The Informal Imperialism in Europe

The Informal Imperialism in Europe and the Ottoman Empire: 

The Strengthening of the Mythical Foundations of the West

Specialized literature commonly uses the terms "informal colonialism" and "informal imperialism.". C. either coined or at least supported the term "informal colonialism.". (1940) R. Fay: (vol. 2) 399), which describes a situation in which a powerful country takes control of a region outside of its own borders. John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, two economic historians, popularized this term in their 1953 study of the unofficial spread of British imperialism in some African countries. It is easy to distinguish between informal and formal colonialism. In the former, it is impossible to achieve total effective control, mainly because direct military and political force cannot be applied to countries that are actually politically independent. These countries choose how to educate their citizens, set their own laws, and choose when and where to build museums. Nevertheless, to traverse the international terrain.

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

Assigned to provide advice on political and cultural matters, or even to Westernize their countries, the distinction between official and informal imperialism blurs when some areas became quasi-protectorates of major imperial powers, as Egypt is one example (Egypt was occupied by the British military in 1882 for a "temporary" period, and then became a formal protectorate from 1914 to 1922). Internal colonialism may also be exhibited by informal empires within their own territories. This book's Parts II and III will go into more detail about a few of these issues. Archaeology in official colonies is the subject of Part III, whereas informal imperialism is covered in Part II. The year 1906 saw the publication of one of the first thorough histories of archaeology. In eleven in-depth chapters, the author, German professor Adolf Michaelis (1835–1910), assessed the historical events that he believed to be most important.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

The institute, which was founded in Rome in 1829, remained global in scope. The young Edward Gerhard (1795–1867) founded it with the goal of promoting international cooperation in the study of Italian archaeology and antiquity. According to the statutes, the goal was to gather and share all archaeologically important information and findings—including architecture, sculpture, painting, topography, and epigraphy—found within the realm of classical antiquity in order to preserve them and make scientific research easier by centralizing them in one place (Marchand 1996a: 55). Scholars from Italy, France, and Germany made up the majority of the institute's membership (Marchand 1996a: 56). In addition to producing other specialized studies, it published its own journal, the Anali dell'Istituto, funded fieldwork, and gave grants (Gran-Aymerich 1998: 52–5). Nevertheless, scholars of different nationalities faced discrimination despite its global reputation. This discrepancy a.

During the imperial era, the first of many schools was founded. In addition to the resistance against the Germans, Jean-Marc Delaunay (2000: 127) pointed out at a colloquium celebrating the institution's 150th anniversary that the French School's founding in Athens was associated with rivalry with the British and, to a lesser extent, the Russians, who voiced complaints about its founding. The French School was unaffected even after the French monarchy was overthrown in 1848 because of its enormous diplomatic influence. The Germans were connected to the Greek monarchy of Bavarian ancestry, the Russians had the Orthodox clergy, and the British had their merchants and sailors in Greece, as Delaunay notes. But the only thing the French owned was their school. The long-standing French hostility toward the British changed to the Germans when they considered opening a rival branch in Athens (ibid. 128). In reference to Russia, a Co.

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

And verifiable, free of any kind of conjecture. As a result, the only basis for knowledge was empirical or observable phenomena. This explains why taxonomy or typology, description, organization, and observation all took the form of comprehensive catalogues that covered both the new and old types, even though they went well beyond their eighteenth-century roots. This is demonstrated in Italy, where research was done on Etruscan art and Roman imitations of Greek sculpture, with a special emphasis on Greek influences (Gran-Aymerich 1998: 50; Michaelis 1908: ch. Stiebing (1993: 158). A thorough catalog of Latin epigraphical inscriptions, the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum (Moradiellos 1992: 81–90), was started and organized in 1862 by Theodor Mommsen (1817–1903). In contrast to their French counterparts, German scholars became prominent in science during the second half of the nineteenth century. It allowed for in-depth analysis and study.

