University of Amsterdam | MA THESIS HERITAGE STUDIES: MUSEUM STUDIES
National and University Museums in Germany and the
Netherlands:
A Semiotic Analysis of Ancient Egyptian Exhibitions in the
Egyptian Museum of the University Bonn, Allard Pierson,
Neues Museum and The National Museum of Antiquities
Grace Heiderman
National and University Museums in Germany and the Netherlands:
A Semiotic Analysis of Ancient Egyptian Exhibitions in Egyptian Museum of the University Bonn, Allard Pierson, Neues Museum and The National Museum of Antiquities
Graduate School of Humanities
MA Thesis Heritage Studies: Museum Studies Written by: Grace Heiderman | no.12251429
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. I.A.M. (Ihab) Saloul Reader: Prof. W.M.H. (Wim) Hupperetz
Abstract
It is pertinent that museums of antiquities scrutinise their exhibitions on institutional historiography and examine the consequences of its association with their ancient Egyptian narrative. The concepts of agency, materiality and power within university and national museums will be analysed through investigating the semiotic relationships between the viewer and ancient Egyptian material culture. Institutional historiography exhibitions are presenting 19th Century theories through historical modes of presentation. The language and mode of display in the museums’ ‘cabinet rooms’ influence the viewer’s understanding of the ancient Egyptian culture. The unravelling of their institutional historiography is due diligence, but the transmission of this knowledge based on colonial framing does not negotiate the social and material power of the collection’s past. Museums of antiquities can further their narratives by utilising biographies of artefacts collected in Egypt to get to the core of Egypt’s materiality.
A museum is a dangerous place.
-Flinders Petrie,
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VII
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN COLLECTIONS: MATERIALITY, AGENCY AND POWER 1
CASE STUDIES 5
RESEARCH QUESTION AND METHODOLOGY 6
CHAPTER TWO.
UNIVERSITY MUSEUMS AND THEIR BIOGRAPHIES 8
EGYPTIAN MUSEUM OF THE UNIVERSITY BONN:RE-CREATING ARMCHAIR ARCHAEOLOGISTS 9
ALLARD PIERSON:RE-COMPOSITION OF HISTORICAL BOUNDARIES 16
NARRATIVES OF POSSESSION 26
CHAPTER THREE.
NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND THEIR IDENTITIES 28
NEUES MUSEUM:RE-CASTING THE APPROPRIATION OF MATERIALITY 30
THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES:RE-CODING THE AGENCY OF EGYPT 38
NARRATIVES OF AUTHORITY 45
CONCLUSION.
HISTORICAL NARRATIVES: THE COLLECTOR AND MATERIAL CULTURE 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY 51
APPENDIX 55
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: HEIDERMAN, G, (2019). KIELMEYER DISPLAY. 57
FIGURE 2: HEIDERMAN, G, (2019). BONN CABINET OF COLLECTIONS. 57 FIGURE 3: HEIDERMAN, G, (2019). ALLARD PIERSON MEDITERRANEAN MAP 58
FIGURE 4: ALLARD PIERSON, (2019). CABINET OF COLLECTORS. 58
FIGURE 5: HEIDERMAN, G, (2019). LEPSIUS DISPLAY. 59
FIGURE 6: HEIDERMAN, G, (2019). “RUINS OF THE TEMPLE OF QUEEN
HATSHEPSUT” BY ERNST KOERNER. 59
FIGURE 7: HEIDERMAN, G. (2019). GENERAL DJEHUTY. 60
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to the professors that shared their knowledge and provided insight into museums. A special thanks to Prof. Ihab Saloul for all his advice and his informative talks about semiotics. Another special thanks to Dr. Lara Weiss, the Egyptian Collection Curator at National Museum of Antiquities, who’s guidance during my internship inspired my thesis topic.
Many thanks to my fellow colleagues in Museum Studies. We took part in interesting academic experiences, and all benefited from the many discussions throughout the coursework. Even after the coursework, we supported each other through the thesis process.
Chapter One. Introduction
Ancient Egyptian Collections: Materiality, Agency and Power
Collections have entered a new realm within contemporary museum practices. The exhibitions that display these collections to the viewer are being recontextualised to communicate new concepts and narratives. Museums that hold ancient Egyptian collections are no different, their collections bend and shape the viewer’s experience and build memories using Egypt’s antiquity. The German and Dutch collections composed of ancient Egyptian material culture, objects created and used by ancient Egyptians, were gathered by Western Europeans. Museum collections have meanings attached to them, which are not unchanging or subject to transformation and adjustment in relation to its past (Bal, 1994). Tony Bennett’s ‘exhibitionary complex’ explains that displaying collections in public serve as a message of power (1988). Within the exhibitionary complex the possession over the collection takes an active role. The dominion over Egyptian materiality is solidified with the inclusion of the 19th Century narrative of collecting being told through Western voices and historical modes of presentation.
The drive to build and display collections is as old as time. Museum derives from the Greek word, Μουσεῖον, meaning the ‘realm of muses.’ In antiquity the ‘realm of muses’ was a space where philosophy and poetry were openly discussed. The development of the Roman garden was described as “an open-ended, inspirational realm built with the explicit aim of stimulating the creativity of viewers. In this sense, the collection was not a static place… but a dynamic and self-regenerative one” (Wren Christian, 2010). This word, museum, was revived to describe cabinets of curiosities. Both the cabinet and garden concepts are still present in today’s museums of antiquities as their philosophical authenticity is reflected in the similar garden spatial display that allows the viewer to curiously gaze upon lost and ancient civilisations. However, the inspirational realm was increasing narrowed by the accultural narrative of the 19th Century.
In the 18th Century, the Enlightenment Age, there was an increase of world exploration by Europeans and this exploration led to collecting. Enlightenment thought formed a philosophy to understand the world through a material basis. These early thinkers in the 18th Century saw their classifications as a spiritual process. There was no conflict between religion and science, the classifications of the material world were thought to bring forward the philosophy of truth, freedom
and liberty. The culture of collecting man-made material culture rapidly established in alignment with this philosophy of collecting knowledge (Anderson, 2003). ‘Cabinet of curiosities’ were formed. These collections started to be ordered to provide a platform for the Enlightenment thought, which lead to the establishment of large universal museums such as the British Museum. In 1756, Sir Gowin Knight, the British’s Museum’s first Principal Librarian, gave thought on how the viewer would perceive the collections. He stated that, a collection “if placed in the cabinets; and I presumed it would give more satisfaction to the publick to see them each arranged there with the things of the same kind, than to have them put together” (Pearce & Arnold, 2000; p. 171). His plan for Sir Hans Sloane’s collection was classed into three divisions: fossils, vegetables and animals; the divisions were highly dependent on classifications used to understand the world order. He planned for the antiquities to be displayed in the east end.
