GöttinGer Miszellen

Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion

Heft 261
GM 261 (2020) 189

Some Remarks on the ‘De-Colonization’ of Egyptology*

By Thomas L. Gertzen, Berlin

I. Preliminaries

JOHN BAINES recently suggested that Egyptology might be defined as “not a single discipline,
but a branch of ‘Area Studies’.” and that “No two Egyptologists have the same interests and
focuses.”1 That of course constitutes some challenge when it comes to discussing the
‘disciplinary history’ of Egyptology,2 which is why people have begun writing about
‘histories’ of ‘Egyptologies’. 3 Apparently, the definition of what constitutes Egyptology is
still open.

JAN ASSMANN has tried to establish Egyptology as Kulturwissenschaft,4 to overcome the

perceived “isolation” of the discipline and to further the development of a “theoretisch
fundierten Kultursoziologie oder Kulturanthropologie”,5 whereas the impact of the
‘centrifugal’ and ‘centripetal’ forces of professionalization within the discipline and outside it

* This paper sums up some of my reflections, presented during a symposium on “The History of Egyptology in
the Low Countries”, held at the Nederlands-Vlaams Institute in Cairo, in November 2019, and a roundtable
discussion, forming part of the BSHS Global Digital History of Science Festival 2020: “A welcome guest?
Egyptology in History of Science – an interdisciplinary study: networks, narratives, and resources” which was
followed by troubling (re-)actions from some members of the audience (see infra). – I would like to thank the
respective organizers of the two events for the opportunity to present my research and the majority of
participants who engaged in constructive and respectful discussion.
1
John Baines, What is Egyptology?, in: The British Academy Blog, 27.03.2020:
https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/what-is-egyptology/ [11.07.2020]; see earlier: idem, On the Methods
and Aims of Black Athena, in: Mary R. Lefkowitz (ed.), Black Athena Revisited, Chapel Hill 1997, 42: “Near
Eastern Studies are not a ‘science’ or a ‘discipline’ in the Kuhnian sense. Rather they are a sum of a range of
methods and approaches applied to a great variety of materials from a particular geographical region and period;
even definitions of the area and period are open to revision.”
2
Cf. William Carruthers, Thinking about Histories of Egyptology, in: idem (ed.), Histories of Egyptology.
Interdisciplinary Measures, London 2015, 1–15.
3
Cf. Susanne Bickel et al. (eds), Ägyptologen und Ägyptologien zwischen Kaiserreich und der Gründung der
beiden deutschen Staaten (ZÄS-B 1), Berlin 2013.
4
Jan Assmann, Ägyptologie im Kontext der Geisteswissenschaften, in: Wolfgang Prinz and Peter Weingart
(eds), Die sogenannten Geisteswissenschaften. Innenansichten, Frankfurt a.M. 1990, 335–349; here 335: “Die
Ägyptologie ist eine Kulturwissenschaft”.
5
Ibid., 338 and 340.
190 GM 261 (2020)

(in cultural anthropology) have been discussed by ANTONIO LOPRIENO.6 It seems Egyptology
is still struggling to find its place in the “Kosmos der Wissenschaften”.7

EDWARD W. SAID developed the paradigm of Orientalism,8 which engendered a completely

new area of research while evoking a rather critical response – and rightly so. His study shows
three fundamental shortcomings (particularly apparent from a ‘German’ perspective):

1) By criticising the alleged ‘Western’ concept of, or projection on ‘the Orient’ Said
himself reflected a stereotyped simplistic perspective on the alleged originators of that
concept. – While there is no ‘Orient’, ‘the West’ is likewise construed.

2) He focused on ‘Orientalism’ in ‘Western’ countries, particularly France, Britain, and

the United States, due to their ‘imperial’ role in the Middle East. He thereby left out
‘smaller’ and non-European countries (e.g. Japan, generally perceived as being part of
the ‘West’), as well as Germany, claiming that German ‘Orientalism’ had been
“scholarly” but “never actual”.9 That is simply wrong and already hints at the next
fundamental misconception:10

3) Throughout his study, Said never clearly differentiated between ‘Orientalism’ and
‘Oriental Studies’, while there is a difference between reception or perception and
study, even if the latter is biased.

However, the imperialist setting of the development of Egyptology has been determined
by accepting the Napoleonic Expedition (1798–1801) to Egypt and the ensuing decipherment
of hieroglyphs (1822) as the point of departure.11 Egyptology, although nowadays very much
open to definition (see as supra) appears to be a ‘Western’ invention with all the conceptual
problems remarked in the preceding paragraphs. – This notion will be of some importance
further below.