The news took on a nationalist tone, indicating that the Forum had some resonance in the media (Moatti 1989: 127). Although some Italian archaeologists criticized these academic rivalries, the Italian organizers also used international events, like the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology (CIAPP) in Bologna in 1871, to foster nationalist sentiments (Coye and Provenzano 1996). A major influence on the Greeks' perception of their history was nationalism. The desire to eradicate the Ottoman legacy was stoked by Greece's territorial expansion in the nineteenth century, which included the acquisition of areas such as the Ionian Islands in 1864, Thessaly, and portions of Epeirus in 1891. This was crucial, according to one of the calls for change, because of "barbaric and dissonant names," among other things. give our enemies and all the Europeans who hate Hellas a reason to continually insult you.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

Direct control over Mediterranean Europe was considered unacceptable; instead, cultural domination, economic advantages, and political backing were considered more acceptable. Given this, archaeology played a big part in Italy and Greece, the ancient centers of the Roman and Greek civilizations. The relatively moderate level of intervention in Spain and Portugal can be explained by the lack of similarly attractive archaeological remains, even though there are some foreign archaeologists interested in studying their ruins and some institutional focus, such as the Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Acade´mi-que Franco-Hispano-Portugaise, which started in the 1870s. Only when the dangers of conducting research in the midst of the political unrest in the eastern Mediterranean forced some archaeologists who would have otherwise preferred to work in Greece to change their focus did imperial archaeology gain any traction in these countries.

Panayiotis Stamatakis (Petrakos 1990; E´tienne and E´tienne 1992: 90–1). These are just a few names from a growing number of local archaeologists working in more and more museums and providing archaeological services. Although they focused most of their efforts on the classical period, they were also developing prehistoric, church, and medieval archaeology (Avgouli 1994; Guidi 1988; Loney 2002; Moatti 1993: 110–14). Particularly noteworthy is the rise of what is known as sacred archaeology, which was sparked by Giovanni Battista de Rossi (1822–94), an Italian lawyer. Beginning with those of Saint Calixt in 1844, he was able to locate numerous Roman catacombs by examining the descriptions of these sites in historical records. Pope Pius IX supported his efforts by establishing the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology in 1852. This organization oversees the finding of new monuments.

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

Both Italian and Greek nationalisms, as well as European imperialism, found inspiration in classical Rome and Greece. This trend continued throughout the world's period of imperial excess, which began in 1870. Ancient Rome and modern empires, especially Britain and France, were frequently compared (Betts 1971; Freeman 1996; Hingley 2000; Jenkyns 1980; but see Brunt 1965). Politicians drew inspiration for their rhetoric from the Roman model, but it's crucial to remember that the opposite was also true. The influence of contemporary events on historians' and archaeologists' perceptions of the past has been highlighted in a number of studies (Angelis 1998; Bernal 1994; Hingley 2000; Leoussi 1998). Empires became more competitive as foreign schools were established. The British were aware of the new institutions established in Greece by Germany and France. Richard Claverhouse J. wrote a letter that was published in The Times in 1878.

(Etienne and Etienne 1992: 107). Agora. However, it is important to recognize that excavations were less common in Italy and Greece, in part because it was harder to convince possible sponsors—mostly the government and official institutions—of the value of conducting excavations purely for the purpose of learning more about the time period. For example, it took Professor Ernst Curtius (1814–96) twenty years of lobbying to get Prussian state funding for his plan to dig up the Greek site of Olympia. In 1853, he first suggested the excavation. He wrote in his letter to the Prussian Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Education that the Greeks had "neither the interest nor the means" to carry out large-scale excavations and that the project was too big for the French, who had already begun digging elsewhere. "We [Germans] had inwardly appropriated Greek culture," Germany had admitted.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

The challenge of securing state sponsorship was not specific to Germany; rather, it was a universal issue that was linked to the challenges of collecting. Due to restrictions on the export of antiquities, the major museums of the European powers were forced to either purchase existing collections (Gran-Aymerich 1998: 167; Michaelis 1908: 76) or obtain plaster replicas of the most important pieces of ancient art from Italy and Greece (Haskell and Penny 1981; Marchand 1996a: 166) in order to add items from these countries to their collections. In nations with less stringent antiquity laws, primarily those ruled by the Ottoman Empire, large quantities of artwork would be acquired through excavation and/or looting, as will be discussed later in this chapter. In any event, the growing institutionalization of classical archaeology in the imperial metropolises I was another indication of the allure of the Greco-Roman civilization as a model for contemporary imperialism.