The early spirit of the 18th Century was based on collecting and displaying antiquity that had a unique nature. Sir Knight’s plan for the British Museum was just a few years before Johann Winckelmann’s influential study of ancient art that was completed because of his position as the Librarian of the Vatican, President of Antiquities. Winckelmann studied these collections and published “History of Ancient Art” in 1764. His study was made possible by the institutionalisation of collections from the private sphere to a more public platform. Winckelmann classified ancient art into styles starting from ancient Egyptians, Greek and Roman. Archaeology as a discipline was in early development and Winckelmann’s classifications based on provenience was the needed aspect, at this time, to understand and further the study of past civilisations. In 1767, a philologist Christian Gottlob Heyne used Winckelmann’s study to develop a research method to interpret classical sources and material culture. Distinguishing archaeology as a study of artefacts from antiquity (Hoijtink, 2012). Subsequently, with the institutionalisation of museums, their exhibitions concentrated on the classifications of provenience.
The study of ancient Egypt became institutionalised within higher education which was fuelled by the Enlightenment philosophy. The Enlightenment Age was a humanistic movement that empowered the discipline of archaeology and developed the display of antiquities for the public’s benefit. The early thinkers of antiquities established the foundation for museums and Egyptology. By the 19th Century, imperialism and colonialism were at their peak and Enlightenment thinking was transformed into a moral supremacy over others. The West’s construction of universal thought was used to entitled itself as the ‘cultural heirs of Antiquity.’
Napoleon’s Campaign invaded Egypt from 1798-1801. During the French occupation, tens of thousands ancient Egyptian artefacts where collected and sent to Paris, this included the Rosetta Stone, used by Jean Champollion to decipher hieroglyphics in 1822 (Andrén & Crozier, 1998). Museums began acquiring massive collections and organising them in a historically distinct manner to signify the progress of civilisation in the frame of universal history.
The origin of Egyptology and Egyptomania lies in Napoleon's Campaign, which included a scientific expedition. The findings of this expedition were published in Description de l’Egypte. In the decades following the Campaign, artefacts were leaving Egypt on an industrial scale fed by consular agents plundering ancient sites, a freedom given by the Ottoman Pasha to strengthen diplomatic ties (Andrén & Crozier, 1998). Mass collecting of Egyptian antiquities was possible due to the lack of regulatory legislation in Egypt under the governance of the Ottoman Empire. One of the first laws that impacted exportation of antiquities was created in 1835; it established the Egyptian Antiquities Service, an ordinance that prohibited export of antiquities without a permit and conceived of a museum in Cairo (Stevenson, 2019). Modern Egypt was continually occupied from 1798 to 1952, by the French, then by the Dynasty of Mohamed Ali Pasha, ending with the British in 1952 (Shaw, 2003). The laws regarding Egyptian heritage until 1952 were constructed while Egypt was under foreign rule. The early European acquisitions of ancient Egyptian artefacts largely came from diplomats and explorers ‘discovering’ the unknown for their European countries. In this framework, ancient Egyptian collections within museums are not only a product of the ancient Egyptian culture but are the result of the European culture of collecting. It was not until 2010, that foreign excavation missions were not granted any ownership to the material culture found with the cancellation of the Promulgating the Antiquities’ Protection Law (Stevenson, 2019). Through the nuances of legality and diplomacy large parts of the 18th to 19th Century collections, under current juridical conditions, will remain in museums outside of Egypt.
The materiality of the collections is based on the formation of its culture in past contexts. The separation between ancient Egypt and the modern-nation of Egypt through laws and academia have influenced the understanding of the ancient Egyptian collections. The opening up of Egypt by Napoleon was described by Edward Said, a scholar of postcolonial thought, as a “great collective monument of erudition, the Description de l’Egypte, provided a scene or setting for Orientalism” (1995; p. 79). Said expressed the Western gaze on ‘the East’ and its study of Eastern cultures as patronising and inherently subjective to the imperial societies that produced this
knowledge. The means of how ancient Egyptian material culture was collected is being researched through institutional historiography. The 19th Century principle of universal world order was stratified through classifications and identifications. Within the pillars of classifications and identifications are prejudges against Egypt and its culture as the representations derived from Western dominated discourses. Classifications are a labelled system that organised civilisations into groups such as ‘Ancient Egyptian’ or the traditional analysis of civilisations. Identifications are categorisations based on the artefacts’ purpose within the ancient civilisations. Exhibitions in museums of antiquities are designed around this empirical trend of specific form, material and manufacture as well as the Western dominated classifications of ancient civilisations (Meskell, 2005). The usage of classifications and identifications in museums narrow the artefacts’ meaning and the messages the viewer can gain from the displayed material culture.
The capacity of building knowledge and generating meaning around artefacts in an exhibition is largely based on using organized methods and sequences that aim at the transmission of understanding and value. Scholarly attention has been placed on the changing roles of exhibitions as a mean for communication, but there is a general lack in how language used affects the presented narratives. Variances in language may widely differ the viewer’s contextualisation of ancient Egypt. Even though museum of antiquities collect, study and preserve ancient Egyptian material culture, each hold unique artefacts that feeds the viewer’s “fascination with the world of the past - a past both part of our sense of identity and a strange other world, different and remote, and therefore exotic and enticing” (Henson, 2011). Whether creating a sense of identity or describing, the ‘other,’ the strange exotic world, the narratives found in museums are based on their unique artefacts and their biographies. The collections gathered by national museums create national identity and present their nation-state’s history or university museums’ collections gathered for the study and progression of Egyptology, both of their ancient Egyptian collections have been placed within a universal history narrative. An artefact placed into a museum collection innately becomes a sign providing cultural intimacy though this artefact does not completely become anew. The museum of antiquities’ role is building moments for the viewer to interact with an artefacts’ meaning.