6
Antonio Loprieno, Interdisziplinarität und Transdisziplinarität in der heutigen Ägyptologie, in: Tobias
Hofmann and Alexandra Sturm (eds), Menschenbilder – Bildermenschen. Kunst und Kultur im Alten Ägypten,
Norderstedt 2003, 227–240, esp. 237 f.
7
Cf. Siegfried Morenz, Die Ägyptologie im Kosmos der Wissenschaften, in: Saeculum. Jahrbuch für
Universalgeschichte 12, 1961, 345–357; commented upon by John Baines, Restricted Knowledge, Hierarchy,
and Decorum: Modern Perceptions and Ancient Institutions, in: JARCE 27, 1990, 4.
8
Edward W. Said, Orientalism, New York 1978.
9
Ibid., 19.
10
Meanwhile, Suzanne Marchand, German Orientalism in the Age of Empire. Religion, Race, and Scholarship,
Cambridge 2009 has emended this problem.
11
Cf. Thomas L. Gertzen, Einführung in die Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Ägyptologie (Einführungen und
Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 10), Berlin 2017, 13–21; 25–30.
GM 261 (2020) 191

Muslim, Egyptian or ‘indigenous’ research into ancient Egypt has been fully recognized
only in recent years,12 prompting DONALD M. REID to ask: “Whose Pharaohs?” 13 But Reid
avoided a simplistic ‘black and white’-dichotomy of ‘good’ ‘indigenous’ Egyptian scholars
and ‘bad’ ‘foreign’, ‘imperialist’, ‘Western’ Egyptologists. An often neglected episode in the
history of Egyptology is the Madrasat al-Lisan al-Qadim (the school of ancient languages),
inaugurated by the Egyptian government in the mid-19th century and headed by German
Egyptologist HEINRICH BRUGSCH.14 His experiences clearly showed that the school’s good
intention to engage Egyptians with the past of their country was not only hindered by French
envy and intrigues, but also by the preference of his more-talented pupils for different, more
rewarding, careers, along with literal as well as figurative difficulties translating certain
Egyptological terms and concepts.15

REID’s publications are also responsible for making his readers aware of the conflicted
identities surrounding research into, and the perception of ancient Egypt. The Christian
minority Copts, for various reasons, embraced the heritage of pharaonic Egypt earlier and
with more ardour than their Muslim fellow-countrymen.16 The idea that the Copts would be
the ‘racially pure’ descendants of the ancient Egyptians was instilled in them by ‘Western’ –
particularly British – Egyptologists.17 Even the Egyptian nationalist movement, trying to
shake off ‘Western’ imperial oppression, was inspired by ‘Western’ (nationalist or völkisch)
ideas.
The first attempts to protect Egyptian antiquities by law18 against zealous European
collectors and ‘indigenous’ sebbakhin19 alike, were also inspired by ‘Western’ scholars, which
raises the issue of “Conflicted Antiquities”, as discussed by ELLIOT COLLA.20

12
Cf. i.a. Okasha El Daly, The Missing Millennium. Ancient Egypt in Medieval Arabic Writings, London 2005.
13
Donald M. Reid, Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to
World War I, Berkeley 2002.
14
Ibid., 116–118.
15
Heinrich Brugsch, Mein Leben und mein Wandern2, Berlin 1894, 279–282. – It must be remembered that
Brugsch’s autobiography provides a prime case study for ‘Orientalism’; cf. ibid., 179–183: “Mein Leben unter
den Arabern”.
16
Donald M. Reid, Contesting Antiquity in Egypt. Archaeologies, Museums & the Struggle for Identities from
World War I to Nasser, Cairo 2015, 197–227.
17
Ibid., 212–221.
18
An overview and the transregional setting are provided in: Morag M. Kersel, The Changing Legal Landscape
for Middle Eastern Archaeology in the Colonial Era 1800–1930, in: Geoff Emberling (ed.), Pioneers to the Past.
American Archaeologists in the Middle East 1919–1920, Chicago 2010, 85–90.
19
Both with limited success. A recent article even suggested: “... that the spread of sebakh from ancient mounds
to cultivated ground as fertiliser negates the utility of field survey as a technique for locating ancient habitation
in Egypt.”; Donald M. Bailey, Sebakh, Sherds and Survey, in: JEA 85, 1999, 211–218.
20
Elliot Colla, Conflicted Antiquities. Egyptology, Egyptomania, Egyptian Modernity, London 2007.
192 GM 261 (2020)

It is senseless to reckon up ‘Western’ contra ‘indigenous’ looting and destruction of Egyptian

antiquities. Europeans have applied dynamite to ancient monuments to uncover perceived
mysteries or simply to remove objects, while Egyptians, in the processes of modernization
and industrialisation of their country (yet again inspired by ‘Western’ ideas), have dismantled
pharaonic temples to build factories and used mummies as fuel for steam engines.

“The Antiquities Trade in Egypt”21 clearly constitutes exploitation of the (cultural)

resources of the country. Although there can be no doubt that ‘Westerners’ were the driving
force behind this and also the main profiteers, the role played by Egyptian ‘indigenous’
finders, middlemen, dealers, and forgers should not be neglected, particularly in a
postcolonial approach, including consideration of ‘local agents’.

The field of provenance research merits a separate discussion, though it cannot be

entirely separated from the wider postcolonial discourse and therefore shall not remain
unmentioned.22 I would argue here that the only reliable and practical approach to the various
issues involved is a legal one. Some highly disputed objects of Egyptian art – legally – belong
to the European museums where they are today. 23 The rule of (international) law and the
mutual respect for it does not only enable Egyptians to sue for the return of illegally obtained
objects but would also ensure the return of objects on loan to Egypt from ‘Western’ museums.

