spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
1.0
**Disclaimer: I am not an Egyptologist. I have studied Egyptology, and have more than a passing interest in the field due to some very relevant personal details, but I am not equipped to comment on inaccuracies within the field (beyond the glaringly obvious). Please take everything I say with regards to the actual field with a grain of salt; the only thing here I can reliably comment on is the colonialism aspect.**
The history of Egyptology is marred by the legacy of colonialism. The vast majority of what is on display in Western museums is stolen artefacts. The country is littered with archaeological sites authorised not by an Egyptian government but an European one. The Victorians, in what would be considered too on-the-nose of an allegory to be allowed were it not horrifically real, literally consumed Egyptian mummies. Ignoring this facet of Egyptology's history is not only disgustingly offensive to those who are still victimised by the legacy of colonialism but also willfully ignorant in a way that lessens the quality of one's own scholarship. But simply ignoring Egyptology's colonial past is one thing: wearing it like a costume is another thing entirely. One article I read (which I've linked below) noted, "From khakis to pith hats, certain items of clothing have become enduring emblems of European colonialism, and particular scholars who know these problematic histories choose to engage in the aesthetics of colonialism in their everyday lives."
Dr. Colleen Manassa Darnell and her husband John are rather notorious in the Egyptology world. Their relationship from the beginning was ill-received, as Prof. Darnell, 18 years Manassa's senior, embarked on the affair while he was still married to his ex-wife and serving as Manassa's direct academic supervisor. By all accounts Manassa Darnell's work in the field has been fine, certainly nothing egregiously inaccurate or pseudoscientific; her continued support of her husband's abuse of power (which resulted in his suspension from his position) is nothing short of unethical, but otherwise her academic work seems solid to me. I have no issue with her work in and of itself. The issue I have is the way she dresses up like an Egyptologist from the 1920s, complete with the pith hats and tokenism. She owns various "authentic Egyptian artefacts" (they are, from what I can tell, actually authentic) and keeps them in her home. She has amassed a rather substantial social media following, primarily due to her choice of fashion: she frequently dresses up in vintage 1920s clothing, branding herself as the "vintage Egyptologist" (her Instagram handle). She and her husband are both white Western academics, considerably wealthy and otherwise well-off, and they are using the colonialist history of Egyptology as a prop because... it looks cool, I guess?
Either they are unbelievably ignorant, or they know exactly what they're evoking, and to whom they're pandering. When viewed devoid of context, the colonialism cosplay is certainly done well; it's evident the research and effort that went into it were considerable. But in general I tend to be wary of any "social media" historian, relying primarily on aesthetics in order to attract a following. The majority of the time, these people—regardless of their offline academic work—tend to peddle clickbait, flashy information, conspiracy theories, and sensationalist pop history that appeals to the laypeople but equally contributes to persistent conspiracies, rumours, and long-since-debunked ideas. From what I've seen, the Darnells (as they style themselves) are some of the more accurate in terms of actual facts, provided the context is missing. There's so much unpleasant history and baggage associated with the fashion and general aesthetic the Darnells adopt that there's no way to engage with these concepts (without context) without giving off the exact opposite message as academics should be. Manassa in particular appears to model herself off a mixture of the Western idea of Cleopatra VII (the hairstyle, the jewellery) and Evy Carnahan (the clothes, the backgrounds), both emblematic of the damaging impact of this sort of playing around with colonialism and imperialism.
The optimistic outcome is that laypeople will assume, because the Darnells are Egyptologists, surely what they're doing must be fine, because they ought to know how best to do things related to Egypt. (This is of course contradicted by the many, many other Egyptologists trying desperately to explain why attempting to rehabilitate colonialist aesthetics is not a great idea, actually.) The pessimistic outcome is that laypeople will use the Darnells in order to cast aspersions on the field at large—after all, if two such high-profile and well-loved Egyptologists can play fast and loose with Western exploitation of Egypt, who's to say other, lesser-known academics are doing the same, if not worse?