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

The reasons for the emphasis on language and race must also be considered when analyzing the connections between the political context of study and the archaeology of Greek and Roman civilizations during this time period. Like the archeological studies of the northern and central European nations (see Chapter 12 and others), these topics became more and more influential in the archaeology of Italy and Greece. In addition to the liberal viewpoints of academics such as Theodor Mommsen, these writers often stressed the importance of researching language and race in antiquity. For example, philology was viewed as a way to obtain the data required to reconstruct ancient history, which was then interpreted as having a direct bearing on the history of race among the Greeks and Romans. Aryanism was the main topic of discussion when it came to race in Greek archaeology. Linguistic studies, especially in the early 20th century, gave rise to the idea of an Aryan race.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

1918 saw the empire. In contrast to what is generally believed in Europe, the Sublime Porte (i.e. e. During this time, the Ottoman Empire) did not stay motionless. When Western Europe gained political dominance, the empire reacted quickly. Despite the resistance of traditional forces in Ottoman society, a process of Westernization began as early as 1789. Nevertheless, during what are known as the Tanzimat years (1839–76), Sultan Abdu¨lmecid and his minister Mustafa Reshid Pasha (Resid Pasha) started a "reorganization" in response to the country's military weakness in comparison to its European neighbors, which was emphasized by setbacks like the loss of Greece and other territories. The establishment of a parliamentary system, the modernization of administration, and the passage of legislation in 1839 that proclaimed the equality of all subjects before the law—one of the tenets of early nationalism (Chapter 3)—were among the new policies put into place during this period.

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

In 1875, the Wrmer legislation pertaining to antiquities was passed (Arik 1953: 7). The authorities' response was not enough to quell the Europeans' ravenous appetite for classical artifacts. Due to Greece's ban on antiquity exports, the only source of classical Greek antiquities that European museums could obtain was the western coast of Anatolia starting in 1827. The provinces of Ayoin and Biga, as well as the Aegean islands that were then ruled by the Ottoman Empire, would surely be impacted by this circumstance. Ancient sites like Halicarnassus (Bodrum), Ephesus (Efes), and Pergamon (Bergama) on the mainland, as well as islands like Rhodes, Kalymnos, and Samothrace, were the focus of the European hunt. British, German, and other collectors would deprive this area of its best ancient classical artworks during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; this process would later include its Islamic heritage. However, there was an increase in Western intervention.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

Foreign powers clearly won the coup de force. The Ottoman War Minister requested some of the Wndings, notably lion sculptures, for the Constantinople museum in 1857, but Newton was able to turn down his requests (Jenkins 1992: 183). In the end, the British Museum received these artifacts. The 1860s saw an increase in restrictions as the Ottoman authorities' growing unease with Western intervention became more apparent. Sir John Turtle Wood (1821–90), a British architect who lived in Smyrna and worked for the British Railroad Company, was granted permission in 1863 to remove sculptures from Ephesus (Efes), but only with the condition that any similar objects found had to be sent to the Ottoman government (Cook 1998: 146). A significant amount of material from the excavation was delivered to the British Museum in the late 1860s and early 1870s (Cook 1998: 146–50; Stoneman 1987: 230).