II. Essentials

What should have become clear so far is that the History of Egyptology is complex. – First
and foremost, because the object of study has yet to be clearly defined. Accepting its
‘Western’ imperialist outset, notwithstanding the necessary differentiation between the
various ‘national’ histories of Egyptology in different countries,24 would mandate accepting a
minor or even insignificant role of ‘indigenous’ Egyptian scholarship, predating the
development of the discipline, and a subordinate role for Egyptians attempting to establish
themselves within the boundaries of the colonial setting. As part of ‘Western’ academia
Egyptology would not only disregard earlier ‘non-Western’ scholarship on ancient Egypt but

21
Cf. Fredrik Hagen and Kim Ryholt, The Antiquities Trade in Egypt 1880–1930. The H. O. Lange Papers,
Copenhagen 2016.
22
For provenance research in Egyptology cf. Tine Bagh, Finds from W. M. F. Petrie’s excavations in Egypt in
the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen 2011and Alice Stevenson, Scattered Finds. Archaeology, Egyptology
and Museums, London 2019.
23
For a representative case study see Kelly Culbertson, Contemporary customary international law in the case of
Nefertiti, in: Art Antiquity and Law 27.1, 2012, 27–68.
24
Cf. Andrew Bednarski et al. (eds), A History of World Egyptology, Cambridge 2020.
GM 261 (2020) 193

would also become less accessible for Egyptians with their non-European intellectual history
background. Accepting this notion, the ‘de-colonization’ of Egyptology could only mean the
dismantling of Egyptology.

Assuming a less radical and perhaps simplistic stance, one would have to perceive the
Egyptians and Egyptian narratives25 as part of the story and include them in the analysis,
transcending the disciplinary boundaries of Egyptology as part of (exclusively) ‘Western’
academia. In other words, Egyptians are ‘subjects’ of Egyptology in the (multiple) sense that
they are ‘objects’ of research, ‘subjected’ to ‘Western’ imperialism but also ‘agents’ in their
own right. This complex ‘Western’-Egyptian relationship has been skilfully described by
REID:
“Westerners created Egyptology and eventually taught it to the Egyptians. Egypt owes
them a debt for that, but the interest on the debt was exorbitant … [and] questions of
dependency on the West linger in Egyptology as they do in Egyptian national affairs.
Both explanations for the tardy emergence of indigenous Egyptology – Egyptian
indifference and Western control of Egyptian archaeology – have been overstated by
their partisans.”26

But there is yet another need for differentiation, between Egyptians – ancient and
modern. Much has been written about the appropriation of ancient Egypt as an essential part
of ‘Western’ cultural history.27 It is telling that many definitions of the chronological scope of
Egyptological research end with the Muslim conquest of the country but include the Greco-
Roman (‘Western’) and Byzantine/Christian history (if only as some sort of epilogue). Some
Egyptologists attributed ancient Egyptian ancestry to the Copts in an attempt at divide et
impera, not as a sign of respect for the representatives of this religious minority.28

25
E.g. Stephen Quirke, Hidden Hands. Egyptian Workforces in Petrie excavation archives, 1880–1924, London
2010; see also Tina Beck, Perspektivenwechsel. Eine Reflexion archäologischen Arbeitens in Ägypten: Die
lokalen Grabungsarbeiter des Asyut Project (The Asyut Project 8), Wiesbaden 2016; Maximilian Georg, The
Living Surrounding the Dead: European archaeologists in Egypt and their relations with the local inhabitants,
1798–1898, in: Hana Navratilova et al. (eds), Towards a History of Egyptology. Proceedings of the
Egyptological Section of the 8th ESHS Conference in London, 2018 (Investigatio Orientis 4), Münster 2019, 91–
124.
26
Donald M. Reid, Indigenous Egyptology: The Decolonization of a Profession?, in: JAOS 105.2, 1985, 234.
27
For a critical assessment of scholarship, but also its self-reflection in that connection cf. Molefi Kete Asante,
Review of: Mary R. Lefkowitz: Black Athena Revisited, in: Research in African Literatures 29.1, Spring 1998,
206–210 and for the (also) political implications cf. William Carruthers, The rise and fall of ancient Egypt?
Egyptology’s never-ending story, in: Antiquity 85, 2011, 1444–1447.
28
Picking up an observation of Elliot Colla (see N. 20), Christian Langer, The Informal Colonialism of
Egyptology: From the French Expedition to the Security State, in: Marc Woons and Sebastian Weier (eds),
Critical Epistemologies of Global Politics, Bristol 2017, 182–202 points out how Egyptian elites subsequently
194 GM 261 (2020)

Then again, any claim of modern Egyptians to ‘their’ cultural heritage seems just as doubtful.
– Not because Muslim Egyptians would be the descendants of Arab conquerors (and therefore
not entitled to inheritance), but because these very notions of ethnic continuities are
fundamentally erroneous. – Like it or not, modern day Germans have not much in common
with Arminius nor the French with Vercingetorix, even if the nineteenth-century nationalist
narratives surrounding these ‘folk-heroes’ demand scrutiny.

Preserving ancient Egyptian World Heritage thus becomes a shared responsibility by

‘Westerners’ and Egyptians alike.

III. Some Comments

The scope of this rather sketchy, hardly controversial overview of the current state of research
into the history and definition of Egyptology or Egyptological studies and the various issues,
qualifies neither as an exhaustive assessment, nor as a sufficient guide to navigate all the
practical challenges involved.

