Dr. Ken Nystrom is a biological anthropologist from California. He traveled with Discovery Channel to Egypt to host
Egypt's New Tomb Revealed and went back again for the official opening of the rear coffin. Ken has given us excerpts from his trip journals, in which he allows us to glimpse what it's really like to observe one of the most important archaeological digs in Egypt's recent history.
July 10, 2006 — Science is about theories and ideas … and there are certainly plenty of theories about tomb KV 63. Some of the big questions are what is it, when was it used, and who may have used it?
The beautiful thing about science is that while these will ALWAYS be the questions, the answers themselves may change as we learn more.
At the most fundamental level we have to ask: What is KV 63? Is KV 63 an embalmer's cache or is it a tomb?
This may seem like a small issue, but it is foundational. In order for KV 63 to be considered a tomb, it must have once served as a resting place for someone. Realistically, this could be pretty tough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt.
KV 63 could have been a tomb in antiquity and then any mummies inside could have been removed. They could have been moved by priests to other tombs (which has happened before in the valley) or haphazardly removed by grave robbers (which, ironically, probably would have left more clues, like bits of bone and textiles strewn about).
There are a couple pieces of evidence that may indicate that there was at least one mummy in KV 63, but nothing definitive. There is a palm mat from one of the coffins that seems to have the impression of a mummy on it, though I am not entirely convinced. Now, this does not mean that it was not intended to be used as a tomb, or even that it wasn't — there just isn't solid evidence at this time.
There is more evidence to help us determine the age of the material inside KV 63. Stylistically, KV 63 seems to fall into the 18th Dynasty. Earl Eartman, one of the members of Dr. Otto's team, noted some similarities in tomb design with other tombs from the same time period.
Also, the large white jars are similar to those found in an embalmer's cache associated with the mummification of Tutankhamen. Several mud seals that have been found in KV 63 also are similar to seals found in Tut's tomb. Overall, the evidence is pretty strong to support the theory that KV 63 dates to the latter half of the 18th Dynasty around the time of Tutankhamen.
And finally, there is the matter of who may have been in KV 63, or who it may have been intended for. More simply, to whom does the material inside KV 63 belong? Even though there wasn't a mummy in any of the coffins in KV 63, the coffins themselves can give us clues about identity.
Dr. Hawass thinks that Coffin E, the last one opened, was intended for Kiya, the mother of Tutankhamen. His opinion is based on the family resemblance he sees between the carved wooden face on Coffin E and representations of Tutankhamen.
Dr. Hawass says that Tut held his mother very dear — she died giving birth to him — and would have had her mummy moved from Amarna, where she was originally buried, to the Valley of the Kings to be close to him.
There is also the idea that perhaps the tomb, or some of the material inside, was intended for Ankhesenamun, Tut's wife. This is primarily based upon the recovery of the two small golden coffins. Tut and Ankhesenamun had two stillborn babies, and it is possible that these coffins may have been intended for them.
Dr. Otto has reserved his opinion so far. It is not a matter of being cagey or not having a theory; it is a matter of waiting for the rest of the evidence to surface, and there is still A LOT to sift through.
All of the material inside Coffin E has to be examined and analyzed. There are still 16 large white jars to go through. Literally, there could be anything inside, and it could take only a small seal or a brief series of hieroglyphs to completely change the whole picture.
Is anyone wrong? Well, no, not really. At the moment the available evidence is pointing in a general direction. Ideas, theories and even answers will change, but it is the process of science and archaeology that remains the same.
