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
[email protected].
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
I
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
a
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