Case Studies
This thesis will not examine ancient Egyptian material culture but instead focus on the narratives created while under the possession of museums in Germany and the Netherlands. Both of these countries never had imperial power over Egypt though they had many actors that influenced Egyptology and were collectors of ancient Egyptian material culture. In Germany, some of the material culture is held in the Egyptian Museum at University Bonn and its national institution of archaeology, the Neues Museum. The ancient Egyptian collection located at the University Bonn was founded in 1820 though a museum was not established until 2001. This Egyptian Museum is located in the city of Bonn, which was the former capital of West Germany (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019). Whereas, the Neues Museum is located in Berlin, the current capital of the unified Germany. The Neues Museum’s foundation lies in the ‘master plan’ of the Museum Island and its construction, which began in 1843 (Ziesemer & Robinson, 2009). For the Netherlands, the Allard Pierson is an extension of the University of Amsterdam. Its current location was established in 1934 and holds archaeological collections from the Mediterranean region (Allard Pierson, 2019). The National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden was established in 1818. An 18th Century mansion was purchased in 1835 by Leiden University to house this museum of antiquities (Halbertsma, 2003). The National Museum of Antiquities retains a close relationship with Leiden University though it is a national institution. The establishment of these collections are from colonial-era conceptualisations, an era of foreign dominance in Egypt.
The Egyptian Museum of the University Bonn covers 300 square meters and is located in the university’s former fencing hall. Its exhibition space was redone in 2011 (Fitzenreiter, 2018). The Allard Pierson’s exhibition space will grow to 500 square meters after the current renovations are completed (Mondriaan Fonds, 2019). The Neues Museum displays three national collections and was reopened to the public in 2009. A large portion of the exhibition is dedicated to the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung). This collection is presented over three floors in the Museum’s northern wing, covering 3,600 square meters (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 2019). The National Museum of Antiquities’ ancient Egyptian exhibition was redone in 2016 and is displayed on the entire ground floor (National Museum of Antiquities, 2019). There are differences between each of these four museums’ ancient Egyptian exhibitions, but all of four museums include a section highlighting their institutional
historiography. Both the university and national museums of antiquities have introduced 19th Century narratives into their exhibitions through the display of their institutional historiography. Research Question and Methodology
Collections as well as exhibitions, today and historically, are shaped by the academic understanding of the ancient world. Museums hold heritage, more specifically museums of antiquities hold material culture. Archaeology as a discipline is to discover the meaning of ancient material culture in its original context in order to understand those that made it. Post-processual archaeology emphasised archaeology as subjective. The subjective notions within archaeology created a scholarly divide that separates Ancient Egypt from ‘Orient’ Egypt (Hoijtink, 2012). This separation hinders the understanding of the materiality of Egypt. Museums of antiquities are affected by archaeological theories as well as the research stemmed from historiography. Both the discipline and the museum are battling the intertwined history of imperial and colonial thought and even racism.
The consequences of earlier eras are being discussed in the academic discourses of orientalism and postcolonialism. These discourses have begun to marginalise the universal narratives. During this moment of self-reflexive inquiry, museums set out to understand their institutional historiography. An early example of displaying this research was the creation of the Enlightenment Hall at the British Museum in 2003. This hall was designed for the viewers to experience artefacts through their collectors and the ideas of the 18th Century (Anderson, 2003). All four of the museums being examined have undergone renovations since the creation of the Enlightenment Hall at the British Museum and each have a section highlighting the history of their collections. Displaying institutional historiography through historical modes of presentation in museums of antiquities has become a regular sequence in exhibitions that display ancient Egyptian material culture. What impact does the contextualisation of institutional historiography have on the ancient Egyptian narrative at university and national museums in Germany and the Netherlands?
This important relationship between the artefact and viewer, and the function of text is further understood from Charles Sanders Pierce’s triadic relationships. This semiotic process is between the sign, the object and the interpretant allows for the construction of meaning within an exhibition (Saloul, 2018). The artefact becomes a symbol, and that symbol can be interpreted
through its materiality. Pierce’s semiotic model creates a space for interpretation, which can be used further to understand the range of meaning within material culture displayed in museums of antiquities. The context given within the exhibition and texts needs to encourage the viewer to create their own interpretation. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill states by looking at the relationship between the ‘reader’ and ‘text’ instead of the ‘museum visitor’ and the ‘museum object’ will enable further insights into the agency of material culture (1999). This semiotic model can highlight fluidity or lack of it within an exhibition’s narrative.
The creation process of exhibitions has begun to focus on communicating messages through text and display strategies. Exhibitions should encourage interpretation or reflection and meaning-making or contextualisation. Flow experience outlines how viewers achieve a level of engagement and understanding in an exhibition. The aspects of flow experience are clear goals, continuous feedback and tasks demanded of viewer (Falk, 2009). The development of a ‘semiotic space’ is through an interactive process between the artefact and the viewer. The complex relationships created in these spaces generate meaning that warrants academic notice. To understand the range of meaning within an artefact, Ian Hodder’s material culture theory will facilitate a contextual analysis of an artefact’s agency. His material culture theory comprises three layers: functional use, structural or coded meaning and historical meaning (Hodder, 1994). Within the ‘historical content’ there are two aspects: past associations of the artefact and changing of ideas around the artefact. Essentially, this material culture theory goes beneath the surface appearance of the artefact to its value in the past and present. The conceptualisation of these layers creates narratives that can further the viewer’s experience and aid in understanding the past and create moments that shape current societies and their futures. A ‘semiotic space’ is mobilized through moments of interpretation and comprehension by the viewer and is where artefacts acquire agency. This method introduces a different mode of interpretation within the museum context, which enables a deeper investigation into the process of meaning-making within the museums of antiquities.
Chapter Two.
University Museums and Their Biographies
Mission statements are the source of the exhibition concepts and announce the museum’s purpose to the viewer. These statements typically focus on classifications and the interpretation of their collections (Smithsonian, 2002). A brief analysis of the mission statements of the Egyptian Museum of the University Bonn and the Allard Pierson will allow the expected viewers’ experience to be thoroughly understood:
Bonn, Germany:
The Egyptian Museum of the University Bonn displays one of the richest collections of Egyptian antiquities in the Rhineland. The role it plays as a university museum is not just to present knowledge of the pharaonic culture, but also to expose the conditions of the formation of this knowledge. Object collections such as those of the University Bonn are not unessential to our view of foreign and ancient cultures. In the tripartite designed exhibit, different layers of interpretation and meaning are exposed (University Bonn, 2019).
Amsterdam, Netherlands:
The Allard Pierson as a museum and knowledge institute for the heritage collections of the University of Amsterdam, the Allard Pierson wants to be an accessible place for curious people. Here you gain knowledge, get inspired, and discover new topics and collections (Allard Pierson, 2019).
The university institutions’ mission statements focus on abstract concepts and emphasis the development of knowledge surrounding their collections.
