Egypt Update: Rare Tomb May Have Been Destroyed

Reports of damage to one of the few ancient Egyptian tombs devoted solely to a woman have tempered the news that most of Egypt's priceless antiquities have escaped damage and that teams of foreign archaeologists are safe... One archaeologist present at the famous cemetery of Saqqara, south of Cairo, said that as many as 200 looters were digging for treasure in the area this past weekend before police resecured the area. The excavator, who requested anonymity, added that the tomb of Maya, the wet nurse of King Tutankhamun, was "completely destroyed." Another Western archaeologist said, "We still don't know the extent of the damage, but things have been bad and out of control." ...Hawass also vehemently denied that there has been heavy looting in Saqqara... Foreign archaeologists in Luxor say the situation in that city far to the south was normal. W. Raymond Johnson, who heads the University of Chicago team there, said that after some weekend rioting all was quiet and that there was no damage to any site. His team resumed work on Sunday.... At Amarna, once the capital of Egypt under the pharaoh Akhenaten and his queen Nefertiti, all is "as peaceful as ever," says Barry Kemp, a University of Cambridge archaeologist who is still at the site. An attempt to loot archaeological magazines on the other side of the Nile River was thwarted by police, he said. "Order has not broken down in the countryside as it has in Cairo," he says. Kemp said all foreign expeditions were ordered on Saturday to halt work and leave. Most of his team has since left, and he intends to travel to Cairo soon "to sit it out until I can come back."

Wasn’t referring only to oil rich ME countries & how it can make a difference should the West & U.S. stop playing the field for the purpose of “Economy” with Oil rich countries in the ME.

I was also referring to the overall situation in those countries, including the key role that Islam has been playing in every facet of ME countries, their culture & society.

A significant contributor to current unrest in Egypt is Mubarak (call him John Doe). The the U.S. has been supporting Mubarak for decades. Whether Mubarak is a dictator, repressing the voice of the majority of the Egyptians is one thing. The fact that the U.S. has been supporting dictatorships in many ME countries, and we can argue if it is true or not or for whatever reasons, is a Perception, therefore Reality for many Egyptians in today’s Egypt.

I think we should stop supporting these ‘dictatorships’ (religious or secular), or at least not feed them.

Why have we supported them anyway for so long?! Do you think our support for them has been because of Western altruism & concern for the well-being of Egyptians? Have we been seriously concerned about Islamic fundamentalism taking over in the ME? If yes, then why nothing has been done about the Islamic regime in Iran for the past 32 yrs except rhetoric & a lot of hot air? Or, has it been that these dictatorships have served a purpose for Western gov’ts? These are the type of issues/questions that have been asked by many in the ME for many yrs now.

Many in the ME do not want an Islamist state, same time they do not want what they “PERCEIVE” (therefore reality for them) as so-called “secular/religious-western-back-dictatorships). Let the people in those countries make their own decisions/mistakes & live with the consequences of their own decisions/mistakes. Whether they finally emerge from whatever dictatorship (religious or secular) won’t be just an Event, but a process & a lengthy one at that, so far as the ME is concerned.

Let them do what they want (this is what both people such as Mubarak & the anti Egyptian gov’t protesters have been saying and/or implying).

Why not focus on our own internal priorities, reducing our own vulnerabilities, including & regarding “energy development”, instead of constantly depending on those oil rich countries in the ME?

>>>”Trying to impose a pluralistic democracy on Iraq worked,”<<<

I’m curious, beyond the act of inviting Iraqis to vote, how is Iraq now a pluralistic democracy?

I’d say Iraq since its ‘liberation’ has shifted from being a Sunni dominated in politics/society to a Shia one. Also, aren’t Christian Iraqis leaving Iraq by droves because of heightened persecution & a lack of inclusion?

I agree with “80 yrs” comment. Tho, for moslem countries such as Iraq w/ their Islamic constitution, culture & society, I’d say it’ll take another couple of centuries at least. Even post Islam, and during Mohammad’s time, one can say Iraq was a pluralistic democracy (”Islamic Democracy” that is) where non-moslems could live there so long as they complied w/moslem laws & paid related taxes..

Iraq is a pluralistic democracy because there’s not a filter on who can run for office or vote; under the dictator (and in Iran, under the mullahcracy) that was not the case; in Baathist Iraq there was a Soviet-style single party state, with some window-dressing — even less window-dressing than there is in Egypt.

The fact that the Shia are the majority means they hold more power.

I guess some would accept a special-olympics-style government with equal numbers of Sunni and Shia in their legislative body, with a set, smaller number of Christians, as constituting pluralism in Iraq, but I would not.

Iraq had never been a democracy at all until the 20th century, and there was no democracy under Mohammed. The taxes levied on non-Moslems in areas ruled by a brutal conquering Moslem minority were so onerous that those who couldn’t figure out how to cheat on their taxes sometimes gave up and converted to Islam, or faked it.

There are those however who think that Moslems were always tolerant of other religions in their midst, but that idea is and always has been complete nonsense.

I guess I was comparing the Iranian Constitution (IRI) & to the Iraqi one, in posts #s 44 & 45: "Iraq today is very similar to today’s Iran insofar as having an Islamic constitution (minus the explicit incorporation of the doctrine of the rule of jurisprudence i.e. “velayat_e faghih”). The difference is, however, rather superficial."

IRI's constitution, similar to Iraqi one, also guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals, freedom of religious belief and practice. IRI's constitution even recognizes & allows for female participation & full rights within the Islamic framework. There have been & are many more women actually holding official/govermental positions under IRI in Iran than during Saddam or even now in Iraq.

IRI's constitution also guarantees representation in Iranian parliament by having Christian, Zoroastrian & Jewish representatives, but not the Bahais (who are unrecognized & not stated). I assume the same goes for Iraq, tho not specified in Iraqi constitution.

Also, nowhere does the Iraqi constitution specify that a Christian or a Yazedi can run for office, even if he or she had popular support. Does it? Maybe I misunderstand. Iraqi constitution says the following:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

The combination of A & B sounds like "Islamic Democracy" to which many people refer.

Iraqi Constitution.

>>>"I guess some would accept a special-olympics-style government with equal numbers of Sunni and Shia in their legislative body, with a set, smaller number of Christians, as constituting pluralism in Iraq, but I would not."<<<<

Nor would I. A real pluralistic democracy goes beyond the piece of paper called the constitution.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.