Monday, August 14, 2006

Response from Hawass to "KV64"

It is no great surprise that the response of Zahi Hawass to the public release of news about the tentatively labled "KV64" by Nick Reeves has not bee particularly warm: "In a letter to USA TODAY, he writes, 'If what Mr. Reeves says is true, then why didn't he present this report to the Supreme Council of Antiquities.' He adds: 'Radar can also show anomalies that are not necessarily tomb shafts. It seems to me that Mr. Reeves wants publicity more than conducting his work through a scientific approach. For this reason, I am writing you to state that the information is not true.'
Reeves responds that he alerted Hawass and the Supreme Council to KV 64's location in August of 2005, but received no reply. 'Yes, I am clearly seeking publicity — but not for my own ends,' he says by e-mail. 'My sole ambition in this is to see archaeological work in the Valley of the Kings carried out with the care and attention it deserves and so desperately needs.'
Undoubtedly, the contested site will attract the attention of more researchers, who may resolve the question of its existence within the year. On Egyptology websites there is some support for a go-slow approach, and big doubts about whether Reeves will be allowed by Egypt to be part of any research in the area.
See the above page for the full article.


Anonymous said...

Hawass is certainly the last three letters of his name.
Egypt will be well served when he is gone.

Nelson said...

I am disappointed with Hawass negative response. Hopefully, the conflict between him and Reeves will not prevent the excavation of KV64.
The empty coffins of KV63 were used to transport the royal mummies from Amarna to their final resting place.
The discovery of the garlands, which were worn at the funeral banquet, left no doubt that a burial was near by.
Hawass said that Tut wanted to be buried near his mother.

Anonymous said...

Hawass needs to be replaced. Egyptology does not need a publicity seeking king.