Moreover, the focus on disciplinary history and its (post-)colonial aspects should not blind
us to the numerous other aspects, ‘issues’ and ‘-isms’, like ‘nationalism’; ‘imperialism’;
‘religion’; ‘gender’ and many more, to which a short paper like this certainly cannot do
justice. Indeed, it must be emphasised, however, that very few single studies actually could
achieve such comprehensiveness. In other words, the discussion of these many themes not
only requires a larger scale but an interdisciplinary and, almost necessarily, multi-author-
approach.

But Egyptologists began to engage in the discussions about ‘Orientalism’ and postcolonial
studies a while ago, taking into consideration the overarching scholarly discourses as well
as their publications and seeking contact to the representatives, not only of neighbouring
disciplines amongst the various archaeologies or ancient studies, but also of social sciences,
history – in particular of science, political studies, cultural anthropology and so on. Outside
the discipline this recent development29 has, so far, passed unnoticed, perhaps due in part to

used Egyptological concepts and administrative structures to stabilize their own position in power and to exert
control over rural populations.
29
Relatively speaking, since these processes can be traced back to the midst of the 1970s; cf. Jürgen Horn et al.,
Wissenschaftliche und theoretische Grundlegung der Ägyptologie. Materialien und Einschätzungen, in: GM 12,
1974; also see Edwin Henfling, Aufruf zu einem themenorientierten Heft der Göttinger Miszellen, in: GM 9,
1974, 8–10 and recently: Alexandra Verbovsek et al. (eds), Methodik und Didaktik in der Ägyptologie.
Herausforderungen eines kulturwissenschaftlichen Paradigmenwechsels in den Altertumswissenschaften
(Ägyptologie und Kulturwissenschaft 4), Paderborn 2011.
GM 261 (2020) 195

the century-long self-isolation or rather self-stylisation of Egyptologists and their undoubted

neglect of methodological self-reflection with regard to the developments in surrounding
academia.

One motivation behind this commentary is my impression that Egyptologists are

increasingly perceived and presented as fundamentally inept or unsuited to address the
challenges and objectives raised by postcolonial or cultural studies in general. Egyptologists’
publications on the history of their discipline are either not known or ignored, which is
sometimes ‘justified’ by the argument that these would only constitute self-aggrandizing,
hagiographic, romantic, nostalgic but, most importantly, un-critical accounts of the history of
their discipline. – That is simply not true!

A roundtable discussion at an online conference hosted by the British Society for the
History of Science30 brought this erroneous idea forcefully to my attention quite recently.
The audience, linked in via Crowd Cast, could engage in the discussion after the short
presentations of the panellists. Using the chat-function one person asked: “Is this a session
about decolonizing Egyptology and 19th century field sciences?” The answer the moderator
provided was the link to our panel-abstract, clearly indicating that was not our main topic
(though we certainly addressed aspects of it in our presentations and the ensuing discussion).
Considering the imperial and national(istic) setting of Egyptology, as well as the engagement
of certain scholars in ‘racial studies’ in my contribution, I had expected some objections, but
the main criticism in the Q&A-field-discussion was addressed to the focus on “white middle-
class men”, whereas allegedly: “many of the foreign women were equally racist and looters.
They were as racist and exploitive as men!”

Although my fellow panellists and I tried to address these issues, we were neither willing
to accept the aggressive tone nor the disregard of the subjects we wanted to discuss. As a
result, our panel was further derided by some of the participants on Twitter. – None of the
panellists was included in or notified of this tweet. – I would not comment on this, since most
of us have learned to live with and wisely ignore internet-trolls,31 but in this case, tenured
professors and affiliates of respected academic institutions took part in a defamatory and,
frankly, insulting misrepresentation of an academic discussion on the internet.

30
Already mentioned (see *): https://bshsfestival.org.uk/index.php/programme/roundtables/a-welcome-guest-
egyptology-in-history-of-science/ [12.07.2020]; under the link the recording of the session can be found, though
the transcript, provided in the thread is defective.
31
A person, who intentionally posts inflammatory off-topic messages in an online-community, with the intent of
provoking readers into displaying emotional responses; cf. Collins English Dictionary, Online:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/troll [13.07.2020].
196 GM 261 (2020)

To sum up the criticisms or rather verbal abuses uttered in this tweet-conversation, we were
presented as “Egyptologists […] not historians of science”, who “produce histories of
Egyptology merely for the purpose of reducing colonial guilt” ... “with total obliviousness to
current aims” and “vastly out of touch”. Following this line of argument, my earlier notion
that the ‘de-colonization’ of Egyptology would mean its ‘dismantling’ seems no longer so
farfetched. What really shocked me, however, was the Tweeters’ total ignorance of
disciplinary history publications from within Egyptology and the dogmatic belief that any
discussion about the history of Egyptology must be postcolonial with the aim of ‘de-
colonizing’ the discipline and necessarily be accomplished by historians of science.32

Unquestionably, colonialism is a particular concern in Anglo-American academia and –

given the importance of the British actual and the American informal empires – perfectly
understandable. Said’s notion that the German ‘Orient’ would have been “scholarly” but
“never actual” is, of course, wrong.33 But he did recognize a German claim of “intellectual
authority” over the ‘Orient’,34 which would render the postcolonial endeavour worthwhile for
the history of Egyptology in Germany as well. It is certainly (!) not the only paradigm in
disciplinary history.

