(July 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Zahi Hawass commented years ago that, in his opinion, 70% of the ruins of ancient Egypt were still buried under the sands. Partly this is due to the fact that the Nile has altered its course on occasion and areas which were important in antiquity are now off the beaten track.
I think he is absolutely correct. There is also the fact that shifting desert sands aren't exactly good at keeping things in sight. I'm sure many amazing finds have yet to come.
On an off-topic side note, I spoke to Zahi Hawass via email last year about a proposed interview with him. We exchanged a few emails so far, but the man takes nearly six months in between to respond, as he is obviously very busy. I read a lot of pseudo-archaeologists' crap on how he is such a big bully and won't believe their nonsense. I found him to be very polite and interested in sharing Egyptian history with the world. It is funny how butthurt people can get when someone disagrees with them.
(July 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The concept is not new: the city of Ubar was found using satellite photos in the Arabian desert and in Central America it has been used to pierce the jungle canopy looking for Mayan ruins. Even fundies waste their time looking for Noah's fucking ark with satellite photos.
No, the concept is not new. However, I think more fascination lies in Egyptian tombs and pyramids because of the tomb of King Tut. People think Egyptian ruins must have gold in them. A lot of the time, that is true. The problem is, recouping excavation loss by selling off Egyptian artifacts is uncool.
(July 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: To be sure this helps in identifying sites but one still needs to go in with a trained archaeological team to see what exactly it is. Detecting anomalies is one thing but until you dig down there you really don't know if it is a mastaba or a British Army Quonset hut from 1942. And, if you do find an archaeologically important site then you have to be ready to incur the costs of excavation and conservation and Egypt may not be in a position to do that at the moment. So, it is a useful tool to avoid wasting time but it doesn't tell us much about a site by itself.
Yes, you have to be able to fund a dig with the right people. If I am not mistaken, Egypt isn't too keen on having teams from other countries excavate there, so there is little hope that these sites will be explored until Egypt does it. I could be wrong, but I do remember reading that there is, at least, too much red tape to bother.
