Just food for though: Notice how Hawass never wears gloves when handling mummies (which are incredibly easily contaminated), and always insists on being allowed to reveal discoveries in person.

I unfortunately have opinions that conflict quite radically with your own, Kmt_Sesh. This will probably drone on a bit because I get worked up about it, but I'll split it up with interesting pictures that might persuade you to read it all!

Hawass is a bombastic battle tank who seems to take more care promoting himself than Egypt, even when he ends up endangering and destroying both potentially fantastic archaeological finds and the sites to which they pertain. In 2003 alone he excluded 14 archaeological expeditions from to country and denied access to countless more. It is Hawass who over-orchestrates everything Egyptian, and reserves almost all the major finds for himself to reveal to the press. In most cases it is the work of others that is stolen by Hawass and claimed as his ‘own’ fantastic discovery. Furthemore it’s the case that innumerable archaeological teams in Egypt pray they do not uncover anything of importance- fearing that if they do then their projects will be shut down until the ‘Big Zee’ (as Zahi has been appropriately dubbed) can come and take over, ‘discovering’ the key artefacts for himself and stealing the glory of hardworking expeditions.

Those who oppose him are thrown out of the country, branded as heretics to Egyptology, quite frequently lose their jobs and have their reputations destroyed. Indeed many dare not to resist him for these reasons. Hawass recently denounced the curator of the British Museum as ‘a thief’ and accused him of ‘buying stolen artefacts.’ He swats all his critics brutally, and tries successfully to stay atop the ever-growing crowd of Egyptologists who now oppose him.


The Big Zee quite literally takes an axe to the Valley of the Golden Mummies. My uncle was there floor managing on set, and was truly horrifed at Zahi's lack of care.

His process of vilification culminated with the case of Joann Fletcher, which I don’t feel like going into great detail on, no less than to say that Hawass is just as guilty of misidentification as she was. Hawass attacked her by saying that Joann’s theory was based only on “weak facial resemblance,” despite the fact that Ms. Fletcher had said herself that “Physical resemblance is weak evidence.” Hawass also lied when he said that Ms. Fletcher was “a recent PhD recipient.” In fact she has held her PhD for eight years in total- a higher number than Zahi had when the same age as Fletcher, There was infact at the time of Fletcher’s discovery, a wealth of information in support of her claims. With DNA testing on 3,000 year old mummies not only hugely unreliable but also illegal under Hawass, complete proof was unattainable at the time. Hawass despised Fletcher not because she could have been wrong (Hawass had virtually no evidence against her before the DNA testing was carried out), but because she offended his self-proclaimed rules of etiquette. She revealed alone potentially the greatest Egyptological discovery of the 21st century so far, and Hawass had not been there to steal it from her. In my eyes, Fletcher reached a valid conclusion when she suggested that the mummy 61072 could be that of Nefertiti, and Hawass himself was also equally unsure before the testing, saying “She looks like a young lady in the age of fifteen” in the February of Joann’s expedition. Of course he now radically denies that he ever said this, even though he was being filmed at the time.


Fletcher's team of experts carefully remove the arm of Mummy 61072 for testing. Note the clothing and face mask.

Hawass knew that the counter evidence that he had in February was not enough to discredit Fletcher enough for him to get his own back, and there was really only one piece of evidence he could obtain that might shatter her credulity enough for him to expel her from Egypt and destroy her reputation- the gender of the mummy. Hawass legalised testing for this sole reason, and when the mummy proved male-positive Hawass was exhillerated. The evidence was of course hugely unreliable- British DNA experts have proven that in such climates DNA can survive no longer than 400 years, and yet Hawass and his accomplices had handled the mummy without any form of protection, their sweaty palms destroying what little salvageable DNA might remain in the body (capillary action ‘sucks’ human DNA in moisture and sweat into mummified remains). Grafton Elliot Smith had handled the mummy also (along with a plethora of other tourists in the Edwardian period), and described female genitalia on the mummy before Fletcher. Hawass had practically no evidence against Fletcher before the DNA tests, but afterwards he had succeeded in clouding the situation enough to claim that the mummy was definitely a man, and went about destroying the rest of Fletcher’s evidence. He raised the mummies age way out of the possible Nefertiti range, and denied Fletcher further access to the mummy. He reproduced articles that suggested she was completely clueless in the field of Anthropology (in fact she had merely not taken a degree on it- but had spent the last seven years studying it whilst teaching), and finished his coup-de-grace by expelling Fletcher from Egypt for good.


