Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.2 (2019): 516-518. https://doi.org/10.7817/jameroriesoci.139.2.0516

Published in the May 2018 issue of Review of Middle Eastern Studies

This article examines how museums and archaeologists present ancient Egypt to the public. For archaeology, the role of the museum is extremely significant as it is the most popular forum through which non-specialists interact with the discipline. But how often do archaeologists and Egyptologists consider the manner in which the public consumes antiquity? There is a persistent and continuing tension to develop a balance between the popular and accurate notions of ancient Egypt. Museums are a voice of authority and legitimacy; when ancient Egypt is exhibited and interpreted it must satisfy the curious fascination, while also allowing for the development of archaeological literacy. The former ensures people will visit the exhibition while the latter allows them to understand the content on a contextual and cultural level. Archaeologists must care how their discipline is perceived so that the audience can comprehend the fruits of the labour beyond that which is popularly ‘known’. The contemporary and future role of museology and Egyptian antiquities will also be discussed concerning the risk heritage places face in a world beset by conflict.

The relationship between excavation and museums is often assumed to be linear, with artifacts removed from the field and transferred to a museum. This article, however, envisages a more complex connection between the two based on the premise that archaeological context is a continuous process rather than a static setting. The article’s departure point is the legacy and history of collections that were excavated in Egypt and widely distributed to the world’s museums in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These collections comprise not only excavated artifacts, but also the related documents of fieldwork and finds distribution. As a whole, this material allows for continual contextualization as the colonial legacy of archaeology in Egypt, and the hyper-reality of its presentation in museums, is confronted. Concepts such as the contact zone, indigenous archaeologies and radical transparency are just a few of the ways these issues might be addressed. Museum assemblages also permit a critical assessment of both the contemporary and possible future relationships between Egyptian archaeology in the field and museums.

This project discusses the interconnected disciplines of Egyptology and archaeology and their role in the making of Egyptian political realities. As Egypt moved toward revolutionary independence under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the country was also implicated in wider political concerns: Cold War, Soviet, anti-imperial and multilateral. The dissertation starts in the period after 1922 when Britain had granted Egypt nominal independence, and then focuses on the years after the 1952 Free Officers’ coup that would eventually see Nasser brought to power and the British presence in Egypt end. It demonstrates how Egyptological and archaeological field practices exemplified Egypt’s revolutionary modernity in a material way, as well as establishing the country’s place in this wider political world. This dissertation concentrates on one field site to make this demonstration: Mit Rahina (ancient Memphis), near Cairo. During the period from 1953 to 1957, the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (directed by Froelich Rainey, and led in the field by Rudolf Anthes), and the Egyptian Department of Antiquities (directed by Mustafa Amer), negotiated, carried out, and terminated joint excavations at the site. The two institutions predicated these excavations on discourses of modernisation that circulated in the post-War world, particularly as a communist-fearing United States attempted to bring newly independent nations like Egypt under its influence by promoting development. Egyptians who worked at Mit Rahina were to become amenable not only to certain ways of doing Egyptological work, but also to particular ways of living. Meanwhile, the representatives of the University Museum took on the role of the modern technical experts who would train them. Ultimately, though, this plan failed: the Mit Rahina excavations became considerably more ‘revolutionary’ than planned. The Department of Antiquities had implied that the excavation of the site would be beneficial as a part of wider moves to enact land reform in Egypt. Yet the University Museum’s acceptance of this request left its representatives unable to comprehend the remains that they excavated: a waterlogged and deeply stratified settlement site, Mit Rahina was far from the Egyptian norm. The Museum’s employees eventually utilised a particular form of archaeological stratigraphy that (inadvertently) made the site’s land comprehensible. This field practice also had relativistic qualities, which offered significant potential in terms of the wider political context: not only as decolonisation took place, but also, in turn, as new multilateral institutions such as the United Nations started to promote a global human past. Yet neither the University Museum’s artefact-obsessed Board nor the representatives of an emboldened (post-Bandung, post-Suez) Egypt now took interest: archaeological understanding of ancient land would not bolster the Museum’s collections, and the modernising Egyptian state wanted to direct excavation work further toward its own interests. The Egyptian state thus directed museums, universities and learned societies to a similar sort of land-based archaeological work in Nubia, a region whose ancient remains would be flooded by the imminent construction of the Aswan High Dam. As a result, Western Egyptologists now had to choose between taking on this sort of work or letting Egypt offer Nubian sites to Soviet bloc countries. Egyptologists later argued that their eventual decision to undertake work in Nubia was motivated by its self-evident good, both methodological and internationalist. This dissertation, in contrast, illustrates that the making of an assertive, revolutionary Egypt also now dictated the constitution of work in scientific archaeology.

Archaeologists working in Egypt have rarely considered the local/ global ramifications and responsibilities of their field practices: many continue to operate under what might be termed the residual effects of colonialism. Taking an explicitly postcolonial stance I argue that there is much more at stake than the intellectual enterprise. This paper outlines the ways in which scholars could undertake a more engaged archaeology and how we might more closely be involved with the people and pasts of modern Egypt. The connected tensions of tourism and terrorism are foregrounded, demonstrating that heritage issues are salient to both spheres. Finally, I explore the nation’s relationship to its pharaonic past over the past few centuries and include some contemporary articulations and representations.

In B. Effros and Guolong Lai (eds), Unmasking Ideology in Imperial and Colonial Archaeology: Vocabulary, Symbols, and Legacy, 173-200. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2018. https://ioa.ucla.edu/press/unmasking-ideology

It is a pleasure and an honor to offer these observations and reflections on the Nachlass and reception of ancient Egyptian culture to my friend, colleague, and fellow student Edward L. Bleiberg, whose fascination with the continuing survival and influence of ancient Egypt over the centuries and millennia I share.

Given the growing awareness of the museum field's foundation in white colonial power, museums have started to take action, utilizing the word "decolonize" to expand community partnerships and removing sculptures that celebrate white domination while reanalyzing their own past/present collection practices. On the surface, public-facing façade, we have seen a movement toward change, with more inclusive language, accessibility, and programming, while acknowledging that our field has much more work ahead. However, if museums are to truly understand and acknowledge their colonial history and connection, this self-examination must go beyond how they received their collections and explore how they continue to interpret them. This essay examines how museums perpetuate a colonial mindset in interpreting their collections. Specifically, by looking at ancient Egyptian collections, I will examine how museums have participated in creating a Western-based narrative that has appropriated ancient Egyptian history, thereby fragmenting Egyptian history, culture, and identity, and thus creating an incomplete and simplified narrative. The impact of this incomplete and simplified narrative can be seen in the over-valuing of ancient Egypt over modern Egypt, which in turn has real-world implications on tourism and even civic planning.