The Colossus on Rügen (1): Pictures of Prora

 

Prora North.
After the end of World War Two, the Soviet army tried to blow up two of the northern blocks (# 7 and 8). They did not quite succeed, as you can see from this picture. Part of the block is still standing.

 

 

Prora North.
The "finger" sticking out from the main block includes the staircase.

 

Prora North.
This picture shows the western side of the block, which faces inland.

 

 

Prora North.

 

Prora North.
The "finger" with the staircase has collapsed.

 

 

This poster in front of Prora North gives a strong warning in German:

"Lebensgefahr! Betreten strengstens verboten!"

In English: "Mortal danger! No trespassing!"

 

 

Prora North

 

 

Prora North.
The "finger" with the staircase has collapsed.

 

Prora North

  

 

 Prora North.
In this picture you can see the remains of the staircase.
The outer end of the "finger" (the left side of the picture) contains bathrooms and toilets.

 

Prora South.
This picture shows the western side of the complex, which faces inland.

 

 

 Prora South.
The architectural style is quite monotonous, as you can see.

 

 

 Prora South:

This picture shows the entrance to the Prora Museum.

 

 

 Prora seen from the air.
This picture is used on the cover of the book about the complex published by the Prora Museum.

 

Inside Prora South:

The long corridor follows a north-south axis.

 

A room in Prora would have looked something like this:

two beds, a small table with a chair, and a window facing east. 

 

This poster from 1938 promotes Prora as a holiday destination.

The German text says: "Dein Urlaub 1939."

In English: "Your holiday 1939."

 

Robert Ley, 1890-1945.
As head of the German Labour Front (1933-1945) he was the driving force behind the huge holiday project on the island of Rügen. He was imprisoned in 1945 and committed suicide while awaiting trial for war crimes.

 

 

This poster from the cold war gives a strong warning in German.
In English: "Border area. This zone is off limits! No trespassing!"

 

Prora South:

This picture shows eastern side of the blocks, which faces the beach.

 

Prora South:

The eastern side of the blocks facing the beach.

 

Prora South:

The eastern side of the blocks facing the beach.

 

Today the beach is covered with tall trees.

 

The beach in front of Prora.
The short pier marks the spot where the German authorities
planned to build a pier long enough to accommodate cruise ships.

The work was interrupted by the outbreak of war and never completed.

 

 

Prora South

 

* * *

 

Go to the next installment:

 

The Colossus on Rügen (2): A book about Prora

 

* * *

 

 

 

The Colossus on Rügen (2): A book about Prora

Two German authors, Joachim Wernicke and Uwe Schwartz, have written a book about a place in Germany which is very interesting but not so well-known. The German title means The Colossus of Prora on Rügen – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. If you have a chance to visit this place, this book will be an excellent guide for you. If you are not able to go there, you can still enjoy the book as an armchair traveller.

 

This map of Rügen shows the location of Prora on the eastern coast of the island.

 

Prora is a giant complex located on the eastern coast of Rügen, in the middle of the ten kilometre long bay between Binz in the south and Sassnitz in the north. It is named after a hill on Rügen, and it was planned as a holiday home for 20,000 visitors. Work on the project began in 1936, but because of World War Two it was never completed. Today it stands as a historical monument of the Nazi period (1933-1945).

It is not beautiful, but interesting, because it tells us about an important aspect of Nazi ideology. Nazism was totalitarian. Hitler wanted to control the life of the German people, not only during work, but also during the free time.

The plan called for eight six-floor blocks built in a curve along the beach; each block 500 meters long; four in the northern section and four in the southern section; in the centre, a house of culture, big enough to accommodate all 20,000 visitors at the same time, and a reception area; the whole complex 4.5 kilometres long. On the coast, next to the house of culture, there would be a pier long enough to accommodate a cruise ship.

 

 

This map of Prora South shows the location of the Prora Museum.

If all 20,000 visitors went to the beach at the same, there would still be plenty of space for them, namely 4.8 square meters per person. Each visitor would have a two-week holiday. During two summer months 80,000 Germans could visit the place.

The daily price was set at two German Marks per person, including three daily meals and access to some events in the house of culture. This was cheap by the standards of the day.