Egyptology currently seems to be ‘colonized’ itself, which would seem only

consequential for the purpose of its subsequent ‘de-colonization’ and for some – considering
the discipline’s historical baggage – only fair. Not being able to clearly state what Egyptology
actually is or leaving it open to the (personal) definition of the individual scholar does not
really help to shed light on the various issues and criticisms. And there are even more
practical difficulties.

32
Another misconception of the trolls, since the English term ‘science’ does not comprise the humanities, to
which Egyptology largely belongs; cf. Lorraine Daston, Die Kultur der wissenschaftlichen Objektivität, in:
Michael Hagener (ed.), Ansichten der Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Frankfurt a.M. 2001, 137.
33
Although Egypt is a special case. Reichskanzler Otto von Bismarck devised the plan to keep France and
Britain apart by fostering and staying out of their colonial quarrels; cf. Martin Kröger, Le baton égyptien – Der
ägyptische Knüppel. Die Rolle der ägyptischen Frage in der deutschen Außenpolitik von 1875/76 bis zur entente
cordiale, Frankfurt a.M. 1991; time and again American and British authors, writing about the history of
Egyptology, falsely claim, that the later director of the Kaiserlich- (and that is not to be simply translated into:
‘Imperial’ in English!) Deutsches Institut für Ägyptische Altertumskunde in Kairo, Ludwig Borchardt, would
have attained diplomatic status, when being appointed as “scholarly attaché” at the German Consulate General in
Cairo in 1899; for correct information cf. Susanne Voss, Die Geschichte der Abteilung Kairo des DAI im
Spannungsfeld deutscher politischer Interessen, 1881–1929 (Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 8.1),
Rahden/Westf. 2013, 62.
34
Said, Orientalism, 19.
GM 261 (2020) 197

One lecture on the program of the Ständige Ägyptologen-Konferenz 2018 in Münster was
devoted to the colonial mindset of 19th and early 20th century archaeologists, who conducted
research into the history of Nubia during the New Kingdom. The speaker focused primarily
on their alleged racist attitudes.35 The rather lukewarm reaction of the audience might have
been attributable not only to an unwillingness of Egyptologists to engage with the ‘darker
sides’ of the history of their discipline.36 However, the organizer of the conference was
obviously more concerned about the possibility that the representatives of the Egyptian
Antiquities Service, attending the conference proceedings as honorary guests, could have
misunderstood the presentation: Unable to understand spoken German sufficiently well, they
might have perceived the various illustrations of racial charts and the like as presenting a
current revaluation and reassessment of racial studies about Nubia in antiquity. For this reason
the organizer urged the speaker to engage in personal conversation (in English) with the
Egyptians, to explain his actual motives and objectives. – Otherwise, once again (see supra),
good intentions in Egyptology were in danger of getting ‘lost in (non-)translation’.

But there is more to it than that. Disciplinary history research in Egypt began only
recently. Considering the long-lasting undervaluation of Egyptian contributions to
Egyptological research, it is no wonder and seems only fair that the achievements of Egyptian
Egyptologists are brought into focus and presented in a most favourable light. A striking
example for this trend was the exhibition with the title “Selim Hassan. Legend of Egyptology”
mounted in 2015 at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina.37 The protagonist was presented as a
‘national hero’ of Egyptology, paving the way for Egyptian engagement in archaeological
excavations, demanding the return of stolen antiquities, defying the whims of former king
Farouk. – And why should Egyptians not be entitled to their fair share in self-aggrandizing,

35
Uroš Matić, Von kolonialen Epistemen, Denkkollektiven sowie der Archäologie und Geschichtsschreibung
Nubiens im Neuen Reich, cf. Conference programme: https://www.uni-
muenster.de/imperia/md/content/iaek/_v/3_rundbrief_endg__ltig-1.pdf [13.07.2020].
36
In the meantime, Matić has published his findings in: Uroš Matić, De-colonizing the Historiography and
Archaeology of Ancient Egypt and Nubia. Part 1: Scientific Racism, JEgH 11, 2018, 19–44; some of the
observations had already been made in: Timothy Champion, Beyond Egyptology. Egypt in 19th and 20th century
Archaeology and Anthropology, in: Peter J. Ucko (ed.), The Wisdom of Egypt. Changing Visions through the
Ages, London 2003, 161–185, see also: Scott Trafton, Egypt Land. Race and Nineteenth-Century American
Egyptomania, Durham 2004; unfortunately, the seminal study of: Susanne Voss, Wissenshintergründe – die
Ägyptologie als „völkische“ Wissenschaft vom Ersten Weltkrieg bis zum „Dritten Reich“ am Beispiel des
Nachlasses Georg Steindorffs, in: Susanne Voss and Dietrich Raue (eds), Georg Steindorff und die deutsche
Ägyptologie im 20. Jahrhundert (ZÄS-B 5), Berlin 2016, 105–332, esp. 237–253 remained also unnoticed in his
article. – It might be argued that the audience did not react, at least, partly because it was already aware of much
of what was being said.
37
A short video clip by the conference organizers is still available on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CUZRJzYyYY [13.07.2020].
198 GM 261 (2020)

hagiographic, and uncritical disciplinary history writing? What is more, it has taken ‘Western’
Egyptologists quite some time to overcome reluctance to assess critically the works of their
predecessors, which might still be stronger amongst Egyptian colleagues, who yet face, at
times, very ‘uncritical’ devaluation of their achievements. It would be unjust and contra
productive to ignore these sensitivities. However, in the end there can and there should be no
alternative paradigm for the disciplinary history of Egyptian Egyptology.