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

During the time when Ottoman intellectuals began to investigate the cultural roots of their national heritage, particularly the illustrious periods of their ethnic history. In this journey of self-reflection, classical antiquities were assigned greater importance, and the Islamic past was solidly integrated into Turkey's national historical narrative. These changes occurred during the Hamidian era under the reign of Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909), with Osman Hamdi Bey (1842–1910) playing a crucial role. Hamdi, a reformist who studied as both a lawyer and an artist in France (notably under archaeologist Salomon Reinach), took over from Dethier after his passing in 1881.As the head of the Imperial museums (Arik 1953: 8), Hamdi Bey promoted a number of reforms: he pushed for stricter laws pertaining to antiquities, brought in European exhibition methods, started excavations, made it easier for museums to publish their journals, and helped establish a number of regional museums in places like Tessaloniki, Pergamon, and Cos. Regarding the first change discussed, Hamdi Bey played a key role in the 1884 antiquities law that placed the Ministry of Education in charge of overseeing all archaeological excavations. More importantly, antiquities were categorized as state property, and their export was controlled. This was true for antiquities, or at least those that were recognized as such at the time, considering the ambiguity surrounding the inclusion of Islamic antiquities. However, as noted by Eldem (2004: 136–46), there were still many instances when Numerous excavations were carried out throughout the empire under Hamdi's direction, mostly of Hellenistic and Phoenician ruins. Knowing the Germans were very interested in it, he hurriedly carried out one of the first excavations in 1883. On Nemrud Dagi, he also dug out Antiochus I of Commagene's tumulus. The Royal Necropolis of Sidon, which is now in Lebanon, was one of Hamdi Bey's major discoveries in 1887.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

Michaelis (1908: 276) noted that the museum was considered ‘among the finest in Europe’.In spite of limitations and new laws, the involvement of foreign archaeology on Turkish territory increased during the Hamidian era. Britain began to share its engagement with other emerging imperial powers such as Germany (Pergamon, from 1878), Austria (Gölbasi, from 1882, Ephesus, from 1895), the United States (Assos from 1881, Sardis from 1910), and Italy (from 1913). Of these nations, Germany would invest the most effort in—and gain the most wealth from—Anatolian archaeology. This makes sense when considering the preferential treatment given to the Germans by Abdulhamid II, who established a solid unofficial alliance between Germany and the Ottoman Empire in the years preceding World War I. At first, Alexander Conze's (1831–1914) shrewdness in negotiating the deal for the excavation of Pergamon was largely responsible for Germany's important contribution to archaeology. Conze convinced Carl Humann (1839–96), the excavator, to reduce the site's potential in order to gain a more favorable negotiation position with the Ottoman authorities. Conze was the director of the sculpture collection at the Berlin Royal Museums.The Ottoman government secretly sold the local property to Humann and gave up its one-third share of the finds in exchange for a relatively small amount of money in 1880, which was partly due to the Ottoman state's financial insolvency. The discoveries from 1878 were not made public until then (Marchand 1996a: 94; Stoneman 1987: 290). In 1880, Germany received the first significant shipment from Pergamon. Humann ‘was welcomed like a general returning from the battlefield, adorned with victory’ (Kern in Marchand 1996a: 96). As previously mentioned in this chapter, the success at Pergamon led to a diminished interest in excavations in Greece—specifically Olympia—where it was believed that provided, rather than valuable objects suitable for in museums (Marchand 2003:

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

A demand for a large museum similar to the British Museum and the Louvre was also created in Germany by the various discoveries made during the many campaigns at Pergamon, the first of which ended in 1886 and followed by additional efforts from 1901 to 1915 and again from 1933 (Marchand 1996a: 95). Conceived in 1907, the Museum finally opened its doors in 1930 (2000: 100). There were further reasons why the excavation efforts were significant. Alexander Conze took over as head of the German Archaeological Institute in 1881. His campaign experiences taught him a number of lessons, most notably that the institute must be run by paid experts in accordance with the rules established by the German Archaeological Institute's main office in Berlin (Marchand 1996a: 100). The German Archaeological Institute became the first international institution to become fully professionalized under his direction. In addition, the German excavations had a significant impact on several 