The plan called for 10,000 double rooms. All rooms rather small, only 2.5 x 5 meters, but all with a sea view (facing east). In addition, the plan called for central heating, so that the complex could be used all year. Kitchen and bathroom facilities were located in the staircase houses, which were built like small “fingers” on the back side of the blocks. Each block had ten “fingers.”

Work on the project began in May 1936. More than 3,000 workers and 300 foremen were hired. Eight companies began work on eight blocks at the same time, but when World War Two broke out in 1939, the work was stopped. As long as the war went on, there were no resources to build holiday homes.

The eight blocks were almost completed, and work on the pier had begun, but the central house of culture was never built. The workers were transferred to Peenemünde on the nearby island of Usedom where the Nazis developed the V-1 and V-2 missiles which were later sent to attack the United Kingdom.

In 1940 the Germans used a group of Polish prisoners of war to complete the roofs on the eight blocks, so they would not be damaged by bad weather, but that was all. During the war, the allied forces tried to bomb the complex several times, but they never managed to hit it.

In 1945 eastern Germany was occupied by the USSR which took over Prora until 1950. For a while the complex was used to house refugees from the war. All small and removable objects were transported to the USSR. Soviet authorities considered this as compensation for war damages.

The southern block was dismantled and the parts were transported to the USSR. Soviet military also began to blow up the two northern blocks, but the job was never completed. Today the ruins still stand as they were left around 1950.

In 1951 Prora was taken over by the new East German state (DDR). At first it was used by the police, later by the people’s army. From around 1960 a part of the complex was used as a holiday home for soldiers.

During the cold war Prora was a secret area which was closed to the public. On civilian maps Prora was not marked. It was a so-called “Sperrgebiet,” and officially it did not exist (but western intelligence agencies knew about it anyway).

After the cold war there were many dramatic changes in Germany. The Berlin wall came down in 1989, and in the following year West Germany and East Germany were united. For a few years Prora was still sealed off, but since 1993 the public has been allowed to enter the area.

Of the original eight blocks only five are useable today, three in the southern section and two in the northern section. Of the original 10,000 rooms almost 6,500 are useable today.

“Prora South” consisted of four blocks. One is gone, but three are still standing. Block # 4 houses several museums, including a very interesting museum established in 1995, which presents the history of the complex.

“Prora North” also consisted of four blocks. Blocks # 7 and # 8 are in ruins. The area around them is closed because it is dangerous to enter. Next to blocks # 5 and # 6 there is a railway and technology museum established in 1994.

The blocks are about 100 meters from the water. The bay has a sandy beach, one of the best beaches in northern Europe. A belt of high trees has grown up between the blocks and the water. Not every room has a sea view today.

This book by Joachim Wernicke and Uwe Schwartz gives a detailed and reliable account of the history of this extraordinary place. The German text is illustrated with useful maps and fascinating photos. It is highly recommended.

* * *

Joachim Wernicke & Uwe Schwartz,

Der Koloss von Prora auf Rügen,

Verlag Museum Prora & Verlag Langewiesche Königstein,
2006, 156 pages

* * *

 

 

 

The Young Victoria

This historical drama about the young Victoria is available on a DVD. It is divided into three parts. In the first part Victoria is not yet queen. In the second part she is queen, but not yet married. In the last part she is queen and married.

Victoria was born in May 1819, and was proclaimed queen in July 1837. Her coronation took place in June of the following year. In February 1840 she married Prince Albert. They had nine children. Albert died in December 1861, only 42 years old. Victoria never remarried. She remained a widow for the rest of her life. She died in January 1901, 81 years old. She was a queen for 63 years and seven months.

I like to watch historical dramas. Often the past comes alive in fascinating ways. This movie is no exception. It is, in many ways, a good drama. Several important points are presented in a very convincing way:

(a) The conflict between the young Victoria on one side and her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and her “friend” John Conroy on the other side.

(b) The conflict between King William IV and the Duchess of Kent.

(c) The conflict between two prominent politicians of the day, the Whig Lord Melbourne and the Tory Sir Robert Peel.

(d) The alliance between Victoria and Lord Melbourne.

When I watch this movie, I enjoy it. But it is not a good movie in every way. There are several historical inaccuracies. Some of them are minor flaws (# 1-3 below), while others are major flaws (# 4-6 below).

The actors cannot be blamed for this. They have to follow the script and do what they are told. The responsibility lies with the writer and with the producers who allowed the historical inaccuracies to remain in there. Here are the six cases:

(1) In the movie we hear (and see) several references to “Germany.” When Victoria was young, there were several German states, but there was no country with the name Germany. This country was not proclaimed until 1871.

(2) In the movie Lord Melbourne and Victoria meet at Windsor Castle on the occasion of King William IV’s birthday. Victoria is not yet queen, and not yet 20 years old. The actor who plays Lord Melbourne appears to be slightly older than her, around 30 years old. In the real world Lord Melbourne was forty years older than Victoria, because he was born in 1779.

(3) In the movie the name of this politician is constantly mispronounced. He is called MELBURN, which is wrong. It should be MELBORN. Why did nobody check the pronunciation of his name? Why did nobody tell the producers or the actors to get it right?

(4) During the birthday celebration at Windsor Castle King William IV made a speech during which he accused the Duchess of Kent of trying to keep her daughter away from him. In the film the Duchess is seated away from him, she gets up and leaves the room in protest over this insult. But the other guests do not really react to this. In the real world the Duchess was seated next to the king, and she did not leave the room. But Victoria cried, and the other guests were shocked by the incident.

(5) John Conroy was a bully who tried to control Victoria, hoping to use her position for his own benefit. She hated him for doing this, and she hated her mother for letting him do this without protesting. As soon as she was proclaimed queen, she banished him from the court. But in the film it does not happen like this. Victoria wants to dismiss Conroy, but she allows him to stay out of respect for her mother. So Conroy pops up from time to time. In the film he is not dismissed until after Victoria’s marriage to Albert, and Albert is the one who finally kicks him out.

I do not understand this change from fact to fiction. I think the producers want to present Victoria as an independent person (which she was in many ways). But here they seem to say that she was unable to get rid of Conroy - her husband had to do it for her.

(6) In June 1840, while Victoria and Albert were driving through London in an open carriage, there was an assassination attempt on them. A man called Edward Oxford tried to shoot them. In the film Albert is hit, while protecting his wife. He takes a bullet for her. He is rushed back to the palace, bleeding. Fortunately, he recovers. Later we see him walking around with one arm in a sling.

This is not true at all. The would-be assassin missed. Neither Victoria nor Albert was hit. Of all the alterations presented here, this is the worst, because it is a deliberate falsification of history. I am sure Albert was ready to take a bullet for his wife, but he never did, so why pretend that he did?

Some people may ask me:

 

“Why do you have to complain about these historical details? Why can’t you just enjoy the movie?”

Here is my response:

I understand that there may be a situation where the producers have to use some kind of fiction, but the alterations presented here do not fall into this category. The alterations presented here are not necessary, they are not justified. Why do the producers try to rewrite and “improve” history, when the true story would be just fine, perhaps even better, and it has the advantage of being true?

I want to recommend this movie, but as you can see, I have some reservations, and therefore I can only give it four out of five stars.

* * * 

The Young Victoria,

Released on a DVD in 2009,

Total running time: 105 minutes

 

* * *

 

 

Libya: A Lonely Planet Guidebook (2002)

The first edition of Lonely Planet’s guidebook to Libya (written by Anthony Ham) was published in 2002. I had it with me on a trip to Libya in 2004 during which I was able to check some of the information presented in the book.

I visited the ancient sites on or near the northern coast in the western part of the country (Tripolitania) and in the eastern part of the country (Cyrenaica). But I did not visit the southern part of the country (Fezzan), so I was not able to check what the book says about this area.

This book gives you information about local transport (how to get from A to B). There is also information about hotels and restaurants. But most visitors will not need any of this information, because they will travel on a package tour, where a travel agency will arrange local transport and pick the hotels and restaurants.

Because of Libya’s special visa system and the rules for foreigners, it is (almost) impossible to travel on your own. You must travel with a group and follow a fixed itinerary. But this does not have to be a bad thing.

What you need from a guidebook about Libya is general information about the history of the country and specific information about the sites you are going to visit. A local guide will probably show you around, but it is always good to know something about the place in advance.

Using my own experience as a yardstick I have to say that this is a good guidebook which gives you a lot of useful information. However, I have to mention a few minor flaws:

(a) On pp. 150-151 we hear about the monumental tombs of Ghirza. Anthony Ham says:

 

“the northernmost tomb features particularly fine stonework atop some of the pillars, and a Roman eagle above the door with Latin inscriptions.”

In fact, it is quite the opposite: above the door of the northern tomb (known as Tomb A) there is a Latin inscription flanked by two Roman eagles.

(b) Under the heading “Getting there” we are told:

 

“The best option is a long (six hour) day trip from Misrata.”

This timeframe is not realistic. When we travelled to Ghirza, it took the driver five hours to drive from Misrata to Ghirza, because the road is rather bad. If you spend three hours at the site, including one hour for lunch, and then return to Misrata, you will need thirteen hours for the whole trip. It is a long day, but in my opinion, Ghirza is worth a visit.

(c) On page 153 we hear about Medinat Sultan and the Italian arch which once stood here. Ham writes about the two bronze statues of the Philaeni brothers:

“The hollow statues once stood more than 5 m tall atop the arch demarcating Tripolitania from Cyrenaica.”

In fact, the statues were lying down then, just as they are when you see them today. One of them was facing west towards Tripolitania, while the other was facing east towards Cyrenaica.

(d) On the same page a sidebar with the heading “The division of Libya” explains how the Greeks and the Romans divided Libya between them in the 4th century BC. This explanation is not true. The Greeks and the Carthaginians did this. One pair of runners was Greek; they started from Cyrene and moved west. The other pair was Punic; they started from Carthage and moved east. The point where the two pairs met would mark the border between the two cities. Rome had nothing to do with this. The Romans did not come to Africa until much later. So whenever Ham says “Roman,” the word should be changed to “Punic.”

The story about the division of Libya is told by the Roman author Sallust in his book about the war with Jugurtha, chapter 79.

(e) On pp. 168-169 we hear about the ancient church of Qasr Libya:

“Also of great importance is panel 23, a Byzantine inscription stating that the mosaics were laid in AD 339.”

In fact, the mosaics were laid in 529-530, after the Byzantine conquest of North Africa, as stated on the preceding page.

(f) Further on Ham mentions a Turkish fort “which has fine views over the surrounding countryside.”

When I was there, I climbed to the roof of the fort, but I was unable to see anything, because the walls are about two meters high. The only way to view the surrounding countryside from this fort is if you bring you own ladder!

Apart from these minor flaws, I like this book. The first edition from 2002 is still quite useful, although of course the section about recent history is not quite up-to-date. The following events happened after the book was published:

* In May 2006 the US removed Libya from its list of states suspected of supporting terrorism.

* In August 2008 the US and Libya signed an agreement about mutual compensation for any damage the two states might have caused each other.

* In September 2008 US Foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice made an official visit to Libya during which she met with the Libyan leader colonel Kadafi; the first official visit by a US foreign secretary since 1953. These events marked the fact that the two countries had re-established diplomatic relations with each other

* The UK re-established diplomatic relations with Libya in 1999, and in March 2004 the British Prime Minister Tony Blair made an official visit to Libya during which he met with Kadafi.

* * *
 

Anthony Ham,

Libya Lonely Planet,

First edition, 2002, 264 pages
 

* * *

 

 

 

Libya: A Lonely Planet Guidebook (2007)

The second edition of Lonely Planet’s guide to Libya (written by Anthony Ham) was published in 2007. I have compared it to the first edition from 2002, which I used during a trip to Libya in 2004. I found some flaws in the book, and I wrote to Lonely Planet to tell them about them. You can see some of the points which I raised in my letter, if you check my review of the first edition posted here on my blog.

The text has been revised and updated. Some sections are shorter than before; and some sections have been moved around. The page numbers are not the same as before. When I checked the second edition, I found that all the passages which I had mentioned in my letter to the publisher had been rewritten, so the mistakes and the unfortunate statements had disappeared. In this case the people of Lonely Planet decided to listen to feedback from a reader, which is a good thing.

