Review

Author(s): Darren Glazier

Review by: Darren Glazier
Source: Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 69, No. 3/4 (Sep. - Dec., 2006), pp. 189-190
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067674
Accessed: 27-06-2015 19:29 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Near
Eastern Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 37.112.107.132 on Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:29:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of the study of object worlds, while her tone and treatment are
introductory. Meskell returns primarily to the artifactually rich
(and thus ideal for a study of artifacts) workman's village of Deir
elMedina when she does focus on ancient Egypt, a feature shared
with Archaeologies of Social Life.
After a short introduction discussing materiality, Meskell jumps
into her first chapter, entitled "Objects in theMirror May Appear
Closer Than They Are." In this chapter,Meskell probes the reasons
why

artifacts

culture,

used

have

been

considered,

to give historians

insight

first

and

into

the ancient

foremost,

material
culture,

and

viewed as objects of actual use only secondarily. She suggests that

when considering the sociality of the objects themselves, previously
unstudied networks unfold and elucidate both the objects and the
society.Meskell begins with an overview of the study of materiality,
acknowledging her major sources (in particular Giambattista Vico,
Karl Marx, Marcel Mauss, and Jean Baudrillard) and illustrating
the ideas of their work with examples from Egyptian history. In
chapter 2, "Taxonomy, Agency, and Biography," Meskell traces
the historical tradition of the classification of objects, wending
her way throughMichel Foucault, Thomas Huxley, and fetishism.
The study of classification is essential to the understanding of the
Egyptians' relationships with their goods; do the classification
systems

that modern

historians

and

archaeologists

impose

upon

the ancient goods adequately represent the goods? Meskell raises

questions,

but

leaves

them

largely

unanswered.

Chapter 3, "MaterialMemories: Objects asAncestors," treats

the object category of ancestor busts, found primarily at Deir
elMedina. Chapter 4, "StatueWorlds and Divine Things," is a
lengthy look at the place of statuary within Egyptian religion.
Meskell shifts gears slightly in the next chapter, "On Hearing,
Phenomenology, and Desire," and introduces Egyptian hearing
ear stelae, which she personalizes and uses to begin a discussion
on traditional Mexican milagro ex votos. Chapter 6, "Sketching
Lifeworlds, Performing Resistance," examines satire and irony as
in Egyptian material culture. Meskell does not shy
from graphic and satirical depictions of sexual intercourse and
instead introduces an interesting discussion of Egyptian attitudes

manifested

Egyptology is a notoriously insular field and Meskell does her

^^^H
anthropological background justice by introducing cross-cultural
^^^H
references. However, she never fully seems to engage the heart of
^^^H
her material, which is ostensibly ancient Egypt. Instead, her work
^^^H
has a feeling of skirting the issues she raises and using the cross^^^H
cultural references in lieu of in-depth analysis.
^^^H
In her attempts tomake her book accessible to awider audience,
^^^H
including both Egyptologists and theoreticians, Meskell seems to
^^^H
dilute her content and make her book more accessible but less
^^^H
worthwhile. Although she has an amazing command of language,
^^^H
her writing can tend toward obfuscation. At other times her
^^^H
points are extreme; for instance, in suggesting on page 15 that her
^^^H
study will help in "repositioning archaeology as a discipline with
^^^H
something tangible to contribute." Whether Meskell accomplishes
^^^H
her goal and makes archaeology more meaningful or whether you
^^^H
feel that the discipline of archaeology is already valuable, Object
^^^H
Worlds inAncient Egypt is an interesting read that offers its readers
^^^H
much to think about. Meskell's scholarship iswell rounded, she is
^^^H
incrediblywell versed in theory, and she has an amazing knowledge ^^^H
of world culture. Her attempts to apply these to Egyptology are a
^^^H
firm beginning for the furthering of the field.
^^^H

X Musacchio ^^^|

Universityof Pennsylvania^^^M

Whose Pharaohs?
^H
Museums
and
Archaeology,
Egyptian National Identity
^H
from Napoleon toWorld War I

In the final chapter, "Object Lessons from Modernity," Meskell

examines ancient objects through the lens of modernity. She
discusses the notion of collecting at length, discussing both
private and institutional collectors, and highlights the appeal that
Egyptian goods still have in popular culture. For instance, high
attendance at museum exhibitions or the popularity of the Luxor
Casino in Las Vegas suggest widespread public interest. Much
of this chapter is a first^person account of the Luxor Casino,
including the author's impressions and interviews with amasseuse
and several salespeople.

