7
Sep

KV64: The Next Big Thing from the Valley of the Kings

   Posted by: Keith Payne   

Categories: Egypt in the News, Tombs

kv64-tabWe were all just a little disappointed when KV63, heralded a bit prematurely as a new tomb, turned out to be a storage room (actually, there is a lot to be excited about with KV63–see the article comments within).  Sometimes these things happen.

But if that little snafu prompts extra caution and discretion in the hunt for KV64, then that’s a Good Thing.  Over at Heritage Key, I provide a little primer on this developing story..

 

  

The story of KV64 starts with the search for KV63, and this is a tale with more than a couple twists and turns.  There is a good chance that KV64 will be announced this fall or winter, so you will want to know the entire back story.  Hop over to Heritage Key, where I blog about this under my daytime name, Keith Payne:  Ramesses, Thutmose or Nerfertiti? The Search for KV64.

For a blog that specializes in the search for KV64, don’t miss Kate Phizackerley’s News from the Valley of the Kings.  Kate has devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to staying on top of this story.  

 

shemsutag

Photograph “Rubble being cleared” by drewnoakes is courtesty of Heritage Key–All rights reserved.

 

Tags: , , , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, September 7th, 2009 at 11:48 pm and is filed under Egypt in the News, Tombs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 comments so far

avatar
 1 

Thanks Keith

Actually I am not sure that KV63 was a disappointment; nor that it wasn’t a tomb.

In terms of disappointment, a shaft tomb of that type and age would probably have been a Noble’s tomb (albeit an important one), or maybe a prince. We have plenty of those: we have only one embalmer’s cache. Over time this will probably teach us more than a tomb, and in terms of artefacts we got a beautiful bed and some important coffins.

As to whether it was or wasn’t a tomb, I’d prefer to wait for the full site report. It’s possible it was used for instance as a temporary tomb before a mummy or mummies was/were moved elsewhere. Rather than say it wasn’t a tomb, it may be more accurate at this stage to say there was no permanent burial within it.

In fact for me the mystery is why it wasn’t used as a burial chamber. It could quickly have been cleared out and used for a burial. Instead it seem sometimes towards the end of the 18th or early 18th Dynasty it was forgotten about. I’ve not yet read whether it was sealed, or was it perhaps buried in a flood .. which could have concealed other tombs as well. Far from being uninteresting I think KV63 still has a lot to tell us.

Kate

September 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
avatar
 2 

Thanks, Kate

“Disappointment” was obviously the wrong word to use, and its pretty exciting to know that the chapter on KV63 is far from closed!

And equally clear is that my analysis did not do justice to the importance of KV63. It sounds as if both the mystery and learning potential from the finding is far more than a simple hanging question mark.

September 9th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment