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