The situation becomes even more complicated when addressing other aspects of
disciplinary history, e.g. within the context of allegedly totalitarian political regimes. In 2017
I was co-organizer of a conference on the history of Sudanese Archaeology in Berlin,
hosted at the Institute for the Archaeology of Northeast Africa at Humboldt Universität.38 The
conference flyer featured a photograph of reconstruction work at the Lion Temple of
Musawwarat es-Sufra, illustrating Sudanese workmen towing a column fragment under the
supervision of archaeologists from the German Democratic Republic (GDR). In my opening
lecture I challenged the ‘self-image’ of archaeologists, illustrating it with a drawing of the
transport of the statue of a ram, found at Gebel Barkal by the Prussian Expedition to Egypt in
1844,39 with strikingly similar contents and composition.

During the conference, uneasiness was marked among some colleagues when it came to
the notion, that the history of Sudanese Archaeology during the GDR-period might be
subjected to postcolonial analysis. 40 This may be attributable to the self-stylisation of the
GDR as the champion of anti-imperialism, their archaeologists being engaged in
Völkerfreundschaft (~ friendship of peoples). However, student-participants prepared a poster
exhibition accompanying the conference,41 which included photographs that were provided

38
“BERLIN-SUDAN. Die Geschichte der Berliner Nordostafrikaforschung. Wandel, Kontinuität und
wissenschaftlicher Zeitgeist vom Königreich Preußen bis in die DDR”: https://www.archaeologie.hu-
berlin.de/de/aknoa/veranstaltungen/konferenzen/berlin-sudan [14.07.2020].
39
The image can be found on the Homepage, History of the Museum-section of the Society for the Promotion of
the Egyptian Museum Berlin: http://www.aegyptisches-museum-berlin-verein.de/c01.php?sprache=en
[14.07.2020]; also see: Marianna Jung, Die Zeichnungen der Lepsius-Expedition und ihre Umsetzung in
Lithografien und Gemälden am Beispiel der Insel Philae, in: Ingelore Hafemann (ed.), Preussen in Ägypten.
Ägypten in Preussen, Berlin 2010, 203–234.
40
Research into that period begun only recently; for a general overview cf. Hans Neumann, Altorientalistik in
der DDR (1986–1990) und ihre inhaltlich-strukturelle Umgestaltung in den neuen Bundesländern (1990/91–
1995), in: Wolf-Hagen Krauth and Rolf Wolz (eds), Wissenschaft und Wiedervereinigung. Asien- und
Afrikawissenschaften im Umbruch, Berlin 1998, 165–268; for the case of Egyptology: Thomas L. Gertzen,
Strukturgefängnis und exotischer Freiraum: Die Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Ägyptologie in der DDR, in: GM
251, 2017, 149–157; both publications, however, do not address postcolonialism.
41
“Archäologie im Archiv: Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Sudanforschung in der DDR”:
https://www.archaeologie.hu-berlin.de/de/aknoa/forschung-und-projekte/projekte/archaeologie-im-archiv
[14.07.2020].
GM 261 (2020) 199

for publicity to the press at the time of the expedition. These showed the Sudanese assistant of
an archaeological expedition photographer allegedly conducting documentary work (making a
paper-squeezing) but the actual work had already been done by the GDR-archaeologists. –
Delusion in the name of Völkerfreundschaft? The situation, as in most cases, is more
complicated since the Sudanese assistant actually did engage in more qualified work.

But also during this conference, disciplinary history research was hindered by – certainly
well-intentioned – censorship of sources. Since, as a co-organizer I agreed to this, my
criticism includes my own conduct. In order not to offend the representatives of the Sudanese
Antiquities Service, a citation from the field-diaries of Ursula Hintze 42 was removed from a
poster. It contained derogatory remarks about Upper Egypt, in favour of the allegedly
‘cleaner’ and ‘orderly’ Sudan, where fewer women wearing head-scarfs would indicate a
more ‘progressive’ attitude in those days. This concession was also intended to show respect
for Ursula Hintze’s children, who had donated material to the archives of the Institute and to
foster the aim of highlighting the positive and important role of women in archaeology. This
conflict of interests, however, from a scholarly point of view, should not have hindered the
presentation and discussion of the less positive aspects of a person’s writings. 43

IV. Conclusions

In view of the foregoing, what seems urgently needed – not only for the disciplinary history of
Egyptology or its setting within the postcolonial discourse – is an international working
definition of what constitutes Egyptology and Egyptologists.

A definition of Egyptology cannot and should not be provided by one single individual,
ending up with the individualist dilemma stemming from the remarks of BAINES. Nonetheless,
some guidelines shall be presented here: Our concept of Egyptology necessarily must be as
inclusive as possible, with regard to Egyptian ‘indigenous’ contributions, but also in respect to
earlier research of both Arab/Muslim as well as European scholars.44 This simplistic idea of
Egyptology being a ‘Western’ invention must be abandoned along with the concomitant, no
less simplistic, demand to ‘de-colonize’ or even ‘dismantle’ the discipline.

