Talk About Network

Google





History > Ancient Egypt > KV-63 was Not a...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 3 Topic 820 of 951
Post > Topic >>

KV-63 was Not a Tomb

by heremon <kevin.kirby@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sep 30, 2007 at 04:01 PM

After viewing the interminably drawn-out kv63 do***entaries again last
night, wherein each stage of the discovery is repeated again and again
to heighten suspense, it seemed rather annoying for anyone to still
refer to this pit as a tomb. More like some sort of disposal pit, it
has no wall paintings and no tomblike floor plan. It almost certainly
contains former contents of kv62, minus the former occupant.

On a different note, I wonder about the nature of medications used by
the lineage of thutmose for their apparent (from ct scanning) skin
problems. Doubtless, by the time of the later inheritors of their
ailment, a wide range of herbals would have been in royal hands. What
would the list include?

Could Akhnaten's Amarna ****ft possibly have been the result of certain
mind-altering topicals, available to pharaonic circles of his dynasty?
 




 3 Posts in Topic:
KV-63 was Not a Tomb
heremon <kevin.kirby@[  2007-09-30 16:01:43 
Re: KV-63 was Not a Tomb
"John Bastien"   2007-10-08 20:12:11 
Return to Akhetaten
heremon <kevin.kirby@[  2007-10-24 16:16:48 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
localhost-V2008-12-19 Fri Jan 9 15:54:05 PST 2009.