Wednesday
Dec092009
Zahi
Issandr El Amrani
I just caught up and read the recent New Yorker profile of Zahi Hawass, Egyptologist-in-chief and showman extraordinaire. Unfortunately it's not one of the freely available articles.
The piece is full of classic Zahi scenes, but although some might see it as derisive, it confirms my general impression that Hawass does more good than harm for his country and his field despite all the criticism. The piece stresses that he seen as not corrupt (as opposed to other cultural officials), competent and hard-working. That seems to be worth some delusions of grandeur, kitschiness and less-than-accurate scholarly statements, especially when you look at the general quality of senior officials in Egypt. That being said, I have only a distant and frankly quite faint interest in Egyptology. In fact my interest in Egyptology is much more about the enthusiasm the field generates, its "discovery" in the 19th century and some of its colorful characters than the actual ancient history and archeology.
Here's the opening paragraph of the 10-page article, titled "The Pharaoh", from the 16 November issue:
Hawass is currently trying to get the Rosetta Stone to Egypt.
The piece is full of classic Zahi scenes, but although some might see it as derisive, it confirms my general impression that Hawass does more good than harm for his country and his field despite all the criticism. The piece stresses that he seen as not corrupt (as opposed to other cultural officials), competent and hard-working. That seems to be worth some delusions of grandeur, kitschiness and less-than-accurate scholarly statements, especially when you look at the general quality of senior officials in Egypt. That being said, I have only a distant and frankly quite faint interest in Egyptology. In fact my interest in Egyptology is much more about the enthusiasm the field generates, its "discovery" in the 19th century and some of its colorful characters than the actual ancient history and archeology.
Here's the opening paragraph of the 10-page article, titled "The Pharaoh", from the 16 November issue:
Zahi Hawass, the Egyptian archeologist, is a lordly, well-dressed man of sixty-two, with white hair and small dark eyes. He likes to take the passenger seat in his chauffeured S.U.V., but he doesn't turn his head when he's talking to someone in the seats behind; he looks directly ahead, and shouts at the windshield. He often asks rhetorical questions along the lines of "God gave me this talent for public speaking—what can I do?" Visitors to his office, in Cairo, may hear him on the telephone to an airline representative, saying "No, madam! A first-class ticket, for a first-class passenger!"
Hawass is currently trying to get the Rosetta Stone to Egypt.
Reader Comments (4)
I think he'd be a lot more palatable if he didn't make it his business to try and tear down every academic who proposed a theory that Hawass hadn't thought of first.
I find it hard to reconcile "competent" with "less than accurate scholarly statements." This is a man who suggested that lava from a mediterranean volcano CRAWLED THROUGH HUNDREDS OF KILOMETERS OF SEAWATER and emerged on the surface of the Egyptian coast to destroy ancient Egyptian villages. Not ash flying through the air, mind you, but lava that continues to burn as it crawls on the seafloor for miles and miles and miles.
Plus, in answer to a theory about pyramid construction referring to holes which someone suggested were used to insert poles in the blocks for lifting, or something like that, Zahi said, "Ridiculous. Those are fox holes." I.e. foxes burrowed through solid rock to make a home for themselves, apparently.
To sum up: Clown shoe.
There's even a satirical archeology web site called http://www.egyptastic.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Egyptastic which is largely devoted to http://www.egyptastic.co.uk/_44.html" rel="nofollow">poking fun at Zahi Hawass.
Like I said, I don't follow Egyptological debates. Egyptastic is mentioned in the profile, actually.
BTW, has any Egyptological journal addressed the Zahi problem, or are Egyptologists (real ones not the amateurs I think Zahi rightly condemns) unwilling to risk offending him and be prevented from researching?