Tuesday, March 14, 2006

KV63 - a mummy workshop?

Also covered by Yahoo! News at http://tinyurl.com/rkpnp
A short statement from Zahi Hawass on the above site suggests that KV63 may not have been a tomb or a cachette as previously proposed, but was in fact a manufacturing area: " 'This ... is not a tomb for nobles or relatives of a king, as had been thought upon its discovery, but rather it is a room for mummification,' Hawass said in a statement." Five of the coffins seem to have been used as storage containers for mummification equipment, and the contents of the vessels are also consistent with that interpretation. Otto Schaden on his website has detailed the contents of six of the vessels as including: "natron, wood, seeds, carbon, assorted pottery and small animal bones." (www.kv-63.com).

This would not be without precedent, as KV54 was used as an embalming cachette - see the Theban Mapping Project website for details about KV54:

Dr Schaden also goes on to explain that items are being stabilized and transferred to KV-10 prior to their removal.

Thanks very much to Carolin Johansson, Chris Towsend, Jen Mason and Aayko Eyma for forwarding me the articles. Much appreciated!


Anonymous said...

Hi, this news is interesting. The argumentation of Spanish amateur egiptologist is very logical:

Kind Regards
Mac Greinan

Pharaonic find was mummification room, not tomb? Idea very little createible...

Tuesday, 14. March 2006, 04:59:23

By Georgeos Díaz-Montexano. 03-13-2006. Madrid, Spain. Source: http://www.KV-63.com.es/

© Copyright 2006 CNN.com

It does few hours, the service of the News of Reuters, has announced that according to the Dr Hawass, KV63 is not a tomb, but a room used for to mummify the corpses of the Pharaohs (to see the News: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031300648.html%20new=true )

With all my greater respect for the Dr Hawass, and the outstanding egyptologists that works in kv63, I think that he is completely absurd to consider that old Egyptian mummificators would use a room so small, underground, and uncomfortable (without ventilation) for mummify or to prepare mummies. All egyptologists knows that the priests perfectly in charge of the conservation of the bodies, to mummify to the deceaseds in stores outdoors, in the top of some hill, where the air could scatter better the bad scents.

On the other hand, if KV63 is not nor so at least a secondary tomb, or tomb of re-burial or "cachette", then cannot be catalogued like KV63, because this classification has been only used for tombs and "cachettes", but never to denominate no type of room dedicated to any work or profession.

Most of the readers of the most important sites of spreading of News on Old Egypt (as they are: http://egyptology.blogspot.com/, http://www.egyptologyblog.co.uk/ and http://touregypt.net/TEBlog/egyptologynews/) know that from the first moment in which they occurred to know the news on the finding KV63, and their photos were published, I proposed the hypothesis that the jars were in fact improvised Canopics Jars, or symbolic Canopics Jars.

I said that when the jars studied, more likely was going away to discover inside mummyfied organs , or materials that were going to tie somehow to these jars with a possible symbolic use, like substitutes of the Canopics Jars. Meanwhile, all egyptologists said whenever surely they were jars to store grain or foods. Now, already knows that were not used jars to store foods, and I believe that cannot be a simple chance, that exactly is discovered within the ten analyzed jars "material mummyfied".

I think that, simply, nor egyptologists that works in this project has still considered my hypothesis on the matter; that is to say, they have still not thought that material of mummification found about the analyzed jars, could be explained of more satisfactory way, when we consider the possibility that really are 28 symbolic Canopics Jars, four by each coffin, or individual (they are seven coffins).

Detail extended of possible seal-mark of a real seal or pharaonic cartouche. To see extended original photo ( http://www.antiquos.com/egiptologia/IMG_0677_sm.jpg ). Heather Alexander

I maintain my hypothesis that they could be Canopics Jars symbolic. The found material of rest varied mixed with small bones of animals, natron, and diverse chemistries materials used in mummification, would demonstrate my hypothesis that they are of symbolic Canopics Jars, filled up with these materials to replace - symbolically - the lack of the organs that would have been destroyed, or that simply disappeared to the being robbed the original Canopics Jars; then it is evident that the thieves of tombs would not lose time cleaning the content of the Canopics Jars in the own tombs. Still I think that the first coffin represents the face of Kiya, or of AnJesenAmon (Ankhesenamun), because the similarity is enough notable. I continue thinking that one is a secondary burial, that is to say, of "cachette" where one became to keep (to be protected) all despoliation that were of some tombs of Dynasty XVIII which they had undergone the action of the thieves of tombs, and also I maintain that most of coffins they are reused. I am also convinced that within some of the jars egyptologist that are studying the objects they are going to find papyrus fragments, or labels with names, and are very probable that also they find pharaonic seals in some of the jars. I only hope that egyptologists does not despise these hypotheses, by the simple fact that they come from egyptologist amateur.

Georgeos Díaz-Montexano


Anonymous said...

Hi, at this moment i reside in Madrid. I going to try to obtain an interview with Georgeos Diaz-Montexano. I speak very well the Spanish, almost better that the English. If is of interest, i can later send it to this site.

Kind Regards
Mac Greinan

Andie said...

Dear Mac

Thanks very much for your comments. Yes, interviews are always interesting, and it is always nice to see something a bit different on the blog. You can email me directly at a.byrnes@ucl.ac.uk.

All the best

Anonymous said...

Ok Andie :)

Kind Regards
Mac Greinan