The KV-63 Conspiracy: Ancient Egyptian Finds Kept Secret

reply to post by Hanslune


What interpretation? Discovery Channel said it was discovered in 2005. Dr Otto J . Schaden even said on the program excavation started a year before. But, on the KV-63 official website there is no information prior 2006.

KV-63

[edit on 20-12-2008 by infinite]

reply to post by infinite


Howdy infinite

If I remember correctly you are saying that the mention of the finding of KV-63 at one date is evidence of conspiracy because a later publication gives a different date? Is that correct?

Was the second publication a translation from what was originally an Arabic document?

I would suspect that your conspiracy is an announcement of an initial discovery followed by a press release once the contents had been dug out and analyzed.

Or am I missing something?





[edit on 20/12/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


What he's saying is that a breakthrough-discovery that was found 2005 was announced as new 2006.

The same thing I say in the OP. In fact, it was already known about in 2000 and possibly even earlier, as shown in the OP.

Whats so difficult to understand about that?

reply to post by Skyfloating



I re-read the first post

So why was this sensational discovery kept secret for at least a year?

Answer it wasn't it was announced.

You guys are trying to hard, manufacturing conspiracy where none exists is a waste of time.

I'm amused to ask, why do you think this is at all important?

Try asking the Egyptologists at Hall of Ma'at what they think about this?

[edit on 20/12/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


If I remember correctly the "KV" discovered in the 1920s was announced on the same day it was found.

Whats your investment in denying that there was - if not some conspiracy - at least some sort of mistake?

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Hanslune

 

If I remember correctly the "KV" discovered in the 1920s was announced on the same day it was found.

Whats your investment in denying that there was - if not some conspiracy - at least some sort of mistake?

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Skyfloating]

Was it dug out by then?

You do remember my commitment to truth, don't you

Example

I do a field survey and find surface indications of a bronze age site.

That is announced in 2008

I then do the first season and produce my first paper and announce the first year's field research in 2009. However my graduate student assistant writes the press release to say the site was found yesterday.

After the material is released. We find that an other Archaeologists, from a different nation and school had found the site in 1958 but hadn't dug there.

Is this a conspiracy?

reply to post by Hanslune


Since we`re talking about a bigger find...perhaps the biggest find of the time, and because procedure was different at previous finds...and because of other inconsistencies involved...among them one of the archaeologists involved falsely accused of smuggling, kicked-out and then re-instated...

...and also because we are talking about a conspiracy-magazine having published the find before Egypt was forced to give a press-release...

we are talking about yet another odd event in a long list of odd events surrounding the place.

Yes.

Dr Otto J . Schaden was there in 2005, but Dr Zahi Hawass "officially" visited the site in 2006 and announced KV-63 as discovered in 2006.

After the discovery, University of Memphis and Dr. Schaden severed their relationship and the project now continues under Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities (which is now the official representative of Schaden's project).

Little bit odd?

Recommendation:

You guys are like Plato's famous description of those people watching shadows on a wall.

I suggest you:

Contact Egyptologists and ask them about this, follow the clues down all the way to the original people involved. Don't just make a surface examination, stop and declare conspiracy. Have you queried these people about there roles in it? I suspect you haven't. Have you spoken to people who are in Egypt and work in that field? I don't think so. I recommend you do so.

Take the research and show it to the experts at the Hall of Ma'at, and yes there are believers there too.

Oh why would you think.....'perhaps the biggest find of the time'??



[edit on 21/12/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


Okay, I took it upon myself to email Nicholas Reeves as he seems the most likely to respond. I haven't found Shaden's email yet, but as he is now working without a University's acrreditation and with Hawass's blessing (eyebrows raised to hairline):

In mid-January, the University of Memphis and Dr. Schaden severed their relationship and Schaden's research will continue under the auspices of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, which is now representing Schaden's project, a very unusual move because most are conducted under a University.

Link

If Harte is around I would like to call his attention to this fact as he and I were down in the dirt a while back about ... someone... an archaeologist who was bounced from the Giza plateau after making an unusual discovery. He 'lost' his Uni. acreditation and that was the pretext as to why he was no longer allowed access. Harte if you remember who that was shout me out, and perhaps we can fight more peacably about it this time and on the appropriate thread

I think there's something missing here in the time frame -- an assumption that an archaeologist walks up to a site and suddenly says, "golly wow! I've found HappaRappaGa the 4th!!!"