The Egyptian Museum of the University Bonn expects the viewer to receive a thorough understanding of Egyptology and the ancient Egyptian culture. It stresses knowledge creation and its usage of analysing the layers found in ‘foreign and ancient cultures.’ Leading the viewer to anticipate an intellectually powerful experience. The statement also defines Egypt as ‘foreign,’ consequently the viewer is expecting to observe an exotic culture with surprises unknown to them. This statement places the viewer as an observer looking in at an ‘other’ culture. Egyptology, ‘the conditions of the formation of this knowledge,’ can be inferred here as a scientific discipline and in science, the scientist cannot be part of their study. The University Bonn rigidly places the viewer as the scientist. This university museum draws their statement from the interpretation of their collection, creating an image that their viewer will be exposed to the university’s own essential view of pharaonic Egypt.
Both universities’ statements address discovery of new themes as the main interest for visiting their museum. The Allard Pierson has a relatively informal statement, perhaps due to the wide scope of the collections which include the University of Amsterdam’s special collections and archaeological collections (Allard Pierson, 2019). This combined institution uses the word, ‘heritage’ in its mission statement. Heritage is defined by UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, as “the legacy that we receive from the past, that we experience in the present and that we will pass on to future generations” (2017). The inclusion of heritage creates a different approach than the University Bonn’s statement as the viewer becomes part of the narrative the Allard Pierson is expected to tell.
Though the mission statements are perceived as broad messages they are integral in creating the core focus for the museum exhibitions. The university museums’ statements are thematic based on the expectation of receiving new knowledge. Their approaches are highly different. The viewer at Bonn can expect to learn of the ‘other’ while in Amsterdam the viewer can expect to learn about ‘self.’ To further understand the cultural intimacy the museums created through their narratives each museum and its display of their ancient Egyptian narrative will be examined.
Egyptian Museum of the University Bonn: Re-Creating Armchair Archaeologists
The Egyptian Museum of the University Bonn invites the viewer to experience ancient Egypt through three themes: an historic-cultural panorama, a study collection and a cabinet of collections. Splitting the exhibition into thematic concepts was part of the redesign in 2011 (University Bonn, 2019). To visit the museum, the viewer enters the University’s Egyptology Department. The museum is on the first floor at an end of a hall, and to visit the viewer must pass by the offices of the professors. The collection is held in a single room, upon entering the viewer can observe the whole layout in one glance. The hall has a high ceiling and white walls. There is a mixture of sleek glass vitrines and wooden vitrines. The themes are divided along the walls and a large table with chairs is in the centre. Most of the vitrines hold a large number of artefacts similar to a type of display called visible storage. This method of displaying is attention-grabbing as the viewer is stimulated by a large number of artefacts. Each vitrine has a topical theme dividing the artefacts by type, period and location. The exhibition employs both thematic and visible storage methods of display to attempt to create a space that presents knowledge on ancient Egypt. The combination
leads the viewer instead on a path that is confusing and creates a hollow experience. The viewer is challenged to find meaning within a hall that gives an encyclopaedic version of ancient Egyptian material culture and Egyptology.
In October 2019, the study collection theme included a temporary exhibition on Roman Emperors in Egypt. Behind the temporary exhibit are two rows of vitrines that made up the exhibit of study collection. The vitrines hold artefacts from Flinders Petrie’s collection and the archaeological finds brought back from the University’s excavations at the Qubbet el-Hawa or artefacts purchased from other German excavations in Egypt. This theme’s purpose is to highlight archaeology and display a survey of artefacts in order for a viewer to learn how to identify different geographic locations and time periods, kingdoms, through ancient Egypt’s material culture. The material culture is displayed through the classification of provenience, as these artefacts were from documented archaeological excavations in Egypt. On the wall opposite to this, the viewer is presented with the historic-cultural panorama. This exhibit splits the ancient Egyptian culture into identifications: writing, pharaoh, gods, mummification and many more. These empirical identifications do little to enable the viewer to learn about the ancient Egyptian culture. The vitrines in the historic-cultural panorama and the study collection have a singular text that explains the artefacts’ classifications or identifications. The text averages from 150 to 300 words. Each of these concept texts authoritatively explains one symbolic layer of the material culture. The relationship created between the identification texts and the displayed material culture lacks the elements to form moments of understanding for the viewer. Only allowing the viewer to compare through classification and identifications fails to accomplish their stated purpose of expressing the layers and depth to ancient Egyptian culture and Egyptology.
The collection that founded this museum were artefacts acquisitioned in 1820 by the theologian I.M. Augustin Scholz. The turn of the century was marked by the end of Napoleon’s Campaign and the opening up of Egypt to Western exploration and fascination. This period of ‘early exploration’ was frenzied with collecting artefacts and the method of discovery was digging holes and collecting whatever was found. This resulted in many collections not having proper documentation of where the artefacts were found. In the final decades of the 19th Century, Egyptological methods of excavation became systematic which led to more documentation surrounding artefacts though ancient Egyptian material culture was still collected rather than leaving them in Egypt. Even with the establishment of the Egyptian Antiquities Service exporting
artefacts was still widespread. Allotting collections to further expand under the first chair of Egyptology at the University Bonn, Alfred Wiedemann (1856-1936) (University Bonn, 2019). University Bonn’s ancient Egyptian collection was gathered from many sources: loans dating back to 1896 from the Neues Museum and artefacts that come from documented excavation. There are also collections and loans from private individuals, these if possible, are displayed in original context in the ‘Cabinet of Collections.’ This exhibit is located in the back corner of the hall between the historic-cultural panorama and study collection. The Cabinet of Collections highlights the acquisitions and loans from private individual through their biographies. The exhibition texts are one-sided stories of the collectors and the origins of their collections.
In today’s debates concerning the subjectivity of Egyptology and archaeology, it is deliberately biased to not discuss the consequences of universal history and the colonial-era. In their institutional historiography exhibit the University Bonn chose to narrate their collection history through simple biographies of the collectors. The introduction text for the Cabinet of Collections smooths over the current debates of the colonial-era on the claims that collected artefacts become anew once in a collection through appropriation and possession:
On the contrary, they have been used for many decades in private collections. It is even to be assumed that this second period of use is often longer than it was in pharaonic period as at this time grave goods were usually deposited in the graves very soon, but after their rediscovery they passed through many hands (University of Bonn, 2019).
