Mansions, Old Brompton Road." [5]

It appears that the confusion is caused by him being born in Kensington and then being moved in early childhood to Swaffham. Fieryninja (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, both the major biographies of Carter (James and Winstone) confirm this point. A. Parrot (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Howard carter

How did he die 77.103.161.235 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

He died from Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer, which is stated in the "Death" section. I have rearranged the first sentence to make this more obvious. Merytat3n (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)