Ancient Egyptian Forum

Neb-Ma'at-Re · Pharaoh Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 690

I am so excited to announce here that a team has discovered a tomb in the VOK containing 5 mummies which are believed to date from the 18th dynasty. Reports are in the early stages and the group has not yet announced much detail yet but it appears to be approximately 5m from Tutankamun's tomb (the below article mistakingly says 5km but this is incorrect as 5 km would not place this tomb in the vacinity of the VOK. Plus a team did sonar testing in this are in the 70's and reported a small void approximately 5m not 5km). Anyways this is big news as this is the first tomb to be dicovered in the Valley of the Kings since Carter's discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922!! Keep your eyes and ears open for up to date reports.
New Tomb
_________________

Google · Sponsor

Merytre-Hatshepsut · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject:

LOL Simultaneous posting Very Happy

Exciting news though.

Neb-Ma'at-Re · Pharaoh Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 690

Yes this is great news!!!! From the early reports it appears that is a small cache containing 5 mummies in wodden sarcophogi and 20 funerary jars ( 4 conopic jars per mummy ???). From what I am gathering is that it is a small crammed tomb and the mummies were hastily buried. No word yet on whether they are royal mummies but my initial thought is that they probably aren't. A king would certainly deserve his own tomb or at least his own burial chamber, especially if they date to the 18th dynasty (Egypt's most wealthy period) although the second royal cache found by Loret in the 1800's was found in the valley while the first was tucked away in the cliffs at deir el bahri behind Hatshepsuts temple. I will have to do some research and see which mummies have yet to be discovered from the 18th dynasty and see if i can shed some light on who they might be if they were royal.
_________________

Unas · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject:

So then "Valley of the Kings" is more of an honorary title? I know KV55 weren't royalty, but supposed 'hairdressers' (we know the image of the probable homosexual couple). I don't know of any commoners buried in KV, but these mummies could be at the very least 'tied' to royalty.

Very exciting news, Neb!
_________________
"Does anyone ever truly think 'outside' of the box, or are they merely expanding the possibilities of what that box can hold to suit their own agenda?"
(Piquet: Nov. 3, 2005)

Merytre-Hatshepsut · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject:

My mind did turn to Amarna Cache. There are several people missing:
Princess/Queen Sitamen, Princess/Queen Isis (both daughters of Amenhotep III), Kiya, Nefertiti, any of the 6 royal daughters of Akhenaten (well, not Ankhesenamun, because she would still have been alive).

It's also possible it's a high official. Several Viziers are unaccounted for I think. Tut's Viziers Usermontu and Pentu come to mind.

The other non-royals buried in the King's Valley are high ranking. I can think of a vizier, a chancellor (Pairy, Sennefer), non-royal in-laws of the king (Yuya and Tuya) and a royal fanbearer (Maihirperi).

Hmmm, Tut's mom maybe? It's fun to speculate, but we'll have to wait until they find out who these people are.
It sounds as though the funerary equipment may be crammed into the tomb. I wonder how long it takes to meeticulously excavate something like that?
I also wonder what they do for security?

Neb-Ma'at-Re · Pharaoh Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 690

Updates are coming out now. One story has comments by kent Weeks who although has not seen the tomb has seen the photos and is claiming that its not a tomb was not originally built for a king. I would have to agree based on this picture. Also, the story says the pharaonic cartouche is found on the jars in the tomb. I can't wait to hear to under which pharaoh these mummies were entombed. There is supposed to be a official press conference tomorrow (Cairo time).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11252094/
_________________

Merytre-Hatshepsut · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject:

Here are a couple more images:
photos from the tomb site

Neb-Ma'at-Re · Pharaoh Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 690

Well it appears that the press conference that was scheduled for thismorningb in Egypt has been delayed twice and then finally cancelled. We will have to wait for more info.
_________________

Neb-Ma'at-Re · Pharaoh Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 690

here is an update with some new graphics

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4700032.stm#text
_________________

Osiris II · Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject:

Unas, KV55 was not the tomb of the two hairdressers. It is the tomb that is now considered to be an Amarna cache, and the mummy has been identified as Smenenkhra. It was first thought to be Tiye, then possibly Akhenaten, but now Smenenkhra. The tomb of the two hairdressers (manicurists?) is not in the Valley. You can find more information here:
http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/

Psusennes I · Pharaoh Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 913 Location: England

Unas. tut tut. The tomb of the Royal Hairdressers is at Saqqara!
_________________

Unas · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject:

Blargh! I always get things mixed up.. I feel rather dumb right now. Embarassed

_________________
"Does anyone ever truly think 'outside' of the box, or are they merely expanding the possibilities of what that box can hold to suit their own agenda?"
(Piquet: Nov. 3, 2005)

Psusennes I · Pharaoh Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 913 Location: England

Blargh indeed. Well at least you didn't mistake a male mummy for being that of Nefertiti. . .
_________________

Niankhkhnum · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject:

Psusennes I · Pharaoh Joined: 09 Sep 2004 Posts: 913 Location: England

I'm amazed that KV40 hasn't been excavated yet - scematically it seems very similar to KV63, and yet no Egyptologist has worried about this debris-filled shaft since the early 20th century. It's just a shaft full of sand.
_________________