Doesn't happen like that, which is why I keep encouraging people to join local archaeological associations and participate in public digs.

You find a site, start digging, collect the evidence. While you're collecting evidence, you're also doing dating and looking for clues on who's there and what it all meant. If you come across writing with names and dates, you have to figure out if it's consistent with the rest of the site or if you've got a site that was used over centuries.

The "site used over a period of years" is common, and not that unusual even in the Valley of Kings." Dig in one section and you find something. Dig 10 feet away and it's technically the same site but you've found something else that dates to another time period.

So... to recap:
* they don't announce sites the day they find them because they don't have enough data to declare what they've found. Work on a single site can go on for 10 years or more.
* they don't announce finds until they're dead sure what they've got and at least one other scholar has agreed with them. People like Schimmler (who "found Homer's Troy") usually end up being wrong if they announce without other confirmation (he dug through the layer with Homer's Troy and went back to a much older version of the city.) Nobody likes to look stupid, so they wait for other experts to chime in.
* they frame their announcement with the laws of the land and the state and the site which vary (even here in the US.) Some sites are reported to the government (Native American burials in the case of US findings) but are not reported in newspapers although a reference may show up to them in a paper later on.
* often a press release won't give the boring details of "well, we saw this back in 1980 and went to look at it but time and the weather didn't permit a better look and so it lay dormant until one of our grad students decided it might make a good project and then did a better survey in 1992 and we finally got grant and a team together to do a preliminary dig in 1993 and the findings were interesting but we ran out of money and in 2002 we finally got a team and money and went out to dig and we've dug every season until then and now we know we found... whatever."

I know this for a fact, because in October there was a Nova special on polar dinosaurs. One of the bones I worked on was shown during the episode. It sounded like an exciting new find (the way it was presented) but in fact I'd worked on that one two years before and the (still ongoing during summers) dig that it came from has been going on for about 5-6 years.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by Byrd]

reply to post by Byrd


Hi Byrd

Some materials I worked with from Kalavassos didn't get published for 23 years! You were lucky!

Here's some 'breaking news' about Dr Zawass' work, in the form of a video brought to you by the BBC:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How does this fit into the overall picture, I wonder?

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Byrd

 

Hi Byrd

Some materials I worked with from Kalavassos didn't get published for 23 years! You were lucky!

I got no credit there, though the bone IS tagged in the museum archives with my name as preparator. However, once I finish this darn sauropod vertebra, there should be a nice paper on it (in about 2 years)... and again I'll be a footnote as preparator who spent three years of her life working on the huge chunk.

I think some of the alternative sites fail to realize that all the material about any one thing is not necessarily found all at once. For example, I'm doing a chapter on "Cleopatra VII as Isis" for a book that will be about Isis and Apis/Serapis (for those of you who are wondering, yes, this is the Cleopatra of "Anthony and Cleopatra"). I particularly want to look at the chronology of the art and the inscriptions... it's a real mess to get all of that together (and then translate what the various headdresses and jewelry implies. I'd be ever so much better at this if I had taken courses in Egyptology.) They've recently (past 5 years) found other items relating to Cleopatra, but information on those is slim because there hasn't been much written about them.

That's the fun part about this field (IMHO) -- that new material always shows up which leads to a deeper and richer understanding of the things we already know.

Howdy Sky

Here is story you should like

Pyramids found long ago, a discovery announced two years ago but the real discovery only announce in November of 2008 - obviously something fishy. LOL

The Queen

Hawass's archaeological team began excavating the site in 2006

On November 8, 2008, Egypt's chief archaeologist, Zahi Hawass, secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), announced that Sesheshet was entombed in a 4,300-year-old, topless pyramid at Saqqara that measures 5 metres (16 ft) tall. Hawass stated that this may be Saqqara's most complete subsidiary pyramid

reply to post by Skyfloating


Cool post but if I could venture a guess as to why they hide finds until they get them all cleaned out and cataloged...

