Antiquities ministry refuses to rent Egypt's archaeological

Luxor is ancient Thebes and has a fascinating past. Share your knowledge or ask your questions here.

Moderators: DJKeefy, 4u Network

Post Reply
User avatar
DJKeefy
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 11025
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 652 times
Been thanked: 1222 times
Gender:
Contact:
Egypt

Antiquities ministry refuses to rent Egypt's archaeological

Post by DJKeefy »

The antiquities ministry has refused a request submitted by the Ministry of Finance to rent Egypt’s renowned archaeological sites in an attempt to close the government's budget deficit.

Some archaeologists have called the proposal 'insulting' and 'humiliating.'

"How can we rent our heritage?" wondered Ahmed Saeed, professor of ancient Egypt at Cairo University. On his Facebook page, Saeed posted a cartoon photo of the Sphinx crying. He wrote a caption underneath that read "Cry dear Sphinx people want to rent you or maybe later cut you into pieces and sell you! Shame on those who want to rent you – the symbol of dignity, power and Egypt’s ancient civilization."

Other archaeologists were suspicious of the request and described it as 'unfolded.' Hatem Sewelam professor of archaeology at Cairo University said the proposal was a 'rumour created by the media.'

Antiquities ministry's secretary-general Adel Abdel-Satar told Ahram Online that the proposal was suggested. He explained that Abdalla Mohamed Mahfouz, a thinker at Al-Ketab Al-Mostanir website whose nationality remains unknown, sent a request in early February to the Ministry of Finance to help Egypt overcome its economical problems, specifically to help close Egypt's budget deficit.

Mahfouz suggested to rent five of Egypt’s well known archaeological sites: the Pyramid of Giza, Sphinx, Karnak Temples in Luxor, and twin Ramses II Temples in Abu Simbel to international tourism companies for five years for an annual rent fee of LE200 billion.

In turn, the Ministry of Finance sent the request to the antiquities ministry and asked the ministry to review the proposal to see whether it was achievable or not.

The Ministry of State for Antiquities sent all official letters concerning the rent proposal of Egypt's archaeological sites to be discussed at the board of directors meeting.

However, the ministry refused the suggestion, stating that Egypt’s heritage is public property and cannot be leased or sold. Accordingly, such course of action is against Egypt’s antiquities law.

"Sending the proposal for discussion at the Ministry of State for Antiquities board of directors meeting protected the decision taken," asserted Abdel-Satar when asked why the proposal was submitted to the ministry. "If I had decided alone and refused the suggestion, my decision could have easily been objected by my bosses."

Abdel-Satar pointed out that the antiquities minister, the cabinet, prime minister, and president could object my refusal decision and settle on whatever they agree upon.

"I was sure that the ministry would refuse the suggestion, as it is against Egypt’s antiquities law, and no one can object the decision taken by the ministry's board of directors because it is considered final," Abdel-Satar confirmed.

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/65729.aspx


Image
User avatar
Brian Yare
Royal V.I.P
Royal V.I.P
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:11 pm
Location: Worcester, UK
Has thanked: 720 times
Been thanked: 647 times
Gender:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Antiquities ministry refuses to rent Egypt's archaeologi

Post by Brian Yare »

I amnot entirely sure what the meaning of "rent" is in this thread, but the Egyptian Governmernt could do much better by charging realistic prices (higher than at present) and by offering daily or weekly tisckets.

E£100 per day or E£250 per week for all sites/museums might be a starting point
User avatar
Lisak
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:51 pm
Location: Coventry, England
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Gender:
Contact:
Palestine

Re: Antiquities ministry refuses to rent Egypt's archaeologi

Post by Lisak »

Yep, I have always thought that a multi ticket for multi entry would be a fabulous idea. Saves trying to work out what tickets you get from where, especially if visiting slightly less touristy sites.
Life isn't about how to survive the storm, but how to dance in the rain.
User avatar
LivinginLuxor
Top Member
Top Member
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
Location: Luxor, Egypt
Been thanked: 249 times
Gender:
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Antiquities ministry refuses to rent Egypt's archaeologi

Post by LivinginLuxor »

The problem is that the majority of visitors to the sites come on organised tours, so a daily ticket would be of no use to them. At 100LE per day or 250LE per week, the revenue would drop, I'm certain - many of the visitors who independently go to the sites, go to 2 or more in a day, and so 150LE per day would probably be more realistic.
I might agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong!
Stan
User avatar
Brian Yare
Royal V.I.P
Royal V.I.P
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:11 pm
Location: Worcester, UK
Has thanked: 720 times
Been thanked: 647 times
Gender:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Antiquities ministry refuses to rent Egypt's archaeologi

Post by Brian Yare »

LivinginLuxor wrote:The problem is that the majority of visitors to the sites come on organised tours, so a daily ticket would be of no use to them. At 100LE per day or 250LE per week, the revenue would drop, I'm certain - many of the visitors who independently go to the sites, go to 2 or more in a day, and so 150LE per day would probably be more realistic.
I hear what you say, but the idea of a daily, weekly or even yearly ticket (as in National Trust in UK) is to reduce hassle and administration.

On the West Bank in Luxor, how much time is wasted in going back to the ticket office several times a day? And these multiple tickets could be sold on-line to reduce overheads all round.

I don't see this appealing to the Egyptian beurocrats [sp] though, as it might reduce employment.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post