To supervise the application of legislation protecting antiquities, the Commission for the Protection of Antiquities was founded that same year. "Every nation makes the necessary provisions for the preservation of its fine arts and monuments and thus preserves the endless virtues of its ancestors as a lesson in civilization for its descendants," according to a report that was published, describing the regrettable state of the Topkapi palace (in Shaw 2002: 212). These remarks make it quite evident that Turkey's approach to ancient treasures had been deeply ingrained with nationalist discourse.A revived interest in the prehistoric period emerged at the start of the twentieth century, coinciding with the reevaluation of the Islamic legacy Notably, a pan-Turkish ideology that supported the unification of all Turkish peoples in Asia into a single nation-state served as the driving force behind this desire (Magnarella & Türkdogan 1976: 265). In 1908, the adherents of this ideology established the Turkish Society (Türk Derneği), which published Türk Yurdu (Turkish Homeland). According to Magnarella and Türkdogan (1976: 265), the society's objectives were to study "the ancient remnants, history, languages, literatures, ethnography and ethnology, socioeconomic situations and existing civilizations of the Turks, and the historic and modern geography of the Turkish territories." Like Europe, the quest for a national prehistoric legacy turned into an effort to identify the nation's ethnic origins, which were found in the Sumerians and Hittites. PLUNDER AND STORIES OF EMPIRE AND RESISTANCE IN POST-NAPOLEONIC EGYPT.The theft of ancient Egyptian artifacts

Even before the Napoleonic inquiries (Chapters 2 and 3), there had been a long-standing tradition of interest in Egyptian antiquities. In the power struggle that followed the invasions by France and Britain, Muhammad Ali, a Macedonian army officer, was officially recognized as Egypt.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

A Constantinople-born Armenian engineer with a British education helped Egypt become more industrialized (JeVreys 2003: 9; Reid 2002: 59–63; Sole´ 1997: 69–73). In contrast to the conditions he had encountered in Paris, al-Tahtawi found himself in a dreary circumstance upon his return to Egypt. The old temples were being robbed by antiquities collectors in addition to being destroyed by the local population, who saw them as easy sources of stone or lime. This group was mostly made up of professional thieves and the French, British, and Swedish consuls (Bernardino Drovetti, 1776-1852; Henry Salt, 1780-1827; Giovanni Anastasi, 1780-1860) and their agents (Jean Jacques Rifaud, 1786-1852; Giovanni Battista Belzoni, 1778-1823). Antiquities were also appropriated by later scientific expeditions. Champollion's French mission from 1828 to 1829 was by far the least ambitious. Along with several artifacts, the expedition brought back a substantial piece of one of the obelisks from Luxor, which was subsequently placed in 1836 at the Place de la Concorde in Paris. This example shows how obelisks were incorporated into imperial Europe's urban environment. The first monument to be taken down in the modern era was the obelisk at Paris's Place de la Concorde. Another obelisk, known as "Cleopatra's Needle," was subsequently erected on London's Thames Embankment in 1878, while New York purchased its own obelisk for Central Park in 1880.As a result, there were just four obelisks left in Egypt (three in the Karnak Temple in Luxor and one in Heliopolis, Cairo), thirteen in Rome, one in Constantinople, and one each in Britain, France, and the United States. Champollion's voyage was far less ambitious than others. Richard Lepsius, who was sent by the Prussian government between 1842 and 1845, greatly increased the Berlin Museum's holdings in addition to recording a large number of site plans and rough stratigraphic sections that were eventually published in his multi-volume work Denkma¨ler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien.

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

Lepsius had always prided himself on being the one who hoisted the Prussian flag in a far-flung part of the world and was given the chance to usher in a new age of science and art in the Fatherland, according to one of his contemporaries, Ernst Curtius (in Marchand 1996a: 63).Champollion's appeals to the Pasha and Tahtawi's criticisms of the lack of interest in ancient Egyptian culture ultimately resulted in the 1835 edict that made it illegal to destroy monuments and to export antiquities (Fagan 1975: 262, 365; Reid 2002: 55–6). at addition, this law laid the groundwork for the establishment of an Egyptian Antiquities Service, which was housed at Cairo's Ezbeqieh gardens and included a museum.Government-owned artifacts that were obtained through authorized excavations were supposed to be kept in the museum. The majority of these efforts, however, were unsuccessful since the Pasha had no desire to put in place systems to uphold the legislation. The last objects given in this way were sent to the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in 1855. Instead, he later used the museum collections as a source of gifts for foreign nobles.Muhammad Ali's disrespect for the past and the demand for antiquities in Europe helped to create a thriving antiquities business. Egypt was exporting large quantities of antiquities, with the main museums being the most popular destinations.As Ernest Renan (1823–92), perhaps somewhat chauvinistically, characterized the situation in the 1860s: Purveyors to museums traversed the country like vandals; to obtain a fragment of a head, a piece of inscription, precious antiquities were reduced to mere fragments. These avaricious destroyers, who were nearly always armed with a consular instrument, regarded Egypt as though it were their own. However, the English or American traveler continues to be the most important enemy of Egyptian antiquities. Future generations will remember these idiots because they were careful to leave their names on famous monuments located in the most vulnerable locations.The introduction of a new group of European tourists to Egypt significantly boosted the antiquities industry. The printing of travel guides, first in French and then in English and German, began in 1830 and helped these travelers (Reid 2002: ch. 2).Mariette Auguste Only when the French archaeologist Auguste Mariette (1821–81) arrived would things change. In his role as an agent entrusted with obtaining antiques for the Louvre, Mariette made his first trip to Egypt.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