42
Spouse of the leading representative of GDR-Sudanese Archaeology Fritz Hintze, but also a scholar of African
studies in here own right.
43
It must also be pointed out here that the field-diaries were not ‘private’ or ‘personal’, they were supposed to be
read by representatives of both GDR-academia and (political) administrators.
44
As for those, cf. the still seminal work of: Erik Iversen, The Myth of Egypt and its Hieroglyphs in European
Tradition, Copenhagen 1961.
200 GM 261 (2020)

The definition of Egyptology should also be inclusive with regard to the multidisciplinary as
well as transnational approaches to all matters related to Egypt, borrowing methods and
paradigms from overarching cultural studies and natural sciences, which, by the way, was a
marked characteristic of the earliest attempts of French savants, who contributed to the
Description de l’Égypte.

All these – admittedly – ‘lofty’ ideas would still encounter two fundamental problems:
The chronological limitation of the subject to the pre-Islamic period and the need to define
a specific Egyptological competence,45 complementing each other, since Islamic Egypt is
already ‘claimed’ by Arabic and Islamic Studies, also rendering many Egyptologists
‘speechless’ when trying to communicate with their Egyptian colleagues (although that is an
exaggeration, for even if the command of modern Arabic amongst Egyptologists is limited,
many Egyptian colleagues are linguistically gifted). Another conflict arises from the different
evaluation of the respective importance of archaeology and philology. 46 The importance of the
fact that in English-speaking, particularly British, Egyptology archaeological research into the
‘material culture’ of ancient Egypt traditionally played a bigger role than e.g. in Germany
should not be underestimated.47 The postcolonial discourse on the – very actual –
appropriation of ancient Egyptian artifacts and material exploitation of Egyptian cultural
heritage and (modern) Egyptians, is focused on Egyptology being an archaeological discipline
‘in the field’.

That brings us to the necessary definition of an Egyptologist. In contrast to the wider and
more inclusive concept of Egyptology or Egyptological studies proposed here, there is a need
for more precise and discernable characteristics. At the beginning of the 1980s the German
sociologist of science Hans-Josef Trümpener, suggested that in the case of Egyptology:
“Grammatik und Sprachbeherrschung erfüllen … stellvertretend die Funktion von
Wissenschaftstheorie.”48 Indeed, it is the decipherment of hieroglyphs which in most histories
of Egyptology is presented as the point of departure for the development of the discipline.

45
See Baines, On the Methods and Aims of Black Athena, 47: “As I have indicated, the Egyptological argument
is not finally in terms of ‘Egyptological method’, which does not exist as such, but in terms of the range of
general methods and approaches that are brought to bear upon materials from ancient Egypt.”
46
Cf. Barry Kemp, In the shadow of texts. Archaeology in Egypt, in: Archaeological Review from Cambridge
3.2, 1984, 19–28.
47
As to this fundamental difference: Thomas L. Gertzen, Ägyptologie zwischen Archäologie und
Sprachwissenschaft. Die Korrespondenz zwischen A. Erman und W. M. F. Petrie, in: ZÄS 136, 2009, 114–125.
48
Hans-Josef Trümpener, Die Existenzbedingungen einer Zwergwissenschaft. Eine Darstellung des
Zusammenhanges von wissenschaftlichem Wandel und der Institutionalisierung einer Disziplin am Beispiel der
Ägyptologie, Bielefeld 1981, 101.
GM 261 (2020) 201

That also explains, why earlier (failed) attempts at decipherment, as well as non-linguistic
studies, are commonly relegated to the discipline’s ‘pre-history’.49 Furthermore, this provides
an alternative explanation for the chronological limitation of Egyptology. Coptic studies
opened the way to the decipherment of the hieroglyphic script and so the concentration on the
pre-Islamic, non-Arabic-speaking period is justified by the core competence of Egyptologists
being able to read and translate Egyptian texts written primarily in hieroglyphic but also in
hieratic, demotic, and Coptic scripts.

This very clear definition of what makes an Egyptologist an Egyptologist reveals some
disadvantages when it comes to dealing with the history of Egyptological research. Many
representatives of ‘the field’ (in the double sense of the word) were unable to read – at least
longer and more complex – Egyptian texts, most prominent examples being William Matthew
Flinders Petrie (the ‘father of Egyptian archaeology’) and Howard Carter, who, in two years’
time, many British colleagues will claim as ‘one of us’.50

Apart from the differing priorities in British and German Egyptology, 51 there are processes
of professionalization to be considered, which gradually excluded certain groups, namely
Egyptians, so called amateurs and dilettantes, 52 and women.53 Although gender studies would
merit a discussion on their own, this aspect should not be disregarded here. Numerous women
contributed to Egyptological research at a time, when it was impossible for them to study
Egyptology and obtain a university degree.54