This text is reminiscent of the schoolyard phrase of ‘finders keepers, losers weepers.’ Their insertion of European origins contains a dubious message of claiming cultural intimacy via ownership. These justifications distort the objectivity of the viewer and their assumptions of Egypt. It infers the Western collectors were the only ones that had placed any value on these artefacts. The introduction panel also includes the collectors’ portraits. The collectors’ individual stories and portraits are the only reflection of people, ignoring Egypt and its modern culture. This establishes the foundations of Western universal thought and perception of the ‘Orient’ that perpetrates an inaccurate representation that the ‘West’ were the only ones’ worthy of possession after the ‘discovery’ of ancient Egypt.
The methods of discovery are not addressed. The narrative only starts once the artefacts were collected and ‘passed through many hands.’ The text also refers to the artefacts as grave goods, this describes only the functional meaning for the ancient Egyptians and ignores other cultural connotations these grave goods had to the ancient Egyptians. Instead the text clearly states
the ‘grave good’ was in ‘our’ hands longer than the deceased Egyptian from the Pharaonic period. Labelling the artefacts as grave goods is a manipulation used by the museum to further concrete their claim of tangible and intangible possession. The text creates a space where the viewer only understands the ancient Egyptian material culture from the narrow context of its European historical content. Its past associations with Egypt and changing of ideas around material culture are ignored. The artefacts lose their layers of agency and materiality within the Cabinet of Collections. By expressing the material culture has been in their hands longer is an alarming display of self-reflectivity. Their displayed concept of collectors leaves the issues of the past behind, giving a platform to their collectors as the authoritative owners and the only narrators of the past.
The biographical stories of the collectors placed over the artefacts increases the progression of the appropriation narrative over the ancient Egyptian culture. One of the collectors introduced in the introduction panel is Charles Henry Schoeller. This man is exemplified in the introduction text with a photograph and text about the donation of his collection. It outlines he gathered his collection during his time in Alexandria, labelled by the museum as the Classically known city of Egypt. His collection is represented three times throughout the cabinet, starting with the introduction label, then a vitrine that has further text about him collecting in Alexandria and lastly through a baroque cabinet displayed in the corner. Confusingly, the text about him in the introduction panel describes a medallion and an inscribed glass mug. These personal belongings are displayed in a vitrine that is separated from this panel by three other collector vitrines. In the text found on his vitrine, holding the medallion and glass mug, states his preference for Ptolemaic period artefacts was because of his interest in, “the multicultural tradition of Alexandria, the Greek foundation on the outskirts of Egypt.” This sentence is problematic within itself as it begins with ‘multicultural traditions’ than excludes Alexandria as a ‘Greek foundation’ rather than the addressing the relationships between the Egyptian and Greek cultures. Similar to the text from the introduction panel, this text introduces artefacts that are not in the current sight of the viewer. This directs the viewer away and leaves the viewers little time to reflect on the artefacts that they are currently investigating. The text pushes the viewer to a baroque cabinet that holds numerous ancient Egyptian artefacts and is a symbolic representation of a cabinet of curiosities.
In Mieke Bal’s analysis of the American Museum of Natural History, her description of their African Culture Exhibition adeptly states “within the historical context of domination,
colonization, and slavery, however, they don’t quite succeed in avoiding the traps that come with the repression of self-reflection” (1992). This is true of their display of their institutional historiography. Rather than creating a dialogue, the vitrines create a period room, the apex being the cabinet of curiosities in the corner (figure 1). The room is centred around an armchair and a side-table placed on an oriental rug. The period room is further completed by many of the artefacts displayed in the collector’s choice of exhibition, the cabinet of curiosities as well as in tissue paper and shadow boxes. The design places the viewer in the context of the past and allows the viewer to become an ‘armchair archaeologist’ surrounded by the treasures of an ancient culture.
Their cabinet of collections is nostalgic around the European collecting culture. The material culture from Egypt does not take an active role in the narrative and only provenance is legitimized. The text does not challenge historical conventions and the consequences of the colonial-era are excluded. For example, a label within the Cabinet of Collections states, “although most of the time there is no information about the archaeological find context, these pieces are not without context.” It creates a moment that could highlight consequence but instead depends on one-sided dialogue that perpetrates archival narratives. The biographies fix the collectors’ domination of the material culture and critically link their knowledge to power over the ancient Egyptian culture. The introduction text continues to state, “the meaning of a private collection becomes clear when one brings together the inventory of objects and the personality of the collectors.” Each vitrine becomes a time capsule to the collector. It is clearly understood from the labels that the collection belongs to the museum and they are the preservers of a collection that would have been otherwise lost to time and academia.
A viewer will move from vitrine to vitrine and presumably read each of the biographies, which leave the displayed ancient Egyptian artefacts with no labels or context. Clear goals, continuous feedback and tasks demanded of a viewer are aspects of how the viewer engages and understands an exhibition (Falk, 2009). To further understand the lapses in comprehension the aspects of this flow experience will be used to analyse the vitrine concerning two 19th Century collectors, the label introduces them and their time in Africa:
Objects from the estate of Carl Friedrich Kielmeyer and Franz Kielmeyer Carl Friedrich (born October 22, 1765 in Bebenhausen, died September 24, 1844 in Stuttgart) was a German physician, naturalist, chemist and theoretical biologist. Through him and his Africa trip, his diary is presented for the first time publicly, grew the family's interest in the black continent. The diary is transcribed, evaluated, digitized and subsequently published as part of a project.
There are insights into the life of Carl Friedrich Kielmeyer, whose representations (see below O. Stolberg- Wernigerode, New German Biography, Volume 11, Kafka - Kleinfercher, Berlin, 1977, 582) so far mainly his scientific achievements in the theory of evolution, formulated before Darwin. His trip to Africa is not mentioned. Franz Kielmeyer (born 1864, died 1 February 1898) was a lieutenant in the East Africa Corps and captured on the 1894 elephant tusk. The tusk served sometime in the 20th century, perhaps before, as storage of seven Egyptian amulets wrapped in a piece of tissue paper. When the African objects were united, who acquired the Egyptian amulets and when is the subject of current research (University of Bonn, 2019).
This text is accompanied by the artefacts mentioned as well as a photograph and a journal with a drawing of three men in non-Western clothing. It is difficult to draw key words from this text, as the biography of the two Kielmeyer men has no mention of Egypt other than the seven amulets of unknown provenience. The undynamic text gives the viewer no understanding of ancient Egypt, but it does open a window into the 19th Century with the journal open to a page dated to October 1839 and a photograph of one of the Kielmeyer men on a horse with two African men standing to the side (figure 2).
