Talk:KV63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).			Egyptology Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article is listed on this Project's core articles page.

This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject: Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architecture of ancient Sri Lanka.

Architecture Portal

Ankhesenamun? I hope so... Ah, the possibilities. KV-63! It brings tears to my eyes. An incredible feat. Who do you suspect lie waiting for us? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Broadacre (talk • contribs) .

From its appearance it is not a royal tomb, no stairs, just a pit. The fact that it is buried so deep (under the spoil from the digging of other tombs, rather like KV62) means it is quite early, so it might be minor royals pre-Amarna ? Will be fun to find out for sure! Markh 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping for children or wives of pharaohs we already know. It's possible there's a minor royal in there, though -- note the Osirid pose of the furthest-back coffin's hands. I wait eagerly for new developments... (Broadacre 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Im sure that this is where they will finaly find evidance of aliens visiting the egyptians.--12.10.219.39 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that Akhenaten was buried here. Lionheart Omega 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm... I think that's a slim possibility, but certainly no speculation should be rejected outright at this point. I suspect whoever ripped up Akhenaten's tomb at Amarna probably also annihilated his bodily remains, like a common criminal. Reburial seems too respectful for "that heretic". To me. You could be right, though, who knows! Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Ankhesenamun, Ay, Horemheb -- anyone associated with that motley mystery crew would be amazing. It's unorthodox, probably, but I wonder if any of the jars might (at last) contain papyrus rolls? History says no, they're for magical purposes only -- but I can dream. For now. (Broadacre 08:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Update: wonderful! Schaden himself thinks it might be Ankhesenamun! [1]

(Broadacre 22:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Contents 1 Sections ? 2 Citation style 3 No mummies 4 Delete Kent Weeks quote? 5 KV64 section

[edit] Sections ?

Hi I was going to add section breaks - what about "Discovery" & "Tomb Contents" ? Do we need another article for the discovery ? Markh 12:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I also have a picture of the KV63 area during excavations in March 2005. Might be a good picture to add here

 ? Markh 12:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Section breaks sound good. I'm new at this, but the article doesn't seem long enough to warrant breaking out a separate "Discovery" article. Perhaps after the tomb becomes old news and more complete information is available on the tomb itself? Igiffin 21:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking – not sure when "news" becomes "old news" though! Markh 13:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A judgement call of course. However, the news has yet to even appear in magazines such as KMT, so I think the newness has not quite worn off yet. My guess is that many people will be hearing about it as news for several months, and it's convenient to have the whole story in one place. However, perhaps length & organization will at some point call for a split-off. Nice article, BTW. Igiffin 21:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style

I added a footnote using the <ref></ref> style, but I notice that there are some link-style notes. It seems to me that the article needs more citations within the text and that this would be easier to do with the "ref" style. Thoughts? iggle 21:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mummies

We need a bit of a rewrite now that there are officially no occupants of the coffins. I'll work on it eventually if no one does it first. --Iggle 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Kent Weeks quote?

I propose deleting this section if no one objects:

After being shown the earliest photographs, Egyptologist Kent Weeks of the Theban Mapping Project — not involved with the discovery but engaged in the ongoing excavation of nearby KV5 — was quoted as saying that he did not believe the new tomb was a pharaoh's final resting place; instead, it was more likely to be that of a king's wife or son, or of a priest or court official.

This was part of the original "breaking news" article when we had no idea what the chamber was going to contain. Now it seems unnecessary. --Iggle 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

--Since there were no objections, I have removed it. --Iggle 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KV64 section

I am going to delete the section on KV64, as there is no evidence at all to support the content there, KV64 doesn't officially exist, and no-one has any idea of what it actually contains. Also the reference given doesn't support the text. Markh 08:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)