The Louvre now has a sizable collection of items from the Serapeum excavation at Sakkara. He went again to Egypt in 1857 to assemble a collection of antiquities to be sent to 'Prince Napoleon', Napoleon III's cousin, as a present for his much-anticipated (but ultimately unfulfilled) trip to Egypt. A close friend of the pasha, the French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps (who built the Suez Canal between 1859 and 1869), convinced him to make Mariette 'Maamour', director of Egyptian Antiquities, before Mariette returned to France in 1858, putting him in charge of a resurrected Antiquities Service. see order to shield temple remnants from the avarice of local peasants or the greed of Europeans, he was given funding to help with the "cleaning and restoration of temple ruins, the gathering of stelae, statues, amulets, and any easily transportable things found" (see Vercoutter 1992: 106). Mariette saw the beginning of a roughly ninety-four-year period in which French archaeology dominated Egyptology, a pattern that continued for much of the 'temporary' British military occupation of Egypt starting in 1882 (Fagan 1975; Reid 2002: chs. 3–5; Vercoutter 1992).By forbidding all archaeological fieldwork other than his own, Mariette was able to slow the deterioration of Egyptian monuments and effectively build a museum in 1863. He was also somewhat successful in reducing the export of artifacts.When the local governor announced in 1859 that the intact sarcophagus of Queen A-hetep had been found and confiscated all the discoveries, Mariette had to step in and stop this illegal plunder of archaeological relics. The ensuing jewels, which included a necklace and a scarab for one of his wives, were given to the Pasha. The pasha was so thrilled by the discoveries—and, as Fagan observes (1975: 281), by his governor's humiliation—that he ordered a new museum built, which would later be opened in the Cairo neighborhood of Bulaq.The Queen A-hetep Wnding was important in another way. Napoleon III's wife, Empress Eugenie, asked the pasha to accept this finding as a present for her, but he told the Empress to go to Mariette, who refused to accept it. Although both sovereigns were unhappy with this decision, it was a crucial one for the preservation of Egyptian archaeology (Reid 1985: 235). Additionally, Mariette ignored Napoleon III's claim that the Louvre would be a better home for the Bulaq's treasures (ibid. 2002: 101). Mariette and his successor, Gaston Maspero, were unable to completely eradicate the illicit export and destruction of antiquities; they could only lessen it. The Antiquities Service was even accused of participating in the illegal treatment of artwork (Fagan 1975: passim). In order to avoid the agents from the major European museums, he had to remain extremely vigilant.