^H

B;yDonald Malcolm Reid. Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University ofCalifornia Press, 2002. Pp. xv + 409. Cloth
^^H
$45, Paper$19.95, ISBN 0-520-24069-3.
^H

toward sexuality. Because the subject of sexuality in ancient Egypt

the history of Egyptian
is rarely eontextualized (although this is rapidly changing; the
field of Egyptology has traditionally had a conservative bent that Within
archaeology,certainnames loom
tended toward censure of graphic sexuality), MeskelFs arguments
large.Champollion, Young,Mariette,
are particularly effective.

^H

^^^H

;jj^-f
^^^H8?^Hh?? ^^^H
^^^H?^B^H?
Maspero,Lepsius,P?trie,andWilkinson ^^^^H^^^H ^^^|
within disciplinary
allfigureprominently
^^^^^^^^^H ^^^H
histories. So too do these characters
^^^^^^^^^H
W???

feature in Donald Reid'sWhose ^^^^^^^^^H

that is as surprising as it is refreshing.

^^^H
Reid's book is a history that introduces us to other individuals
too, a history that examines the uses that European imperialists
and, crucially, Egyptian nationalists made of the country's past
throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
^^^H

This content downloaded from 37.112.107.132 on Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:29:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(2006)

^^^H

^^^H

^^^H

a text that revisitstheorigins

Pharaohs?,
^^^^^^^^^B ^^^|
of Egyptianarchaeologywith a candor 9HHHHH
^^^H

69:3-4
NEAR EASTERNARCHAEOLOGY

^^^H

^^^H
^^^H
^^^H

189

is hardly

It

imperialism,

national

reader

any

Indeed,

to

revolutionary
and

that

suggest
are

identity

entwined.

inextricably

in the historical

interested

within Egypt and among the huge numbers who flocked to the

archaeology,

development

Egyptian or Near Eastern archaeology will be familiar with the

scramble

nineteenth-century

for antiquities,

treasure

the

have

traditionally

It is true

that

individuals

pioneers,

omitted

and

Lepsius

who

his

of

in vain

look

in
or

to Maspero
were

colleagues

to be

deserve

accounts

from

of Egyptian
archaeology?we
for an Egyptian
counterpart

the development
our history
books
Mariette.

been

their

to the study of ancient Egypt. That they did so in

an age during

which

is significant.

What

European
were

and
to

beginning

their

past

as yet

is, histories

accounts
who

theorists
other

revisionist

few

very

that

traditional

of

have

Western

lionized,

caused

is different.

Museum

In

institutions,

of Arab

such

the

it, we

are

Gramsci?have

archaeology

the Egyptian

examines

institutions.

the

Ali

narratives:

and

Museum,

role of

ancient

the

take

their

It is perhaps

worth

the

ancient

is not

term

very

dynasties,

with

"Egyptology,"

its focus

for

So,

scholar

who

labored

also meet

of our
Marcus

and AH Bahgat,
directed

are

past

upon

introduced

for

several

years

on

pioneer

a map

ancient

of Coptic

guises.

an Egyptian

published

of the

understanding
Simaika,

in all its varied

to al-Falaki,

The map was eventually

the basis

forms

the Egyptian

of,

we

example,

Alexandria.
We

uses

in, and

of

ancient

in 1871; it
city

today.

archaeology,

who

"the father of Islamic archaeology"

at al-Fustat,

excavations

the

original

Arab-Islamic

capital, early in the twentieth century. Yet, it is in his discussion

of

the

to

the

West,

Pharaonic
fore,

past

exploring

that

Reid's

interweaving

talents

as a historian
the works

of East

was

Egypt

Rather,

Empire.

the Napoleonic

for Western

up

scholars,

that

was

nation-state

expeditions
to the

through

start

Reid

Yet,

history.

