Alice Stevenson, The Object of Study

The Object of Study: Egyptology, Archaeology, and Anthropology at Oxford, 1860–1960

Introduction to Egyptology as a Discipline

• Francis Llewellyn Griffith's inaugural lecture at Oxford in 1901 emphasized the transformative potential of Egyptology within anthropology.

• Griffith viewed Egyptology as pivotal in understanding general human history, contrasting with other disciplines.

• Over time, Egyptology became more isolated from anthropology and archaeology; this paper examines the evolution of Egyptology in relation to the intellectual environment of Oxford University.

Disciplinary Boundaries

• Egyptology, archaeology, and anthropology have complex relationships that are influenced by socio-political contexts and historical moments.

• The evolution of Egyptology cannot be seen as a linear progression but as interplays of various factors, including institutional changes and shifting academic landscapes.

• Multiple voices and perspectives shaped the discipline's development, making it important to understand these narratives within broader historical contexts.

The Emergence of Egyptology (1860-1960)

• Key Timeline: 1860–1900

  • Interest in anthropology grew at Oxford, but Egyptology lacked its own niche until Griffith arrived in 1879.

  • Griffith collaborated with colleagues like Reverend Archibald Sayce and Flinders Petrie, which facilitated his engagement in fieldwork and archaeology.

  • These relationships were crucial for shaping Griffith’s understanding of Egyptology and its role within the wider academic sphere.

• Intellectual Atmosphere

  • Anthropological societies in London served as platforms for prominent figures to share insights on Egypt and broader human issues.

  • The concept of using artifacts as a key to understanding cultures became a significant feature of 19th-century anthropology, with influential figures like Pitt-Rivers embodying this approach.

  • Material culture played a pivotal role in shaping knowledge about humanity, reflecting the Victorian perspective on objects as critical to understanding human development.

Methodological Shifts (1901-1930)

• Griffith’s Vision

  • Griffith stressed the importance of integrating material and linguistic evidence in Egyptology, advocating for a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

  • His lectures covered a variety of perspectives, highlighting both the linguistic and archaeological aspects of ancient Egypt.

  • He encouraged practical engagement with material artifacts, though the institutional limitations of Oxford during this period affected the cultivation of new scholars.

• Anthropological Influence

  • Oxford’s first anthropology course established in 1905 involved Griffith and emphasized a broad curriculum encompassing various fields of study.

  • Students such as Rosalind Moss bridged the gap between Egyptology and anthropology, showcasing a multifaceted approach to academic inquiry.

  • The Pitt Rivers Museum contributed to this interdisciplinary movement by displaying artifacts that reflected cultural evolution.

Institutional Changes and Academic Isolation (1931-1960)

• Changing Academic Landscape

  • The 1930s marked a shift in Egyptology’s connection with anthropology and archaeology, influenced by new academic leaders like Alfred Radcliffe-Brown.

  • Shifts in disciplinary focus reduced the interdisciplinary interactions that Griffith previously advocated.

  • Post-Griffith, the role of Egyptology narrowed towards philological studies as fieldwork access diminished due to political changes in Egypt.

• Impact of New Methodologies

  • The focus shifted from artifact collection to theoretical approaches in anthropology and archaeology, leading to a methodological redefinition across disciplines.

  • The rise of site-oriented archaeological practices, as exemplified by Mortimer Wheeler, contrasted with Egyptology’s inward focus on texts and language.

  • By the early 1960s, Egyptology established a more distinct and isolated disciplinary identity from anthropology and archaeology, impacting its academic discourse.

Conclusion

• Despite Egyptology's distinct identity, it began within a collaborative intellectual environment among broader anthropological inquiries.

• The transition to a more specialized focus in Egyptology paralleled developments in archaeology and anthropology, shaping how the discipline engaged with its past.

• The 20th century saw a significant evolution in Egyptology, driven by both academic isolation and the necessity to reconfigure its methodological frameworks amid broader academic shifts.