The contaminated Big Zee 'carefully' examines King Tut. Note the haphazard arrangment and lack of protective clothing.

Since Fletcher the Archaeologists are gaining the courage to oppose Hawass. Dr Saleh Bedeir risked coming under fire when he attacked Zahi’s techniques during the scanning of Tutankhamun, accusing Hawass of unscientific behaviour that put the mummy under risk of decomposition, decay and contamination: “Instead of being a very important scientific event [the CT-scan] serves only media addicts” said Bedeir. Others too complain that “safety precautions ... were not taken into account” (Abdel-Halim Nuredim- Cairo University), and even Hawass’ highly respected precursors are beginning to take more active steps to raise awareness to his malpractices. Gaballa Ali Gaballa, Hawass’ predecessor points a finger at the temptation caused by lucrative deals with Western TV stations, which Hawass now evidently favours over Egyptian companies. Recently Toyota donated 11 Land cruisers to the SCA for field research in return for exclusive television rights sold to them by Hawass. Zahi is now the proud owner of two 2001 Toyota Land Cruisers.

In Hawass’ own words, “There are jealous archaeologists who are lazy. I call them followers of Seth, the devil God.”

Psusennes I, I cannot dispute you on much what you said because I agree with much of it. I myself have repeatedly written how unpopular Hawass is with his colleagues, both at home and abroad. I arrived at this not from conjecture but what other professionals in the field have told me, when I've talked with them at our museum. It's no secret that Hawass is unpopular.

However, your description of the ongoing argument between Hawass and Fletcher is a bit one-sided. I've always felt there was more to it than just Fletcher's hasty conclusions--that is, that it was personal for Hawass--but the fact is, Dr. Fletcher has been roundly criticized by other Egyptologists far more experienced and capable than she. There was even a critique of her book in a recent edition of KMT that was quite scathing and pointed out shocking errors she had made in fundamental historical and artistic matters, many of which were the sorts of things that even we "lay people" would recognize as incorrect. Fletcher is a very intelligent and promising researcher, but she is inexperienced and leans toward the reckless...and is every bit as presumptuous as Hawass, though certainly a much easier person to work with.

You clearly dislike Hawass, but don't let it color your arguments. Fletcher's "discovery" has been dismissed by her peers. I can't think of any leading Egyptologist who supports her.

But yes, Hawass is responsible alone for blowing it so out of proportion, and I thought his behavior cruel and unprofessional. Then again, Fletcher tried using the "sexist" angle against the SCA when it barred her from Egypt, and that was nonsense. Neither the SCA nor Hawass is sexist: one of his most promising protégés is Salima Ikram, a brilliant and gifted young woman.

This so good everyone finally we are debating the issues
The big point is that Egypt has change since the early 1900
and the passion of Hawass is true, not a personal gig of him.
He share the passion for ancient Egypt, the Pharaohs and their
way of living.

And they are entitle to posses their own history and share it with us
They show today the respect for their ancient history and are trying
to learn from passed errors, But the people of the west, a special
the Lords and the imperials must take there responsibility of early
lootings and destruction. There are obelisks, Mummies art affects spreadaround the world who should be brought back to Egypt
not only because they truly belongs there, but also because
it was the great Pharaohs wishes to be buried with them.

And we all can agree that grave robbery in the name of a conquer
is as much grave robbery as any other.

I really think that Museums and countries around the globe that bring
key relics back really can benefit on that, To be know as the Museum
who sent back key relics is in modern days the best commercial you can have.

And if they where smart they should at the same time invest in Museums
like Cairo Museum to improve them and be part of them. and with today's
technology they can produce some fine replicas to show at their own museum
I really think that people would go there and visit them just in support
of their fine gestures.

Not again, please no, not again.

I feel it silly for you to point out such minor incongruencies in what seems to me to be a completely valid argument. I am perfectly aware that in the particular photograph that I displayed Hawass was not utilising a bladed implement. There were many occasions however when the shape of the object that he was using was completely irrelevant, due to the overt force and unscientific methods that he was employing in a vain attempt to uncover treasures of the Bahariya Oasis. Indeed he did actually employ pick axes frequently during the excavation when the use was completely unmerited. Perhaps it would be more fervent of you to take up argument in defence of Hawass’ brutal methods at the Bahariya with Ahmed Salah, director of the SCA’s Abu Simbel antiquities department? When asked for his opinion on the live opening of the tombs in the so-dubbed ‘Valley of the Golden Mummies’ (which was broadcast to millions in both the US and UK for 2-hour specials) he said, “The excavations conducted by Hawass in the Bahariya were a real joke. How can a scientist hold an axe and just hack at a tomb on the air? All scientists should know that many important processes should precede the opening of any tomb. If you just hack away at it, you lose important historical evidence. I am sad that this is what Egyptology has come to.”