However, this does not mean that there are no mistakes in the second edition. Let me give you some examples:

* The caption to the picture on page 7 says:

 

“Be mesmerised by the Mediterranean vistas from the theatre of Leptis Magna.”

 

But this picture does not show the theatre; it shows the amphitheatre in Leptis Magna. Perhaps this mistake should be blamed on the picture editor and not the author. I am quite sure Anthony Ham knows the difference between a theatre and an amphitheatre.

* On page 84 we hear about the ancient temple next to the arch of Marcus Aurelius. Ham claims it was dedicated to “Taki (the Roman god of fortune).” But the Roman god of Fortune is known as Fortuna. Where does the word “Taki” come from? I think I know what happened. The Greek god of fortune is known as TYCHE, sometimes spelled TYKE. I suspect someone told Ham the Greek name, but when he wrote it down, he made a mistake, and the word was changed into “Taki.”

* On pp. 122-123 we hear about the Italian arch in Medinat Sultan. Ham describes it as a “more-than-5-m-tall Italian-built arch.” It was indeed more than five meters high, it was 31 meters high. Why not give the correct figure?

* He also mentions the reliefs from the arch, which are now scattered on the ground, saying: “These once adorned the façade of the arch.” In fact, they were placed on the inside of the arch.

* One fragment is described with these words:

 

“The closest one to the gate shows Mussolini (second from the left) being saluted by his soldiers.”

 

In fact, Mussolini is on the right side of this fragment. The figure second from the left is the Italian king Vittorio Emanuele III. Mussolini is not being saluted by his soldiers; he is saluting the king.

* On page 136-137 we hear about the ancient church of Qasr Libya with the famous mosaics. Ham mentions panel # 18 saying the panel shows the nymph “Kastelia of Delphi.” In fact the Greek letters in the panel read “KASTALIA.” Most English writers would probably prefer the spelling “Castalia.”

* Ham also mentions panel # 3 saying it shows “the New City of Theodarius.” In fact the Greek letters in the panel read “POLIS NEA THEODORIAS,” i.e. “the New City of Theodorias.” It seems Ham is a bit confused about the spelling of the name.

* The town formerly known as Olbia was re-founded (and renamed) in AD 539, but this is not mentioned here. Ham mentions the Roman emperor Justinian, also known as Justinian the Great, but he does not mention that the new town was named after the emperor’s wife Theodora.

For more information about Theodora see The Power Game in Byzantium by James Allan Evans.

* Cyrene is presented on pp. 141-147. But the famous philosopher Synesius, who was born in this city around AD 370, is not mentioned in this section. From ca. 410 to his death in ca. 413, Synesius worked as a bishop in Ptolemais (today Tolmeita) which is presented on pp. 134-136. But he is not mentioned in this section, either.

For more information about Synesius see Synesius of Cyrene: His Life and Writings by J. C. Nicol.

* On page 198 there is a silly misprint which was not found in the first edition. Ham mentions the German explorer Heinrich Barth and continues: “On 6 July 185, Barth wrote…” In the year 185! No! Barth lived 1821-65 and travelled in Africa 1850-55. In the first edition the same passage appears on page 235, and here we have the correct year: 1850. This silly misprint seems to be the result of sloppy editing.

The second edition is, in many ways, a good book, but as you can see, there are some flaws here and there.

I have sent a message to Lonely Planet to tell them about these flaws. I hope they will not be found in the next edition.

PS. Here are two references, which are not listed in the second edition of Lonely Planet’s guidebook, because they were published after 2007:

(1) If you are going to visit the western part of Libya, known as Tripolitania, you should consult Tripolitania by Philip Kenrick (2009).

(2) If you are going to visit the eastern part of Libya, known as Cyrenaica, you should consult Cyrenaica by Philip Kenrick (2013).

* * *

 

Anthony Ham,

Libya Lonely Planet,

Second edition, 2007, 272 pages

 

* * *

 

For more information about the ancient history of Libya see my blog:

Libya: The Lost Cities of the Roman Empire 

* * *


 

Egypt: A Lonely Planet Guidebook (2008)

The ninth edition of Lonely Planet’s guidebook to Egypt was published in 2008. It gives you practical information about how to get from A to B when you are travelling in Egypt. It also gives you information about hotels and restaurants. All the major sites in the country are presented here, and sometimes the presentation of a site is supported by a map.