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

Laws have been put in place that stipulate that the only way to acquire new artifacts for museums is to export them legally. It appears that European nations were essentially disregarding Egyptian law, as seen by the continued illicit antiquity trade. Fagan (1975: 295–304) described Wallis Budge, the assistant keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at the British Museum, as one of the main unlawful antiquity thieves, as expressing this disrespect in the following ways:Any objective person knowledgeable about the topic must acknowledge that, regardless of wh o bears responsibility for the transfer of mummies from Egypt, once a mummy has been placed in the custody of the Trustees and is kept in the British Museum, It would have a far higher probability of preservation there than it would in any Egyptian tomb, royal or otherwise (Fagan 1975: 304).The first foreign school in Cairo was the Mission Archéologique, the French Archaeological Mission of 1880, which later changed its name to the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology due to concerns about the possible loss of French authority over Egyptian archaeology, especially as Mariette's health started to deteriorate (Reid 1985: 236; Vernoit 1997: 2). Thus, the French government funded an institution for the study of antiquities in Egypt, akin to the programs in Italy and Greece.The parallel British organization, the Egypt Exploration Fund (later renamed the Egypt Exploration Society), was established as a private venture in 1882. Amelia Edwards (1831–92), a travel writer and novelist from England, was the main force behind its founding. Edwards had visited Egypt in 1873–4 with her friend Kate Griffiths and had since worked to promote Egyptian culture through her books and many speeches and to denounce the extent of antiquities theft (Champion 1998: 179–82; Fagan 1975: 322; Moon 2006). Reginald Stuart Poole (1832–95), the keeper of the British Museum's Department of Coins and Medals, supported her while she was in Britain.The Egypt Exploration Fund's objectives were to plan trips to Egypt with the intention of elucidating Ancient Egypt's History and Arts and presenting the Old Testament account in connection with Egypt and the Egyptian people (see Fagan 1975: 323). The impact of the Bible on the archaeology of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and to a lesser extent Lebanon and Turkey is a crucial topic that will be further discussed in Chapter 6. By scientifically digging prospective sites and abiding by the laws pertaining to the distribution of the cash, the Fund promoted legal measures in Egyptian archaeology. Through her contributions to scholarly Egyptology, Amelia Edwards also played a significant impact in Egyptian archaeology. According to her wishes, she created a chair of Egyptian archaeology at the University of London to be held by a designated individual.

Laws have been put in place that stipulate that the only way to acquire new artifacts for museums is to export them legally. It appears that European nations were essentially disregarding Egyptian law, as seen by the continued illicit antiquity trade. Fagan (1975: 295–304) described Wallis Budge, the assistant keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at the British Museum, as one of the main unlawful antiquity thieves, as expressing this disrespect in the following ways:Any objective person knowledgeable about the topic must acknowledge that, regardless of wh o bears responsibility for the transfer of mummies from Egypt, once a mummy has been placed in the custody of the Trustees and is kept in the British Museum, It would have a far higher probability of preservation there than it would in any Egyptian tomb, royal or otherwise (Fagan 1975: 304).The first foreign school in Cairo was the Mission Archéologique, the French Archaeological Mission of 1880, which later changed its name to the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology due to concerns about the possible loss of French authority over Egyptian archaeology, especially as Mariette's health started to deteriorate (Reid 1985: 236; Vernoit 1997: 2). Thus, the French government funded an institution for the study of antiquities in Egypt, akin to the programs in Italy and Greece.The parallel British organization, the Egypt Exploration Fund (later renamed the Egypt Exploration Society), was established as a private venture in 1882. Amelia Edwards (1831–92), a travel writer and novelist from England, was the main force behind its founding. Edwards had visited Egypt in 1873–4 with her friend Kate Griffiths and had since worked to promote Egyptian culture through her books and many speeches and to denounce the extent of antiquities theft (Champion 1998: 179–82; Fagan 1975: 322; Moon 2006). Reginald Stuart Poole (1832–95), the keeper of the British Museum's Department of Coins and Medals, supported her while she was in Britain.The Egypt Exploration Fund's objectives were to plan trips to Egypt with the intention of elucidating Ancient Egypt's History and Arts and presenting the Old Testament account in connection with Egypt and the Egyptian people (see Fagan 1975: 323). The impact of the Bible on the archaeology of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and to a lesser extent Lebanon and Turkey is a crucial topic that will be further discussed in Chapter 6. By scientifically digging prospective sites and abiding by the laws pertaining to the distribution of the cash, the Fund promoted legal measures in Egyptian archaeology. Through her contributions to scholarly Egyptology, Amelia Edwards also played a significant impact in Egyptian archaeology. According to her wishes, she created a chair of Egyptian archaeology at the University of London to be held by a designated individual.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

