CAIRO: An Egyptian Egyptologist is urging antiquities officials to take the utmost care before removing entire villages located close to major archaeological sites under the pretext that they could be housing a wealth of artifacts and treasures.
Bassam Al Shammaa cited the example of Al Gurna village on the west bank of Luxor.
Following ten years of negotiations, Al Gurna’s residents have been displaced to make room for excavators who will engage in an extensive search for monuments that might be sheltered in passages under their old houses.
“In the past, this policy could have been accepted because there was no technology to help specialists know whether anything has been lying underground, said Al Shammaa.
“But today the modern technological advancement has made it easy to discover with the use of [seismic] tectonic devices if certain objects are buried under these places, he added.
Al Shammaa pointed out that the displacement of an entire village that has been inhabited by locals for thousands of years cannot take place without negatively affecting the villagers as well as the area, even when that happens only on a psychological level.
“I understand that the villagers have been offered new houses in remote areas away from their native villages, but I continue to ask the same question: Was there any urgent need to take that step in a zone like the west bank that is already rich in a bevy of discovered tombs? he said.
On the west bank of Luxor there are 419 tombs in the Valley of the Nobles, 73 in the Valley of the Queens, 63 in the Valley of the Kings, in addition to many others in Armant, Al Asasif, Deraa Abu Al Naga, just to mention a few, Al Shammaa explained.
“When such a large number of archaeological sites continue to attract tourists, some of whom can’t cope with covering all of them during one visit, do you think we need to add to them just for the sake of a number? Al Shammaa asked.
“In some cases, like that of the High Dam, the displacement of Nubians was justified although it didn’t pass without the psychological trauma that many of them find difficult to overcome to this day.
“The removal of Al Gurna can be placed on an equal footing with the loss of an entire site, he explained. “Al Gurna was home to one of the most ancient of Egyptian crafts: alabaster pottery. The people of Al Gurna were masters in the art of forming the clay and reshaping it into statues, pots and amulets.
“They also drew scenes on the walls of their houses, documenting their lives in the same way ancient Egyptians did. They were a living example of how their ancestors lived, something that tourists can’t find on the numerous sites they are likely to visit during their tours.
“The villages, which are usually located near graveyards, show their attachment to their ancestors and lifestyle. This was typical of ancient Egyptians. By eliminating the village we have lost no less an important site, just for the sake of increasing the number of discoveries.
Al Shammaa also regrets that the rubble of these houses, which is to be dumped, could have been sold as souvenirs in the same way the stones of the demolished Berlin Wall were.
The Egyptologist will raise the issue in a lecture that he is scheduled to give on Thursday at the Alexandria Library on renowned late filmmaker Shady Abd El Salam’s “Al Momia (“The Mummy ).
The lecture will focus on Abd El Salam’s masterpiece and its relevance to the issue of Al Gurna. Al Shamma continued: “Although the movie was produced in 1969, the problem which it set out to tackle has never been resolved.
“In “The Mummy, Abd El Salam raised several questions with regard to that issue, he said.
“First, the villagers are the proprietors of these cemeteries because they own the land. Secondly, [Why] do they really have to send the artifacts to the Afandiya (the rulers)? [Afandiya] were no less keen on generating money out of exploiting these treasures. Third, that these mummies have been exhibited in museums was controversial because their eternal slumber has been disturbed.
For Al Shammaa, Al Gurna or “The Mummy, are also raising several other controversial issues. “I am not simply only for or only against. When it comes to this question, the argument can go both ways.