I had it with me on a trip to Egypt during which I was able to check some of the facts presented in the book. Using my personal experience as a yardstick, I must say it is, in many ways, a good book, but there are some flaws which should not be found in the ninth edition of a book. Let me explain.

In some cases, it seems, the text was not quite up to date at the time of publication. Here is one example:

On page 204 the authors mention the Serapeum in Sakkara. But when I arrived there, it was closed. My guide told me it was closed for renovation several years ago. If it was closed in 2005, why is this not mentioned in a book that is published in 2008?

In some cases, the text is not quite accurate:

(1) On page 188 the authors say “The Illustrated Guide to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is written by Zahi Hawass … and published by the excellent American University in Cairo Press.”

This excellent book is not written by Zahi Hawass. It is edited by Alessandro Bongioanni and Maria Croce Sole. The text is written by the editors and other Italian scholars. Zahi Hawass has written the preface.

This book has been published by VMB Publishers, an imprint of White Star Books, with a slightly different title: The Treasures of Ancient Egypt: The Collection of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

(2) On page 282 the authors mention a hotel in Luxor: “At the end of 2008 the name of the hotel will change to Meretem Jolie Ville…” The correct name is Maritim Jolie Ville.

(3) On page 326 the authors mention a hotel in Abu Simbel: “Seti Abu Simbel … is Abu Simbel’s only five-star hotel.” In fact, it is a four-star hotel.

(4) The authors are not quite sure how to spell the name of the pharaoh who succeeded Ramses II. On page 190 they call him Merenptah, which I prefer. But when they mention his temple (page 257) and his tomb (page 261) they call him Merneptah, which I do not like.

Some cross references are incorrect, maybe they refer to an older edition of the book, and the page number was not updated:

(1) On page 191 the authors say “see boxed text p. 261.” But there is no box on page 261. There is a box on page 260, and there is another one on page 263. But which one is it?

(2) On page 207 the authors say “see boxed text (210) for more details.” But there is no box on page 210. The relevant box is found on page 198.

In some cases, the information given is incomplete:

(1) On page 288 the authors mention the night train from Luxor to Cairo. They say it departs at 8.30 and 9.30 p.m. and the duration is nine hours. But when we took this train, it departed at 10.30 p.m. and the duration was ten hours. The train does not go to the main railway station in Cairo (Ramses). It goes to Giza Station on the west bank. But this fact only emerges in the chapter about Cairo. Giza Station is mentioned in the text on page 180 and shown on the map on page 110.

(2) On page 516 the authors say you can buy prepaid phone cards from Vodafone. But they do not explain that in order to use a prepaid card you must first buy an Egyptian SIM card from Vodafone, which is quite expensive: 150 Egyptian pounds. The stored value in the SIM card is less than one Egyptian pound, which is just enough to make a call to refill the account with a prepaid card.

I have to mention two more things which bother me:

(1) In the beginning of the book the authors present 15 Egyptian highlights: “The very best of Egypt.” Number 14 on this list is Petra, which is located in Jordan! It is OK to mention the ferry that sails between Egypt and Jordan (page 526), but placing Petra on a list of great Egyptian sites is absurd.

(2) On pp. 293-294 the authors present the temple of Edfu with these words:

“The temple’s well-preserved reliefs have provided archaeologists with much valuable information about the temple rituals and the power of the priesthood. Walking through the large gloomy chambers, visitors are sometimes overwhelmed by a sense of awe at the mysteries of ancient Egypt.”

This passage is borrowed - almost word for word - from Kent Weeks, The Treasures of Luxor and the Valley of the Kings, page 540, although the source is not revealed.

There are two statements here. The first one (about the reliefs) is fine, but the second one (about visitors being overwhelmed) is silly. I do not understand why a scholar such as Kent Weeks would want to say something like that, and I do not understand why anyone would want to copy his statement.

I sent a message to Lonely Planet to tell them about these flaws, hoping they would not be found in the next edition. Unfortunately, I was too late!