49
With the remarkable exception of Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680), who – among the most fanciful ideas
about ancient Egyptian culture and script – deciphered one (!) hieroglyph correctly and, more importantly, laid
the groundwork for Coptic Studies, later employed by Jean F. Champollion; cf. Umberto Eco, Die Suche nach
der vollkommenen Sprache, München 1994, 163: “[Er] wurde … zum Vater der Ägyptologie, so wie Ptolemäus
zum Vater der Astronomie wurde.”
50
On the occasion of the centenary of the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun.
51
A recent comparison provided by Aidan Dodson, Egyptology: A British Model? and Thomas L. Gertzen,
‘Germanic’ Egyptology? Scholarship and Politics as Resources for each other and their alleged binary
relationship, both in: Hana Navratilova et al. (eds), Towards a History of Egyptology. Proceedings of the
Egyptological Section of the 8th ESHS Conference in London, 2018, Münster 2019; 147–156 and 211–227.
52
One of Britain’s foremost Egyptologists, Alan H. Gardiner is cited as proudly considering himself a dilettante;
cf. Helmut Brunner, Sir Alan Henderson Gardiner, in: AfO 21, 1966, 269.
53
Yet another case study into the differences between British and German Egyptology, but also considering
gender issues involved: Gerdien Jonker, Gelehrte Damen, Ehefrauen, Wissenschaftlerinnen. Die Mitarbeit der
Frauen in der orientalistischen Kommission der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1907–
1945), in: Theresa Wobbe (ed.), Frauen in Akademie und Wissenschaft. Arbeitsorte und Forschungspraktiken
1700–2000, Berlin 2002, 125–166.
54
Cf. Les Femmes dans l’Égyptologie au XIXe siècle. Égypte, Afrique & Orient 69, Mars-Avril-Mai 2013;
Amelia B. Edwards bequeathed funding for Britain’s first professorship in Egyptology to the University College
London, because at that time it was the only academic institution which admitted women to degrees by
202 GM 261 (2020)

In conclusion, a wide-ranging definition of Egyptology could be: a multidisciplinary area- or

regional study, actually predating the Napoleonic expedition, including both natural sciences
and the humanities as well as European and non-European practitioners. The term
Egyptologist (male or female; ‘Western’ or ‘non-Western’) might be more narrowly defined,
if keeping in mind, that in some cases and particularly at certain points in the history of the
discipline, such a narrow definition might not apply and would therefore be rendered useless.

The central questions of these deliberations remain: Is Egyptology a colonial discipline

and, if so, does it need to be ‘de-colonized’?

An answer to the first question depends on the subject’s definition. Even if the imperialist
setting, European intellectual background, and exploitative character of – some –
Egyptological endeavours cannot be denied, I would hesitate to attach the label ‘colonial
discipline’ to Egyptology. But even if the answer were yes, what would follow? Could
Egyptology be ‘de-colonized’?

There are various very practical approaches to such goal, most aiming at some sort of
‘empowerment’ of Egyptian Egyptology, through training, (university) teaching, internship-
and foreign exchange programmes and international cooperation, which, generally speaking,
can be wholeheartedly embraced. The disciplinary historian, however, reminds us, that these
measures date back almost to the (‘colonial’) beginnings of Egyptology, the first Egyptian
antiquities laws being inspired by European scholars, a first school for Egyptian Egyptologists
being installed and run by Europeans and the observation by some historians that Egyptian
elites adopted the (colonial) Egyptological administrative structures for their own purposes,
not exactly empowering the Egyptian people.

What definitely has to be rejected is the shaming of ‘Western’ Egyptologists, by the

representatives of a self-proclaimed ‘woke-community’ on social media.55 However, scholars
engaged in Egyptology and disciplinary history alike are confronted with the challenges of
what has been called the ‘postcolonial dilemma’.56

examination; cf. Rosalind M. Janssen, The First Hundred Years. Egyptology at the University College London
1892–1992, London 1992, 3.
55
Deriving from African American Vernacular English (instead of ‘awake’), the term refers to a perceived
awareness of issues concerning social and racial justice. However, the woke movement is increasingly criticized,
due to the overbearing and, at times censorious, attitude of some of its representatives. Among the more
prominent critics of theses tendencies is former US-president Barack Obama: “Barack Obama challenges
‘woke’-culture”, BBC News 30.10.2019: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261 [13.07.2020].
56
Cf. Barbara Weinstein, History Without a Cause? Grand Narratives, World History, and the Postcolonial
Dilemma, in: International Review of Social History 50, 2005, 84–87.
GM 261 (2020) 203

Shifting the ‘eurocentric’ perspective not only raises the question of how to replace it, but
also, as a process, is actually taking place in an intellectual/conceptual/academic frame
determined by European intellectual history. Telling people that their (academic) cultural
practices have been (morally) wrong, and that they themselves are incapable of (necessary)
change, ‘others’ must take care of that. Fundamentally transforming procedures in the name
of an alleged moral superiority, comes very close to defining some misguided efforts in
postcolonialism and – what almost certainly enrages these people most – shows a striking
similarity to a truly ‘colonial’ attitude.

The only alternative is to raise awareness of the various subjective factors that come into
play when analysing the history of a given academic discipline – first and foremost, the bias
of the disciplinary historian himself. Zeitgeist should not be employed as an excuse. On the
contrary, individual responsibilities, decisions and personal choices must be highlighted, their
defects and (negative) consequences clearly pointed out and – ideally – lessons for the future
should be drawn from that critical analysis.

Humanity and respect must be the foremost qualities of any researcher dealing with the
history of Egyptology. That respect and acceptance of the humanness must also extend to
those scholars, either in history or in present academic debates, with whom we do not agree.
To ‘de-colonize’ any given subject, methods and mindsets of the colonial era should never be
employed, which is why I would reject the project of ‘de-colonizing’ Egyptology altogether,
as misguided and based on undifferentiated, over-simplistic assumptions. Instead, I would
encourage detailed analysis, individual case studies, openness and respect for the simple fact
that there are indeed many histories of Egyptologies.