scholarly,

so

to do

Instead,
and

intrigues,

juxtapositions

is a history

and

by the

assumptions;

long-held

is accessible

that

yet

is an exceptional

compelling

of Egyptian

are

to the finest

attention

in a manner

written,

This

versus
we

and brilliantly highlighted

to challenge

invited

to

to replace
as helpless

is no West
here.

and his meticulous

prose

beautifully

achievement.

web

to

vision

There

of

simply
to resort

presented

nationalism

complex

is able

Reid

domination.
versus

are

We

temptation

simply
are Egyptians

examined

of Reid's

the

avoids

nor

one,

imperialism
a
with

of this nature

an Arab-centric

is not

of European
no

born.

be easy for a book

of our

the history

that

archaeology

can

it emerged

and

from

which

context

social

the
we

draw

us

encourages

discipline

to recognize

its purpose,

many

from

of our most

deeply held beliefs. Whose Pharaohs? challenges us to recognize

the

importance

world
the

of archaeological

past

archaeological

has

beyond

symbolism

to consider

of archaeology,

the

had

on

impact
the

that

various

the narrow
the quest
interests

for
that

met

in the melting pot of Egypt in the nineteenth century. It

is part of a tradition of self-reflection and critical evaluation
that has swept through archaeology, history, and anthropology
but has yet truly to impact the world of Egyptian archaeology
and Egyptology. Donald Reid's
process

of

both

r??valuation,

remarkable book begins

sensitively

and

this

sympathetically.

It is compelling reading for anyone who has ever looked in

awe at the wonder of the land of the pharaohs. With the help
of scholars like Reid, we might just begin to work out whose
pharaohs

they

really

are.

come

and
Darren Glazier
popular perceptions of the past both from
University of Southampton ,UK
This content downloaded from 37.112.107.132 on Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:29:34 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

effortlessly

the ultimate
in theWest,

that

year

the British

will

of the FirstWorld War. And it is a fitting time period: an era

in which archaeology and Egyptology defined themselves as
disciplines, in which the world leapt from understanding little
or nothing of Pharaoh to reading his language, and in which

which

era of Egypt's

the Pharaonic

privileges

in which

period

Egypt

opened

to question

past, an implicit slight to both modern Egypt and Egyptians

themselves. Rather, Whose Pharaohs? is about the developing
interest

the

Understanding

previously

this book

that

however,

and

andWilkinson.

Lane, Denon,

same

in the

the

Nor

be read in the bath.

juxtaposed,

that

occurred

museum.

the European

of a sort from

independence

lucidity

in the traditional sense. As Reid himself

history of Egyptology
the

granted

of details.

in

past

of

uncovered

sympathetically

the

al-Tahtawi,

in a pantheon

place

noting,

are

al-Jabarti,

had room only for Champollion,

highlights,

was

tomb

presented

the

Museum,

and Egyptians

Europeans

traditional

Muhammad

whose

East,

the

the growth

through

that

you find any detailed discussion of Tutankhamen,

symbol of Egyptian national identity for many

victims

to explore

invited

Reid's

from

missing
events

with

only

confines

polemics?this
a Euro-centric

histories

constructing an identity for Egypt (an Egypt for the Egyptians),

while writing modern Egyptians into the histories of these
challenging

is concerned

measured

rewrite

The

traditional Egyptology. Whose

the Greco-Roman

Reid

beyond

in

upheavals

namely,

Art,

Museum.

national

however,

It would
the

individuals.

Said,

of Egyptian

development
key

more

of Egyptian

to go

seek

disciplines?Foucault,

Pharaohs?

Coptic

in

inherent

histories

that

barely caused a ripple within

four

era of

of Egyptians

potentials

names

several

are,

the modern

are

archaeology,

of

a number

the

existence

in an

is that,

significant

domination,

recognize

into

too.

There

of

is equally

colonialism

came

nation-states

onward.

1840s

He

century,"

contribution

modern

account.

the

the book focuses upon what Reid terms his "long nineteenth

great

for

celebrated

There

within Egypt; there is no place for those who preferred

hunts

in the heat of the desert that filled the museums of Europe and
North America with symbols of Empire. Egyptian scholars,
in contrast,

from

country
of