Dr Otto J . Schaden was there in 2005, but Dr Zahi Hawass "officially" visited the site in 2006 and announced KV-63 as discovered in 2006.

After the discovery, University of Memphis and Dr. Schaden severed their relationship and the project now continues under Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities (which is now the official representative of Schaden's project).

Little bit odd?

Recommendation:

You guys are like Plato's famous description of those people watching shadows on a wall.

I suggest you:

Contact Egyptologists and ask them about this, follow the clues down all the way to the original people involved. Don't just make a surface examination, stop and declare conspiracy. Have you queried these people about there roles in it? I suspect you haven't. Have you spoken to people who are in Egypt and work in that field? I don't think so. I recommend you do so.

Take the research and show it to the experts at the Hall of Ma'at, and yes there are believers there too.

Oh why would you think.....'perhaps the biggest find of the time'??



[edit on 21/12/08 by Hanslune]

I think there's something missing here in the time frame -- an assumption that an archaeologist walks up to a site and suddenly says, "golly wow! I've found HappaRappaGa the 4th!!!"

Doesn't happen like that, which is why I keep encouraging people to join local archaeological associations and participate in public digs.

You find a site, start digging, collect the evidence. While you're collecting evidence, you're also doing dating and looking for clues on who's there and what it all meant. If you come across writing with names and dates, you have to figure out if it's consistent with the rest of the site or if you've got a site that was used over centuries.

The "site used over a period of years" is common, and not that unusual even in the Valley of Kings." Dig in one section and you find something. Dig 10 feet away and it's technically the same site but you've found something else that dates to another time period.

So... to recap:
* they don't announce sites the day they find them because they don't have enough data to declare what they've found. Work on a single site can go on for 10 years or more.
* they don't announce finds until they're dead sure what they've got and at least one other scholar has agreed with them. People like Schimmler (who "found Homer's Troy") usually end up being wrong if they announce without other confirmation (he dug through the layer with Homer's Troy and went back to a much older version of the city.) Nobody likes to look stupid, so they wait for other experts to chime in.
* they frame their announcement with the laws of the land and the state and the site which vary (even here in the US.) Some sites are reported to the government (Native American burials in the case of US findings) but are not reported in newspapers although a reference may show up to them in a paper later on.
* often a press release won't give the boring details of "well, we saw this back in 1980 and went to look at it but time and the weather didn't permit a better look and so it lay dormant until one of our grad students decided it might make a good project and then did a better survey in 1992 and we finally got grant and a team together to do a preliminary dig in 1993 and the findings were interesting but we ran out of money and in 2002 we finally got a team and money and went out to dig and we've dug every season until then and now we know we found... whatever."

I know this for a fact, because in October there was a Nova special on polar dinosaurs. One of the bones I worked on was shown during the episode. It sounded like an exciting new find (the way it was presented) but in fact I'd worked on that one two years before and the (still ongoing during summers) dig that it came from has been going on for about 5-6 years.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by Byrd]