The text mentions Africa as a black continent, beyond the point that it denotes an entire continent based on skin colour. The only imagery the viewer can relate to the word ‘black’ in the display is a photograph that shows two black African men in uniforms to the right of a white man on a horse. This is reminiscent to the statue of Theodore Roosevelt located at the entrance of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. The statue is problematic as it depicts Roosevelt on a horse flanked by a Native American man and an African man standing below him. The statue is being openly discussed at the museum as it is seen as a “legacy of colonialism and a visually explicit racial hierarchy” (Coleman, 2019). At the American Museum of Natural History, they are creating contextualisation and a dialogue around an era of unpleasant history and racism. The vitrine on the Kielmeyer men places the photograph in context that is obtuse to the present world today. The shallow depth of the vitrines’ text is to the extent of ignorance.
Within the text defining Africa as the ‘black continent,’ there are references to evolution and how one of the Kielmeyer men formulated a similar theory before Darwin. Drawing attention to the scientific theory that many viewers understand as progressive, lesser to greater, is concerning as the Cabinet of Collections has already placed the viewer into the space that embraces the imperial canon of 19th Century. The militaristic and humanist approaches at the end of 18th Century created a moral confidence in the Western culture and its right to rule. This partly grew from
Johann Winckelmann’s influential study that classified ancient art into styles starting from ancient Egyptians, then Greek and Roman. By the early 19th Century, Winckelmann’s circular understanding of cultures was transformed into a linear progression leading to Western Civilisation, in align with the then new theory of evolution (Hoijtink, 2012). The evolutional interpretation of the progression of cultures places ancient Egypt as the lower civilisation that began the rise to the Roman Empire via Western Civilisation. This at the same time distances ancient Egypt from the ‘Orient’ culture in Egypt, while strengthening the West’s possession on the ancient culture.
The two African men in the photograph become the lone reference for the viewer to interpret the ‘black continent.’ The comparison of the photograph in the given context of evolution is imperceptive of the museum. The journal dated to 1839 has a drawing attached, it portrays three men that are easily labelled as exotic by their clothing and the desert landscape in the background. Again, like the photograph, the drawing has no context other than the journal entry, that is indecipherable. The men in the photograph and the drawing are not acknowledged. The lack of a relationship between the text and the Kielmeyer men’s belongings to Egypt creates a space where the viewer receives no tangible knowledge on the past or the knowledge that the museum guaranteed in their mission statement. The viewer will receive no ‘aha’ moments of understanding but instead is led to creating their own assumptions on the images and artefacts presented. Given that the key words are ‘black continent’, theory of evolution and unprovenanced Egyptian artefacts, the assumptions of the viewer are directed to become biased based the language the museum choose to use.
When referring back to Falk’s flow experience, it becomes increasing clear that this display’s continuous feedback brings forward a difficult narrative for the viewer. The interpretation of ancient Egypt given is as subjective as 19th Century ‘armchair archaeology.’ The last aspect, as well, is not represented, as there are no tasks demanded of the viewer. The narrative based around the collector’s appropriation of ancient Egypt negatively affects the displayed artefacts as well as the interpretation of the ancient Egyptian narrative by its viewers. The lack of comprehension between the material culture and the viewer is presented with a palimpsest of the colonial-era where the past layers have been erased. The museum’s titled Cabinet of Collections narrates the personalised impacts the collectors had on what they were collecting and the identities that were built. The museum’s use of historiography ‘to expose the conditions of the formation of
this knowledge’ gives the viewer a narrow portrayal of both materiality and agency found in ancient Egyptian collections.
The collected Egyptian material culture has been placed into a forced narrative and displayed with no epistemic value. The viewer is confronted with vitrines holding a large number of artefacts each defining a specific archaeological site in Egypt, an aspect of the ancient culture or a collector of curiosities. The Egyptian Museum of the University Bonn in a single room creates a semiotic space that confirms archival hierarchies and valuations nostalgically based on past modes of presentation. The collection history presented leans on collectors’ biographies and a version of ancient Egypt that pushes against today’s morals. The ancient Egyptian narrative is constructed purely on material culture’s empirical aspects rather than the aspect that material culture is active. There is no creation of agency, the viewer is confronted with artefacts but gains no understanding of ancient Egypt.
Allard Pierson: Re-Composition of Historical Boundaries
The Allard Pierson’s archaeological collection originated from the Classical and Egyptian collection of Dr. CW Lunsingh Scheurleer. His collection was purchased originally from Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bissing, an Egyptologist that excavated in Egypt and was a professor at Utrecht University. This Egyptian collection was then purchased by the Allard Pierson Foundation and later donated to the University of Amsterdam to facilitate the study of archaeology (Mondriaan Fonds, 2019). This leads to the establishment of the university’s museum in 1934. The archaeological collection of the Allard Pierson grew further from donated collections and the purchasing of private collections in the early 20th Century. In 1976, the museum moved to its current location in Amsterdam. The building was built in 1869 along the Amstel and was once the Bank of the Netherlands. The archaeological museum of the University of Amsterdam recently combined itself with the University’s Special Collections. This new institution is in the process of redesigning a new permanent exhibition. As of December 2019, the renovation is still underway, and the completion date is set for Spring 2020 (Allard Pierson, 2019).
The new permanent exhibition is titled ‘From the Nile to the Amstel,’ and will take the viewer on a journey beginning with prehistoric hunters in the Middle East and ending with the city of Amsterdam (Allard Pierson, 2019). During the renovations, Allard Pierson has remained open
to the public exhibiting their partially complete exhibition. The building’s original entrance was restored and is now the entrance to the Allard Pierson. From the walkway along the canal, the viewer enters a short one-story grand-entrée. If the viewer looks close enough at the delicate tile floor, the rails for loading money in and out of the Bank’s safe can still be seen. The 19th Century restoration is broken by a modern rotating glass door though continues upon entering with the large doorways and high ceilings of the past. The first floor uses old wooden display cases to sell merchandise and the chairs and leather couches for the café invoke a 19th Century study more than a newly built café. The ground floor is dedicated to Amsterdam in an exhibit called ‘Creative City,’ which is the ‘Amstel’ in their new permanent exhibition. The exhibition on the second floor displays their archaeological collection in sleek modern glass vitrines. This portion is separated into large themes that encompass set periods of time. They are titled: ‘Greek and Great Powers, 1000 - 335 BC,’ ‘From Alexander to Cleopatra, 335 - 30 BC’ and ‘From Rome to Romans, 35 BC - AD 500.’ Intermittently the viewer will find ‘cabinets,’ the term given by the museum, on particular cultural aspects or collectors. Along with authentic artefacts displayed the viewer can also find plaster casts of the originals from around the world.
