To me, one of the more interesting aspects to this article is the ability the author to present the information and implications of modern and historical perspectives discussed through both a historical and more cultural anthropology-based lens. In particular, by the use of this lens, the author discusses that there seems to be a distinct separation between what we consider ancient Egypt, the pharaonic Egypt, and the Egypt of modern day and how older and often romanticized views of Egypt as they are propagated by hegemonic Western culture, contribute to the continued inability to reconcile the notion of Egypt as a continuous historic entity. Further, the author discusses how this distinction between ancient and modern Egypt is also reflected in the identities of modern Egyptians. In the discussion stemming from this, a point I found particularly salient, and had not previously thought about, is that simply attempting to determine the ownership by a group of people over history would, in the end, not accomplish much in the way of creating a more continuous perception between ancient Egypt and the modern day and would also not reconcile the detachment of Egyptian identity. I found this particularly interesting because much of the rhetoric surrounding Egyptian history and archaeology in more public circles, and perhaps in more academic circles as well, as it pertains to the repatriation of artifacts, revolves around the notion of ownership over historic materials and, more broadly, Egyptian history. Then, extending off of this ownership, many people in Western cultures who are in support of these movements for repatriation, often discuss the repatriations as a means to massively improve this detachment of modern-day Egyptian identity to its history. However, this seems to ignore, or at the very least greatly underestimate, the influence of long-held, and often misinformed and romanticized, views of both modern and ancient Egyptian cultures held by and propagated by hegemonically powerful Western civilization. It seems that even within the archaeological, Egyptological, and other more academic disciplines, this discontinuous relationship between modern day Egypt is continuously enforced as each field is more concerned with the explanation and description for the artifact found or the knowledge gained within the context that it was found, as opposed to also examining and presenting this knowledge in a way that adds to a much more general understanding of a continuous Egyptian history and modern day socio-political understanding. Thus, as is briefly mentioned in the article, I think it is crucial that these academic communities begin to actively work towards building a better framework for the understanding and application of knowledge gained from their fields with the goal of creating a more comprehensive and continuous Egyptian history as a means to also begin swaying current perceptions.
3 thoughts on “Egypt in the Memory of the World”
Comments are closed.
I think you picked up something very important and it is something I mentioned in my post as well. I think all of us have grown up with some specific discourse tied to Ancient Egypt. When I was younger I was fascinated by mummies and pyramids, especially mummies. I remember reading about how they would pull out the person’s brain through their nose and get rid of all the other organs instead of the heart. This fascinated me but it also gave me a skewed definition of what it meant to be an Egyptian. The only thing I ever associated with Ancient Egypt was what I learned in factual books written for children: mummies, gold, pyramids, pharaohs, Cleopatra, etc. Obviously, as you mentioned, Egypt has so much more to offer than the stuff we romanticized and cherry-picked for generations. To see how an ancient civilization lived, evolved, and contributed to the rest of the world shows a lot more than regurgitated stereotypes. Lithics and ceramics may not be as intriguing as what we associate with Egypt today, but I believe they tell us a lot more of the broader Egyptian society as a whole. Most of what we view as Egyptian has to do with the select few, the royalty. The pyramids were made to entomb the royal pharaohs and the abundance of grave goods and treasures was more a representation of royalty. All the temples we see are usually dedicated to royalty to show their influence and power. By only looking at Egypt through these lenses, we eliminate a vast majority of the population, the everyday civilian. We focus more on the wonder of the pyramids as a representation of Egypt and forget about the toil and sweat the slaves went through to build them. We focus more on grave goods of gold and precious stones rather than the ordinary lithics of the other. We overlook the importance of the ordinary by a deep and long-lasting focus on the extraordinary. Like you said, it is important for archaeologists to represent Egypt in all aspects in order to provide a more accurate description of Egypt in the past as well as today.
Thought this was very interesting, and love how people who read the same article pick up on different things! There really is a detachment from what is the ancient and modern, in most places in Europe like Italy and Greece, but it seems to be even more so in Egypt than anywhere else. In Rome specifically, there is so much tied to the Roman Empire. Many of the temples are still standing within the city, preserved and well kept, and it is almost easier to be in touch with that part of ancient history there. Perhaps that it because Rome was the center of power for such a powerful empire, which lasted longer than Egypt did into the future (earning it the name “The Eternal City”). And also, it could be because of how much harder it was for people to pillage Rome than it was for Egypt, especially keeping in mind that it was “legal” for these artifacts to be stolen, and that Rome was part of that pillaging of Egypt. My point in all of this is, is that its hard for an empire to appreciate it’s history when people have stolen the history from them. Maybe with this repatriation, it will bring out a whole new sense of pride and identity for the modern Egyptian culture, and lead to a sort of neo-Renaissance.
I thought the separation between the “different types” of Egypt there were was very interesting! You mentioned ancient Egypt, pharaonic Egypt, and modern day Egypt. I remember in my Modern Middle East class we discussed pharaonic Egypt and how it essentially was just a romanticized and grandiose way of portraying Egypt. It was this concept of pharaohs, gold, and the pyramids. It was a way of looking at the past (and was even used as a source of nationalism) but it really left out a lot of other amazing historical significance of Egypt and how it shaped the world around it.
Your thoughts about the “detachment of Egyptian identity” was also quite insightful. Many people probably do not realize (or at least do not realize it consciously) how modern day Egypt is not really a concept. Egypt is generally associated with pharaonic Egypt and not the properties and characteristics of modern society. I am guilty of thinking this way as well. When I think of Egypt I instantly think of ancient Egypt. I know very little about the Egypt of current times. I feel that this detachment from present day Egypt also leads to a feeling of detachment and confusion about Egyptian identity. Their identity is overshadowed by the past and what historians have chosen as being important.
A more comprehensive history of Egypt does sound like a great idea to help with some of these issues. I do like that idea. However, the records from Egypt are unlike many others and sometimes include things that, while important, leave out a lot of other important information necessary to build a better historical understanding.