Dig Days: Amateur Egyptologists By Zahi Hawass Reading books about Egyptology does not make you an Egyptologist, nor does writing a book on some topic related to ancient Egypt. An Egyptologist is someone who has an extensive education and broad knowledge and experience in the field, from the study of artefacts to the understanding of chronology, both relative and absolute. Perhaps most importantly, real Egyptologists participate in a scholarly community, exchanging ideas and information as colleagues rather than grabbing news from the television and newspaper headlines, and forming opinions from information published in popular sources. Newspapers and television shows are for the general public, and the information in them is often badly oversimplified. Professional Egyptologists consult scientific publications, or at least confer with their colleagues, before jumping to conclusions on any matter related to the discipline of Egyptology. Amateur Egyptologists, on the other hand, often speak and write without thinking. The problem with this is that it deceives people, and can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings. For example, a person went to Karnak Temple recently and saw a white coating on the walls. He wrote that this coating was salt, which was eating away at the stone and endangering the temple. His article was translated in the Egyptian press under the title "Save Karnak". What this author did not know was that the white substance that he saw was actually plaster which, as all scientific evidence tells us, poses no danger to the monument. He also failed to take into account the fact that a project to lower the groundwater level at Karnak and Luxor had recently been successfully completed, protecting the temple from such salt damage. He did not mention either that the bazaars, automobile traffic, and modern construction that were closing in on the temple had been pushed back to protect it for the future. Another example of a misunderstanding caused by the same poorly-informed amateur Egyptologist involves the mummy of Hatshepsut. A couple of years ago, I led a team which showed scientifically that the remains of a woman found in KV60, identified previously by Elizabeth Thomas and Donald Ryan as the mummy of Hatshepsut, did in fact almost certainly belong to the great queen. The Discovery Channel made a documentary on our work, which this amateur attacked as an example of "Hollywood archaeology". It is true that the TV crew made mistakes in their presentation of our work, but their main goal was to make it accessible to the public through the use of high-tech imaging. They showed, for instance, how the tooth that we found in the wooden box fit into the socket in the mummy's jaw. Most archaeologists become involved with television crews from time to time. We carefully supervise film crews to make sure that their presence does not interfere with our scientific work, which they in turn present to the public, allowing people around the world to enjoy and learn from our adventures. We as archaeologists try to close our eyes to any sensationalism, and concentrate on the positive aspects of working with the media. In addition, companies like the Discovery Channel and National Geographic fund the use of important technologies such as DNA analysis and CT scanning that greatly enhances our understanding of Egypt's history. Television documentaries on archaeology help build public support for archaeology and historic preservation, and in the case of the SCA, they draw attention to the fact that for the first time, Egyptians are taking the lead in the study of their own cultural heritage. If there is any Egyptologist who thinks that this is not a good thing, I would certainly like to know his name, because I cannot believe that such a person exists. The latest poorly-informed public statement that this amateur has made has to do with my recent rediscovery at Ashmunein of two stone talatat blocks naming Tutankhamun as the son of a king. He declared in an editorial in his magazine that I had announced that Tut must be the son of Pharaoh Akhenaten. Although I do think that this was probably the case, and these blocks do show that the young king was born into the royal family, I did not say that the blocks proved with certainty that Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten. If he had read my own statements on the issue carefully, rather than leaping on out-of-context quotes in the media, he would have known this. It upsets me a great deal when people unfairly attack my work based on media reports. I would like to encourage everyone involved in Egyptology to deal with one another as colleagues and cooperate for the benefit of the field. It is so important for all of us to remember the importance of going to reliable sources for our information, and participating in scholarly dialogue rather than jumping to conclusions. I hope that everyone reading this will remember that true professionals check their information carefully, and treat one another with respect.
