adie_j_d

=D. Analysis (500-650 words) Tips]=

The main debate over the significance of the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamen is whether we learned a significant amount about the Ancient Egyptian monarchy or simply a little about a little known king. On one hand, the main argument that we learnt a lot about other Pharaohs, as the tomb was still intact, is the fact that there was a large collection of funerary tools in the tomb. This source is reliable because it is from a factual information bank from an Egyptian tourism site[1], as additional information about the sites; however it could be considered unreliable as it is aimed at tourists so the information provided could potentially have been sensationalised. On the other hand, it is argued that the discovery of the tomb itself was of no real significance and all we found out was a little by the young King, and the fact that the tomb was found intact was sensationalised by the rest of the world. The information gained about the King’s death was just information about the King and not the society as a whole, “the 19-year-old died from complications from a broken leg that was exacerbated by malaria.”[2] The reason that it is suggested that there was not much to learn about other tombs near that of Tutankhamen’s is that it was the first tomb found intact so there could only be speculation as to what could have been stolen from the other tombs.

[1] [] // Mark Andrews// **Last updated ** on June 13th 2011 [2] [] //// unknown author// //Last updated at 12:06 PM on 17th February 2010