To quote again from that wonderfully detailed and eloquent article on the topic:
The history of Egyptology is marred by the legacy of colonialism. The vast majority of what is on display in Western museums is stolen artefacts. The country is littered with archaeological sites authorised not by an Egyptian government but an European one. The Victorians, in what would be considered too on-the-nose of an allegory to be allowed were it not horrifically real, literally consumed Egyptian mummies. Ignoring this facet of Egyptology's history is not only disgustingly offensive to those who are still victimised by the legacy of colonialism but also willfully ignorant in a way that lessens the quality of one's own scholarship. But simply ignoring Egyptology's colonial past is one thing: wearing it like a costume is another thing entirely. One article I read (which I've linked below) noted, "From khakis to pith hats, certain items of clothing have become enduring emblems of European colonialism, and particular scholars who know these problematic histories choose to engage in the aesthetics of colonialism in their everyday lives."
Dr. Colleen Manassa Darnell and her husband John are rather notorious in the Egyptology world. Their relationship from the beginning was ill-received, as Prof. Darnell, 18 years Manassa's senior, embarked on the affair while he was still married to his ex-wife and serving as Manassa's direct academic supervisor. By all accounts Manassa Darnell's work in the field has been fine, certainly nothing egregiously inaccurate or pseudoscientific; her continued support of her husband's abuse of power (which resulted in his suspension from his position) is nothing short of unethical, but otherwise her academic work seems solid to me. I have no issue with her work in and of itself. The issue I have is the way she dresses up like an Egyptologist from the 1920s, complete with the pith hats and tokenism. She owns various "authentic Egyptian artefacts" (they are, from what I can tell, actually authentic) and keeps them in her home. She has amassed a rather substantial social media following, primarily due to her choice of fashion: she frequently dresses up in vintage 1920s clothing, branding herself as the "vintage Egyptologist" (her Instagram handle). She and her husband are both white Western academics, considerably wealthy and otherwise well-off, and they are using the colonialist history of Egyptology as a prop because... it looks cool, I guess?
Either they are unbelievably ignorant, or they know exactly what they're evoking, and to whom they're pandering. When viewed devoid of context, the colonialism cosplay is certainly done well; it's evident the research and effort that went into it were considerable. But in general I tend to be wary of any "social media" historian, relying primarily on aesthetics in order to attract a following. The majority of the time, these people—regardless of their offline academic work—tend to peddle clickbait, flashy information, conspiracy theories, and sensationalist pop history that appeals to the laypeople but equally contributes to persistent conspiracies, rumours, and long-since-debunked ideas. From what I've seen, the Darnells (as they style themselves) are some of the more accurate in terms of actual facts, provided the context is missing. There's so much unpleasant history and baggage associated with the fashion and general aesthetic the Darnells adopt that there's no way to engage with these concepts (without context) without giving off the exact opposite message as academics should be. Manassa in particular appears to model herself off a mixture of the Western idea of Cleopatra VII (the hairstyle, the jewellery) and Evy Carnahan (the clothes, the backgrounds), both emblematic of the damaging impact of this sort of playing around with colonialism and imperialism.
The optimistic outcome is that laypeople will assume, because the Darnells are Egyptologists, surely what they're doing must be fine, because they ought to know how best to do things related to Egypt. (This is of course contradicted by the many, many other Egyptologists trying desperately to explain why attempting to rehabilitate colonialist aesthetics is not a great idea, actually.) The pessimistic outcome is that laypeople will use the Darnells in order to cast aspersions on the field at large—after all, if two such high-profile and well-loved Egyptologists can play fast and loose with Western exploitation of Egypt, who's to say other, lesser-known academics are doing the same, if not worse?
To quote again from that wonderfully detailed and eloquent article on the topic:
[The Darnells'] curatorial anchoring resides in the realm of the Orientalist fantasy, far, far away from anything written since Edward Said, and in disjunction with the historical experience and sensibilities of most inhabitants of modern and contemporary Egypt. The “Egypt” it portrays is reminiscent of the frontispiece of the 19th century French multivolume series Description de l’Égypte published after Napoleon’s conquest. This fictive, deserted landscape was cut through by the Nile river and dotted with impressive pharaonic monuments covered in [hieroglyphs], ready to be “explored” by white “experts,” whose lavish and civilized lifestyle matches the long-gone sophistication of ancient Egypt’s mystical grandeur. In this regard, the Classical-style frieze (which shows an Apollo-looking, Muses-leading Napoléon driving the Mamluks out) surrounding the Description’s frontispiece’s rendition of Egypt serves as a powerful statement of the power relationship at stake: Egypt is defined by and for the male, European conqueror’s ability to penetrate, occupy, and, to paraphrase a now famous political slogan, “make her great again.”The translation itself was fine. It was whatever. I don't care.
More...