The Germans founded a "general consulate" for archaeology in 1899, which in 1907 changed its name to the German Institute for Egyptian Antiquity (Deutsches Institut fr gyptische), in addition to the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology and the Egypt Exploration Society.Alternative Knowledge) (Marchand 1996a: 195).The imperial opposition to a domestic substitute.Foreign initiatives within Egyptian land were the main focus of protagonism in nineteenth-century Egyptian archaeology. This predicament resulted from the imperial powers' inability to recognize indigenous knowledge in the realm of antiquities as well as their desiThe founding of a national Egyptian archaeological organization did not supplement Mariette's and his successors' efforts to keep artifacts from fleeing Egypt. A widespread condescension toward Egyptians was apparent. Hekekyan's geomorphological research in the Cairo area, which was one of the first of its sort, was criticized in Britain for being untrustworthy since it was not overseen by a recognized scholar, particularly Leonard Horner, the London Geological Society President and his benefactor (JeVreys 2003: 9).The French archaeologist Mariette's ban on natives reproducing inscriptions in the museum is another example of the Europeans' condescending attitude or prejudice against the Egyptians. Maspero's description of the Archaeology Museum's 1863 opening is also instructive. "Being the real Oriental that he was... the detest and horror which he had of death prohibited him from entering a building which contained mummies," he said of the Pasha, Khedive (viceroy) Ismail (r. 18631879) (in Reid 2002: 107). Although some had trained at the School of the Ancient, during Mariette's term, aspiring native Egyptologists hoping to work in the Antiquities Service were denied admittance.Even though Mariette tried to stop it, several of Brugsch's followers were able to land important positions in official Egyptian archaeology after his passing.Ahmad Pasha Kamal (1849–1923) was one such person who would go on to become the Cairo Museum's first Egyptian curator. Following Mariette's death, he was appointed to the museum and, in the early years, taught a course on Egyptian hieroglyphs to a small number of students. But a turbulent time followed Maspero's return to France in 1886, when the museum was run by incompetent directors who disregarded local knowledge (Fagan 1975: 353). Kamal was forced to close his school of Egyptian hieroglyphs as a result.

The Study of Informal Imperialism in Archaeology

Kamal himself was pushed aside at the museum in favor of less seasoned French archaeologists, while students found jobs in the Antiquities Service.However, Ahmad Najib, another Egyptian who attended Brugsch's school, became one of the two inspectors-in-chief during this period (ibid. 186–90).Najib was removed from office in 1899 after Maspero returned from France. Ahmad Kamal was promoted to one of the museum's three curators (the other two being of French and German ancestry), despite the fact that no Egyptian was named director of any of the five provincial inspectorates. By establishing a precedent, Kamal's appointment made it possible for more museums run by local employees to be established throughout Egypt (Haikal 2003; Reid 2002: 204).Kamal continued to teach Egyptology, first at the Higher School Club, then at a newly founded private Egyptian university from 1908 to 1909, and finally at the Higher Teachers College starting in 1912. His pupils would form the important second generation of native Egyptologists, even though they were rejected by the European authority and excluded from the Antiquities Department (Haikal 2003). After Kamal retired in 1914, a non-Egyptian took up his role. Shortly before his death, he reaffirmed the importance of training Egyptians, to which the museum's then-director replied that few Egyptians had shown interest. In the sixty-five years that you French have been in charge of the Service, what opportunities have you afforded us?' (in Reid 1985: 237).Additionally, Egyptians had been denied the chance to learn about and conserve Islamic art, which was formerly known as Arab art and archaeology (Reid 2002: 215). Europeans, particularly French and British citizens, took the lead in caring for the Islamic era, as might be expected under the previously indicated conditions. In 1881, the Committee for the Conservation of Monuments of Arab Art was established, marking the beginning of this endeavor.

The continent of Europe and the Ottoman Empire

Being discussed. The absence of Egyptian participation in meetings is not surprising, as it is probably the result of opposition to European domination o