The Allard Pierson’s archaeological exhibition features the ancient Mediterranean as a globalized world. The exhibitions are divided into time frames that highlight a ‘global power.’ The current, earliest time frame highlights Greek power over the Mediterranean, 1000 - 335 BC. Allotting the upcoming ancient Egyptian exhibition to be most likely based on the traditional kingdoms of Egypt, the earliest dynasties starting ca. 3000 BC and ending with the Ramesside Period in the New Kingdom around 1069 BC (Shaw, 2003). The Allard Pierson describes that their narrative “reveals the interchange between the ancient and the modern worlds and relates the story of ever-enquiring humankind” (2019). Reconfirming the role of museum exhibitions has shifted from the depending on the viewer’s passive gaze to creating meaning-making moments that apply to today’s viewer. Rami Daher and Irene Maffi stated exhibitions are beginning to spotlight moments of change, interconnections and regional mobility and the Allard Pierson is no exception (2014). These themes of change, interconnections and mobility are all narratives found within the ancient world. The Allard Pierson’s new permanent exhibition is an attempt to illustrate the ancient Mediterranean was not just fragmented civilisations or cultures. Their displays are modelled from current archaeological theory surrounding the ancient Mediterranean cultures.
The new archaeological views and interpretation on the ancient Mediterranean region started with Fernand Braudel’s publication, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, that differed from past research concerns with small pieces of the mosaic. Braudel focused on the large landscape of the Mediterranean region and states that this trivia of the past bears little relation to the “powerful march of history” (Braudel, 1975; p. 18). His concept investigates the Mediterranean region using globalism theories. This theory is transferred into Allard Pierson’s current exhibition by including artefacts from different cultures in one vitrine, instead of separately displaying them within their own timelines or classifications. Even though the ancient Egyptian exhibition of the new narrative is not completed, this mixture of artefacts from different regions and cultures gives a glimpse of the ancient Egyptian narrative through the narratives of Greek or Roman power. The Allard Pierson’s narrative is based on continuity and the relationships between the Mediterranean cultures, nevertheless classifications and identifications are still prominent elements used to create their exhibition text.
The viewer will not find the traditional exhibition space that depends solely on the classification of one civilisation. Rather the exhibition highlights elements such as power and mobility or religion and through these themes the museum places artefacts from different cultures within the same vitrine displaying associations and context rather than the archival narrative that stratifies the civilisations into a hierarchy. For example, in ‘Greek and Great Powers,’ one vitrine labelled ‘Religion’ includes six artefacts from the following locations: Italy, Egypt, Iran and Iraq. Current archaeological methods have focused on the ‘connectedness model,’ which looks at mobility, connectivity and dispersal of power. A very different perspective from the 19th Century methods of understanding history through their imperial and colonial societal makeup. In the Allard Pierson, the ancient cultures are examined through a lens that looks for connections, these relationships are seen in the varying degrees of influence on material culture and not through the lens of one culture having a complete dominion over the other (Morris, 2003).
Material culture from Egypt is present from the first to last vitrine in the exhibition. The continuation of ancient Egyptian artefacts visually allows the viewer to understand cultures did not die but social identities became intertwined and how intercultural encounters are revealed in material culture. This hybridity in ancient Egyptian material culture is a reflection of the ancient people’s fluid identity rather than acculture dominance of ancient Egypt by Greece and Rome. It
shifts the archaeological narrative from interpretation of artefacts to interpretation of relations, which is what the multicultural vitrines in the Allard Pierson are attempting to display.
The Allard Pierson’s main exhibition narrative is contextualised, but the relationship between the theme texts and artefacts’ labels creates a space where interpretation and comprehension are difficult for the viewer. In ‘Greek and Great Powers,’ under the theme titled ‘Everyday Life and Death’ the theme text describes everyday life in the context of women and children, and death:
Children often die, and famine, war and disease present an existential threat to everyone. Concern about the hereafter is expressed by the wealthy in their grave gifts…. Grave gifts thus bear witness to everyday life before death in cultures of which little has come down, apart from the graves. For example, the Egyptians place miniatures of servants (shawabtis) in the grave, and the Etruscans lay out entire cities of tombs for their dead (Allard Pierson, 2019).
To the left of this introductory text is a display that encloses three artefacts each from a different region: Greece, an oil flask titled ‘The Child in Ancient Athens;’ Italy, votive relief titled ‘Leaving Childhood Behind;’ and Egypt, piece of wooden sarcophagus titled ‘Death in Egypt.’ Drawing on keywords in the artefacts’ labels, the relationship between the theme text and the displayed material culture is unclear. The text introduces the concept of ‘grave gifts’ but none of the three artefacts are described as this type of material culture. Within the theme text, two cultures are mentioned: Egyptian and Etruscan. When reviewing the three artefacts none are labelled as Etruscan and Egypt is represented with a piece of sarcophagus, and not by shabtis (shawabtis), the material culture outlined in the theme text. The relationship between the artefacts and their labels do not produce an experience where the viewer can actively interpret the narrative presented. It is clear the Allard Pierson focuses on letting the artefact have the agency to push the narrative forward by focussing on artefacts’ biographies.
Within the ‘Everyday Life and Death’ vitrine is an artefact identified as a votive relief, its label describes the image on its surface: a young woman offering her ball to Persephone to mark the transition from childhood to adulthood and in the exchange of this votive, she is asking for protection from Persephone, patroness of marriage. To bring this ‘message-bearing entity’ back to life it is necessary to explore its past associations (Pearce, 1994). When reviewing the artefact’s label, it presents the functional use, votive relief, and the coded meaning, leaving childhood behind. The label neatly frames the artefact but its tone leaves little to be interpreted. The third
layer of the historical content is left out (Hodder, 1994). In other words, historical content becomes an agent that creates an association between the past and present. The lack of this layer does not enable spaces of meaning-making and contextualisation, this layer of agency may link unexpected relations or interpretations that can be understood by the viewer.
The Allard Pierson stresses artefacts’ biographies which can break down the production of meaning as well as bring forward new archaeological perspectives rather than archival narratives of the past. Generally, the ancient Egyptian narrative lacks the interconnecting layer that makes the material culture relatable to the viewer. In the time frame titled ‘Alexander to Cleopatra’ under the theme of religion, an unexpected association is created by displaying a stone-carved Buddha from Pakistan. The Buddha’s label explains the design was influence by Greco-Roman and Egyptian styles. The Allard Pierson displays strong artefacts that have interesting associations and biographies, but the lack of connections between the theme texts and artefacts’ labels creates a difficult space for the viewer to produce meaning around the ancient cultures.