* * *

 

Matthew Firestone,

Egypt Lonely Planet,

9th edition, 2008, 572 pages

 

* * *

 

 

 

Egypt: A Lonely Planet Guidebook (2010)

 

 

 

The tenth edition of Lonely Planet’s guidebook to Egypt was published in May 2010, just a few weeks after I submitted my feedback regarding the ninth edition to the publisher. Here is my review of the tenth edition:

Some flaws from the ninth edition have been corrected. Erroneous cross references are now correct, and the name of the pharaoh who succeeded Ramses II (Merenptah) is now spelled the same way whenever he is mentioned (pp. 188, 258 and 261). But other flaws remain. Let me explain:

In some cases, it seems, the text is not quite up to date. Here is one example:

On page 202 the authors mention the Serapeum in Saqqara. But when I arrived there, it was closed. Our guide told us it was closed for renovation several years ago. If it was closed in 2005, why is this fact not mentioned in a book that is published in 2010?

In some cases, the text is not quite accurate:

(1) On page 188 the authors say “The Illustrated Guide to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is written by Zahi Hawass … and published by the excellent American University in Cairo Press.”

This excellent book is not written by Zahi Hawass. It is edited by Alessandro Bongioanni and Maria Croce Sole. The text is written by the editors and other Italian scholars. Zahi Hawass has written the preface.

This book has been published by VMB Publishers, an imprint of White Star Books, with a slightly different title: The Treasures of Ancient Egypt: The Collection of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

(2) On page 326 the authors mention a hotel in Abu Simbel: “Seti Abu Simbel … is Abu Simbel’s only five-star hotel.” In fact, it is a four-star hotel.

In some cases, the information given is incomplete:

(1) On page 288 the authors mention the night train from Luxor to Cairo. They say it departs at 9.40 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. and that the duration is nine hours. But when we took this train, it departed at 10.30 p.m. and the duration was ten hours. The train does not go to the main railway station in Cairo (Ramses). It goes to Giza Station on the west bank. But this fact is only revealed in the chapter about Cairo. Giza Station is mentioned in the text on page 179 and shown on the map on pages 112-113.

(2) On page 519 the authors say you can buy prepaid phone cards from Vodafone. But they do not explain that in order to use a prepaid card you must first buy an Egyptian SIM card from Vodafone, which is quite expensive: 150 Egyptian pounds. The stored value in the SIM card is less than one Egyptian pound, which is just enough to make a call to refill the account with a prepaid card.

In the section about Aswan the authors still complain about the “ugly” tower of the Mővenpick Resort Aswan, and they still report the rumour that the tower is going to be demolished (page 211). But the tower is still there, even after the recent makeover. Perhaps they should just report the facts instead of spreading rumours, especially since this rumour seem to be unfounded.

In the section with 15 Egyptian highlights - in the beginning of the book - they still list Petra as number 14, even though this ancient site is located in Jordan!

I have to mention two more things which bother me:

(1) Imhotep, the architect of the step pyramid in Saqqara, is mentioned on page 198, but the authors do not mention the Imhotep Museum which is located next to the step pyramid. The museum was opened in April 2006, but it was not mentioned in the ninth edition from 2008, and it is not mentioned in the tenth edition from 2010.

(2) Senenmut, a close collaborator of Hatshepsut, was the architect of the Memorial Temple for Hatshepsut, but he is not mentioned in the section about this place (Deir al-Bahri, page 267-268). There is a statue of him (with Hatshepsut’s daughter Neferure on his knee) in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. But he is not mentioned in the section about this place (pp. 183-192).

For more information about Senenmut please turn to Rosanna Pirelli, The Queens of Ancient Egypt, pp. 168-171, and Joyce Tyldesley, Chronicle of the Queens of Egypt, pp. 98-99.

In April 2010 I sent a message to Lonely Planet to tell them about the flaws in the ninth edition. Unfortunately, I was too late. When I wrote to them, the tenth edition was already being printed. I have written again. I hope I am not too late this time. I hope these flaws will not be found in the next edition.

* * * 

Matthew Firestone,

Egypt Lonely Planet,

10th edition, 2010, 572 pages

 

* * *