Posted by Kate Phizackerley on Wednesday, September 07, 2011

I have posted about this one before, but my thanks to Robert Nielsen for directing me to a magazine article I had not seen in which Hawass says he believes it is a tomb, and possibly that of Ankhesenamun.  It's largely confirmation of what has been published before, although I don't recall the reference to meat, but anyway:


This year began as a banner one for Hawass. Shortly after New Year’s, he revealed that the long-lost tomb of Tutankhamun’s widow, Ankhesenamun, could soon be unearthed. “We recently found some foundation deposits in the western part of the Valley of the Kings, offerings of meat and pottery placed where a new tomb was to be built,” he says. “This is the best location for Ankhesenamun’s tomb, and the fact that no ­artifacts have been found anywhere else suggests it has never been disturbed.” The discovery of “Mrs. Tut” would no doubt be a worldwide sensation, drawing more attention (and tourist dollars) than any other find, short of another pristine royal tomb.
This is different to the Cross location and to the ARTP locations, and indeed to all the other locations in the main wadi.  I believe that this refers to the Western Valley of the Kings, what is sometimes called the Valley of the Monkeys.

There is nothing else about KV64 in the article, but if you would like to read it in full, it is a June edition American Way Magazine, from American Airlines.

12 comments:

Geoff Carter said...

I get the feeling of daja vu, have we have been here before on his last American tour?
Maybe more 'secrets' soon.

Stephanie said...

Deja vu and I still don`t see any connection with Ankhesenamun, meat offerings or not.
As long as there is not a single inscription who can possibly know whom this tomb could belong to?
And why should the Western Valley be the most likely location for her tomb? Because her grandfather(s) was/were buried there?

Or maybe the theory that Tut was actually first buried in WV23 and then moved to KV62 could come in useful to create a connection (not that I am a defender of this theory, but I know it existed at some point)?
I rather doubt that there is anything substantial to this claim.

Marianne Luban said...

Also, if the good candidate for being the mother of the foetuses found in KV62, the mummy called KV21A is Ankhesenamun--then there is no chance of an unrifled tomb for the queen of Tutankhamun.

Thutmose said...

I was wondering the same thing Marianne. It will be interesting to find out what the truth is, that's for sure.

James

Anonymous said...

It is impossible to say who KV21 are.
The DNA is all too unclear. Tut is likely to be the child of KV55 and KV35YL but could also be another bloodrelative. KV55 and KV35YL are descendants of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye but if they are the children of that couple or the offspring of Amenhotep's marriages with his daughters by Tiye is unknown.

If KV64 is finally found let's hope it gives the name of the occupant. My best bet is that we still need Achnaton, Nefertete and several of their daughters.

Patrick said...

Most of the few artefacts found in KV21 date to Hatshepsut-Thutmose III, so the logical conclusion is that the mummies are royal females from that period. This would explain the apparent DNA links with Amenhotep's family 3-4 generationsd later.They have been linked with Ankhsenamun (and why not one of her sisters or cousins or Ra knows who?) largely because a certain person who has since disappeared from the scene was bent on finding her there, the same as he had KV55's age mysteriously jacked up to make him into Akhenaten, 'found' Hatshepsut via a broken tooth in a box, and stopped just short of 'proving' KV35 YL was Nefertiti! This is what happens when scientific research is run subject to a personal agenda.
Coming back toi KV64, while I hope Steve Cross is right in locating it at the valley bottom, albeit basing his theory on slim geophysical data, I would rather expect more tombs to be located in the Western Valley of the Kings (not the Valley of the Queens), which seems to have been relatively unexplored up till now. It would be surprising for such a suitable location to house only two known royal burials - or perhaps there's something wrong with the rock in that area?

Anonymous said...

The mummies in KV21 being from the period of Thutmose III would also fit with the theory that Tiye's mother Thuya was somehow related to the royal family.

It would be great if KV64 is found undisturbed with names of those burried there. As that could clear up a lot of the uncertainties surrounding the fate of the Amarna Royals and what happened between Akhenaten and Tutanchamen.

Marianne Luban said...

Donald Ryan wrote briefly about his work in KV21:

http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/egypt.html

He writes of flood debris so what was discovered in the tomb may have nothing to do with the era of the mummies.

Anonymous said...

All we can say based on the dna results we know is that it's likely the mummies in KV21 are related to Amenhotep III and Thuya. If those two were not only son-in-law and mother-in-law but also had other family connections we don't know.
It's the typical problem of only knowing the core royal family (pharaoh, great-royal wife and their daughters and oldest son). Daughters of a Pharaoh were not married to foreign sovereigns, sometimes married their father but we don't know if they had children from relations with other men. Neither is there any knowledge about brothers, uncles, cousins or sons of other wives and concubines Amenhotep III may have had.

Pharaoh's had a harem of women so even the foetusses in Tut's grave could be his with unknown women in his harem who never made it to secondary wife as they did not give birth to a living child.
Anchesenamun may have been the mother but we don't even know if she was AnchesenpaƤten or AnchesenpaƤten Tashjerit. With Tut's reign of 9 years and potentially up to 4 years between his succession and Achnaten's death the junior princess could have been a young teenager miscarrying. Considering that A. tashjerit was born somewhere between years 15 and 17 of Achnaten (as a result of that pharao's incestious marriage to his third daugther?) she could have been 6 by the time 9 year old Tut ascended the throne.

It would even make sense if Tut turns out to be the offspring of Smenkhkare and KV35YL who in turn could be the children of Amenhotep III with either Tiye or their daughters he married.

A marriage between the son of the deceased pharoah marrying his cousin from another branch (Achnaten+Nefertiti) of the family would than even be politically strategic.

Patrick said...

As you say, Anon, all this 'could' be true. Maybe one day, now ZH is out of the way, we'll get some concrete evidence to confirm some of these hypotheses...

Kate Phizackerley said...

While there is an apparent campaign against the Head of SCA I don't think anybody is discounting that Zahi might return in some capacity. It's hard to see how, but Zahi is a political survivor and has proved that time and time again. Actually in another country, he could have been a career politician.

Rashmi S said...

Head hunters in Bangalore
Consultany in Bangalore
Serviced Apartments in Bangalore
SEO Services in Bangalore
SEO Services in India

Search

Admin Control Panel