They have to make sure before it goes public that there is nothing in the tomb that could tend to give the JEWS any claim to Egypt or its throne of Pharaohs. This is a pretty well known fact amongst Archeologist in Egypt and in most Middle Eastern Nations. Israel also at least on the Temple Mount they do not allow Jews to excavate and the Muslims would never give Israeli or Jewish artifacts up. No one can go to Egypt and try t find evidence of Moses, Egypt won't give you a permit if they think you are going to do anything like that.

I just think that the politics of the region and other such factors should be looked at in a lot of Archeological finds in that area. They are vetted of any Hebrew/Jew artifacts or information, if it exists, before making public.

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Howdy TIJ

Cool post but if I could venture a guess as to why they hide finds until they get them all cleaned out and cataloged... They have to make sure before it goes public that there is nothing in the tomb that could tend to give the JEWS any claim to Egypt or its throne of Pharaohs.

Hans: Un huh

This is a pretty well known fact amongst Archeologist in Egypt and in most Middle Eastern Nations.

Hans: Indeed? I was an archaeologist in that area and I never heard of it – perhaps you should ask the Egyptologists over at the Hall of Ma’at that one – or is it secret? I went to every nation there but Yemen and Iraq - how did I miss this?

Israel also at least on the Temple Mount they do not allow Jews to excavate and the Muslims would never give Israeli or Jewish artifacts up.

Hans: hmmm the Israelis don’t seem to be aware of this

www.bibleplaces.com...

www.thirdtemple.com...

No one can go to Egypt and try t find evidence of Moses, Egypt won't give you a permit if they think you are going to do anything like that.

Hans: Well okay, don't know about that one, can you offer some evidence for this claim? Remember Moses is both a Jewish, Christian and Muslim prophet.

I just think that the politics of the region and other such factors should be looked at in a lot of Archeological finds in that area. They are vetted of any Hebrew/Jew artifacts or information, if it exists, before making public.

Hans: I don’t think so, as Jewish era materials are commonly found in Jordan on a regular basis…you haven’t been there have you? You can find mount Nebo in Jordan and they mention Moses and they have a nice sanctuary there.

www.atlastours.net...

Pink Gold Coffinette Found in KV-63

Dr. Otto Schaden's team discover a 42 cm. anthropoid gold leaf coffinette in youth coffin (G).




KV-63 treasures

Here is an image of the KV-63 team




Rather a shady lot of conspiracy dudes eh!!

reply to post by Hanslune


... I don't know. That 'dude' with the white hat and the one eye...

On a more serious note, what do you think you are proving by posting the above? That the group is benign looking and for that reason will not be answerable to, or tempted by, the lure of grants and access as motivation for adhering to an academic party-line?

I ask as that is the usual crux of the argument between the two informed, yet opposing, camps in this forum.

If so, are there more glamorous/sinister looking groups of archaeologists who would help make the case for 'my side' by dint of their personal appearance alone?

Cheers!
TWISI

edit for: typo



[edit on 20-1-2009 by TheWayISeeIt]

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


Pure humor..plus if you look at the picture you DO see a shady looking guy in green in the far left background - obviously the "minder".

Hilarious stuff

That the group is benign looking and for that reason will not be answerable to, or tempted by, the lure of grants and access as motivation for adhering to an academic party-line?

Grants from Egypt? Hardly, grants come mainly from sources OUTSIDE of Egypt.

Access? Sure they could cut off a University or known expert - and be cut to pieces in the archaeological world's press almost immediately.

12 SEPTEMBER 2007
It has been some time since my last update as many administrative issues necessitated my attention this summer.

As of June 30th, our contractual agreement with the University of Memphis (UM) expired hence requiring a search for a new affiliate.

Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to announce that the Amenmesse Project [KV-10 and KV-63] is now affiliated with the prestigious, Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) ~ The Egyptian Ministry of Culture.

"Access" is a two-edged sword, if the evil conspiracy would do that - then the "cut off" people would spill the beans wouldn't they?

A good investigator would contact all these people and ask them if they are hiding anything. But then we know that won't happen.





[edit on 20/1/09 by Hanslune]