I am complete concordance with Mr. Salah; Hawass’ methods at the Bahariya were entirely deplorable. Thousands of years of historical evidence sacrificed in seconds for a few minutes of amusement and excitement for the general public. Hawass was indeed ‘shifting bits of earth’ with the various tools that he could lay his hands on, but this earth, which Hawass liberally crushed and threw out of tomb quite probably contained what few sherds of pottery and sarcophagus remained. Surely you noticed this? The program was shown live all across the globe, and received literally hundreds of complaints from archaeologists worldwide. When Hawass had failed to uncover anything of importance three-quarters of the way through the UK programme, he smashed down the dividing wall into the next chamber of the tomb which had been opened, and rushed straight back out having realised that there was nothing inside which would truly astound the press. Even an excavation spanning only a few subterranean chambers should take days to complete. Mapping and careful analysis of even the smallest finds should be conducted- especially in an area where precious little has been excavated. Hawass ignored this completely. He is on film doing it. Throwing stones aside in a frantic yet futile attempt to uncover something of visual value to please the thousands of viewers. Surely even you are horrified by the idea of hurriedly excavating an entire catacomb in just one hour, when it could have been done properly and carefully over a period of days?

In response to your slightly confused analysis of safety protocol regarding Egyptian mummies, Hawass once again denies all the allegations that he breached safety procedures. The Supreme Council of Antiquities (which I must stress is actually a working council) voted in a landslide against Tutankhamun being brought back to Cairo for extensive CT scans. Nevertheless Zahi persisted (it later came to light that he had already agreed to extensive television deals with several UK and American stations) and eventually ended up taking the scans in an entirely undesirable environment . The computers inside the lorry ended up overheating, and household fans were haphazardly arranged to cool the surroundings. Hawass is on film handling mummies without protective clothing (he lifts the ‘crossed’ arm and tilts the head), and despite what you say, if DNA tests are going to be performed with more than 50% accuracy then protective clothing must be worn- especially over the mouth and hands. Hawass says that “people should wear gloves and a mask” when handling mummies to avoid the risk of contamination and yet he fails to observe this rule ever- even when he does handle mummies. When he and Tara Brown investigated the remains of ‘Nefertiti’ they wore no protection at all- spraying their breath and sweat all over the already badly contaminated mummified remains. The DNA detected on Mummy 61072 by the SGC could be Hawass’ own. It could be Victor Loret’s or Grafton Elliot Smith’s. It most certainly was not the actual DNA of Mummy 61072 however. I understand that safety may not be an issue when dealing with the sort of globally unimportant remains that the Field Museum of Chicago has to examine, but for the remains of Tutankhamun and other Royal mummies what precious little DNA might remain must be protected at all costs.

Besides which, other than stall me you have not managed to detract at all from the authority and validity of my argument. You're clearly highly intelligent and knowledgeable, but you have done nothing less than agree with me on the majority of my comments on Hawass.

I'm sorry. Perhaps you misunderstand my angle. I do dislike Hawass instensely, but I accept whole-heartedly that you seem to adore him.

You claim that I have made no strong points, and yet I am wholly dumbfounded by this statement. The fact that you are making such petty claims as to make such puerile statements in opposition surely demonstrates the lack of substance to your argument. If you are unable to comment on Hawass’ excavation methods then perhaps you should investigate them for yourself before obsequiously boasting of his greatness. I have quoted the likes of many high members of the SCA, who are all growing steadily in their opposition to Hawass, you have yet to quote one single person- except yourself, and I too cannot go on ‘cannot take your word for it alone.’

In response to my malediction, I apologise profusely. I did get out of hand, and I’m sorry. All I meant to say is that perhaps with royal mummies one must be more careful with regards to contamination, especially when accurate DNA tests could prove invaluable to the identification process. Anyway. I am sorry. I would ask you to make some points in support of Hawass for your next post however, as they seem to be fairly thin.