Posted by Kate Phizackerley on Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Zahi Hawass is going to be lecturing at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester, England on 4th February.  Tickets via the link above: more details on the Dr Hawass blog.

He promises to speak about Tutankhamun. We can guess that is his death from malaria theory and maybe a bit of DNA.  As genetics is quite complex, I doubt the DNA stuff will be detailed. 

He is also down to speak about the hunt for the tomb of Nefertiti.  If that's more than marketing hyperbole, that could be interesting.  I do think Nefertiti's tomb remains to be found; I am intrigued though why Hawass is confident she wasn't buried with Akhenaten.  I still believe they will be found together in the same tomb.

Finally he promises an update on the Valley of the Kings.  If that's last winter's excavations it will be interesting, but it could be very, very much more if he speaks about work in the Western Valley of the Kings. It is also believed a sarcophagus was removed last winter from one of the previously uncleared tombs.  That has never been officially confirmed, nor has there been any rumours on the identity of the individual.  As I broke on this blog a few weeks ago, there is an excavation team back at work in the Valley of the Kings.  Of course, we all hope for a definitive update on tomb KV64.

If you live in or near Manchester this seems like a must see event.

(Edited now I am on the laptop to tidy the title and add a link to the article on the Hawass site)


Anonymous said...

Got my ticket already, 3rd row, cant wait he really is the most exciting speaker. Having said that a lot of things he said at his O2 lecture re finding new tombs in the VOK did not come to pass. Daveh

Kate Phizackerley said...

Great. I was wondering whether to go up to Manchester but it is a bit expensive as I'd have to stay over as well. Since I now know you are going, I know there is one intelligent member of the audience ... and pretty please can you report back on any highlights so I can post them up here?

Ron Lankshear said...

I'd like to know Hawass current opinion on Tut's death. Again we had the show re the broken leg when hunting on a chariot.

And Merry Christmas and thank you for the great blog

John Bright said...

The hoped-for KV64 that Nicholas Reeves investigations hinted at turned out to be more huts. The KV64 that was thought to be located near to the tomb of Merneptah has been shown to be a stone wall. Another anomaly near to the Reeves; site has been interpreted as a natural rock fissure. If the reports of a sarcophagus (stone or wood?) being removed from one of the clearances is true, I can only hope the excavation has been recorded scientifically and will be properly published. There seems to be the hint of rushed work in The Valley, as if the lessons of Davis's mistakes had been forgotten (I exclude KV63 from that comment). Slow, careful and meticulous might be unexciting but it produces more positive results.

Stephanie said...

Hawass might be an exciting speaker, but sometimes I wish he would cut down on excitement caused by tantalizing promises which rarely come true.

Anyway, I hope he will present some new findings from DNA testing which apparently went on for roughly one year since the last publication in February.
If there are any new findings, that is, but I think if they tested only a few more mummies there might well be more valuable information to be added to the still very incomplete picture.

Hope this will not just be wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

Certainly will Kate, let me know if there are any specific questions you want me to ask him (apart from questions on DNA which he is a bit twitchy about). Although its not far from Sheffield to Manchester we are planning on stopping over and then going to the Tut exhibition in the morning. You ought to get a ticket, regards Daveh

Kate Phizackerley said...

Oddly, I am not that fussed about the Tutankhamun exhibit. I saw them in Cairo and I have a book (which I will review) and that does me.

I think the question most people are interested in is, "Is there a KV64 yet?"

Stephanie said...

Somewhat oddly Hawass declares in the announcement of the lecture that he will talk about the mummy of RamsesIII.
I wonder if this is a typo and should be RamsesII.
Would he really examine the mummy of RamsesIII before that of the great one?
And what about other 19 dynasty mummies?

Maybe this is a question worth asking if he doesn`t talk about it anyway.

John Bright said...

Ramesses III: perhaps they have conducted some tests that confirm he died an unnatural death and Dr Hawass intends to announce it at this lesture.
(Perhaps it was Professor Plumb with a lead pipe in the library! Excuse my facetiousness).

Stephanie said...

I think you`re right, wasn`t it RamsesIII
who died after an attempted murder attack initiated by members of the harem?

This could get interesting!

Please correct me if I`m wrong.

Marianne Luban said...

I think Ramesses III would be right because of a mystery called "Unknown Man E", the mummy whom some have decided must be Prince Pentaweret, a son of Ramesses III and a conspirator againt his own father. DNA could certainly confirm or deny this theory. Another question about Ramesses III is whether the 20th Dynasty of Manetho was really an entirely different family from the 19th or whether Setnakht, its founder, was somehow connected to it, If he was, y-DNA comparison of Ramesses III to the 19th Dynasty kings could answer that question--unless Setnakht was related to them on his mother's side.

John Bright said...

Wasn't there a queen called Isis involved in trying to place her son on the throne?
Another thought is that perhaps Ramesses III has been shown to have a blood-line connection to the 19th Dynasty. The lecture promises to be interesting.

rymerster said...

John, Iset Ta-Hemdjert (I've seen her called Isis) was the mother of Ramesses IV, the legitimate successor of Ramesses III, the queen involved in the conspiracy was called Tiye.

Yes, I'm interested too in how Ramesses III fits in with the 19th Dynasty, I would bet that he is descended from Ramesses II somehow.

John Bright said...

Thanks: I was writing from memory. I shall check before I write next time!
Given the apparent large number of children Ramesses II had, it would not be a great surprise if a descendant of one of these was one of Setnakht's parents or even his wife. It might explain the repetition of the name Ramesses in the Dynasty he founded.


Admin Control Panel