The scope of the narrative is hard for the viewer to understand. The broader story of the Mediterranean region is not necessarily achieved. The Domitian stele, an artefact from Egypt collected by Egyptologist von Bissing, is displayed within ‘From Rome to Roman.’ The introduction to this section has the sub-title of ‘Diversity in the Roman Empire.’ The Domitian stele was placed in a theme called ‘Power: No Empire without an Army.’ This theme’s text does not mention power directly:
The Romans are able to greatly expand their empire thanks to a strong well-organised army. For the troops to be able to move fast, soldiers and slaves build an extensive road system, which also enables the inhabitants of distant provinces to travel more easily, conduct trade and even migrate.
Roman soldiers are sent to every corner of the empire where they build forts and mix with locals, many of whom sign on with the Roman army themselves. And so a Roman cavalry helmet turns up in Hispania (Spain), while a silver cup made in Italy ends up in Germania. Throughout the empire, people become more mobile. Batavians from the Low Countries enrol with the imperial bodyguard in Rome; Syrian merchants move their business to Britannia. Soon ideas and customs are being exchanged, and it becomes less apparent who is local and who is foreign. This cultural exchange on which the Roman clearly left their mark is called Romanisation (Allard Pierson, 2019).
The last sentence in the text above includes the word, ‘Romanisation.’ This word has a problematic past, it once meant the Roman Empire’s dominance over other ancient cultures. There has been a
shift in archaeology theory, where the monolith is now seen a heterogeneous society where local identities were emphasized. New approaches stress that the local identities’ transformations are a combination of cultural elements as a means to “articulate that local self-identity within the globalized environment” (Hodos, 2010; p. 83). During the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th Century when von Bissing was excavating and collecting in Egypt, nationalism and the need to connect to the Roman Empire, the civilized centre, highly impacted archaeological theories around Romanisation. The accultural theory of Rome’s dominance across the Mediterranean fit into the imperialistic paradigm of this time. New thoughts in the field of archaeology have redefined the word, Romanisation to mean an increase in interconnectivity. It becomes a mean of communication and exchange; where in the past the colonisers were seen as the dominant culture that came to ‘civilise’ the unknown.
It becomes difficult to understand the ancient Egyptian narrative and this text’s relationship with the Domitian Stele. Diversity is thoroughly described in this text, while most of the artefacts found in the vitrines under this text have artefact labels that exceedingly portray the dominance of the Roman Empire. This continued gap makes understanding the ancient cultures, including Egypt’s, difficult to contextualise. The Domitian Stele represents multiple cultures and its artefact biography reads similar to the main Egyptian narrative of continuity. It is a limestone stele portraying a Roman emperor as pharaoh offering a statuette of the goddess Maat to Re-Horakhty, a sun deity. The continuation of Egyptian tradition is preserved in the image of Maat and the traditional relief of a pharaoh making an offering to a deity. The Roman tradition is contextualized in the Griffin of Nemesis carved above Maat and naturalistic fleshiness portrayal of the Re-Horakhty and the emperor-pharaoh (Spier, Potts & Cole, 2018). In this context, the stele illustrates how the Roman and Egyptian culture intermixed, but the stele’s label states that Egyptian temples were used to tighten Roman control over Egypt (Allard Pierson, 2019). This contrast between the introduction text and the artefact’s label hinder the viewer’s contextualisation of ancient Egyptian materiality. The text under the title of ‘Power’ describes diversity and the artefacts in this display radiate as symbols of power, creating a space where meaning-making is challenging. The passive telling of Romanisation in the Allard Pierson’s narrative is furtherly expressed in the maps that introduce the time frames. The map introducing the earliest time frame, ‘Greek and Great Powers’ is oriented, so the West is not directly in the centre (figure 3). The different orientation does not continue in the map that introduces ‘From Rome to Romans,’ the map returns the common
orientation, placing the West in the centre. This subtle change in the positioning of the West does not assist the viewer to understand that cultural exchange was a two-way road.
The Allard Pierson is using the layers of agency found material culture, but the ancient Egyptian artefacts seen, and the text read by a viewer do not yield a meaning that is easily understood. Many of the ideas and theories presented will be relatively different than what a viewer may expect. The ancient Egyptian material culture are given as examples of continuity and change rather than the stepping stones for ‘greater’ civilisations, but this concept can be easily lost in the overwhelming number of classifications and identifications presented in each theme. The Domitian stele is an example of the multicultural approach the museum is hoping to create, instead this Egyptian artefact is used to portray the power of the Roman Empire. The exhibition is an attempt to break the linear narratives found in past collections that were gathered under archival narratives. The Allard Pierson’s concentration on artefact biographies misses the essential relation between the text and narrative that ignites the viewer’s experience and understanding. The last vitrine in ‘From Rome to Roman’ displays over twenty busts representing the diversity found in the Roman Empire. The viewer comes face to face with the past. Egyptian busts are included in this display and the viewer can find contrasts and associations in the representations similar to the style of the whole exhibition. The representation of ancient Egypt is constant, but the ancient Egyptian narrative is not, the artefact concentrated labels give the viewer small pieces of the mosaic, but the larger image is never truly revealed.
The viewer may visit an extension of the permanent exhibition, the ‘Cabinet of Collectors.’ In contrast to Allard Pierson’s attempt of creating an inclusive and post-colonial narrative, this room states ‘all roads lead to Rome.’ The main exhibition draws away from the traditional emphasis of intrinsic value and highlights cultural trends and interchange. The multicultural narrative of the museum is broken by the methods of display and the collector’s biographies used in this cabinet. The design places the value on possession rather than the layers of history found within artefacts. The Cabinet of Collectors was originally the registry room when the building was the Bank of the Netherlands and then it served as the museum’s director’s office. The renovations converted this ‘chic-style’ room into a space to contextualise the museum’s institutional historiography (Allard Pierson, 2019). The room continues the 19th Century nostalgia of the first floor, allowing the viewer to enter a place frozen in time. The walls are wood panelled, and the
windows are intricate stained-glass. There is a Greek-like frieze over a row of shelves that line most of the room.
The introduction panel portrays an endearing story of the creation of their ‘collection of collections,’ but there is no balance between the factual content, ‘what is the object,’ and the dynamic act of interpretation, ‘what is in ourselves.’ Susan Pearce explains, ‘what is in ourselves’ as a complex process relating to “the way in which the present is created from the past” (1994: 25). The Allard Pierson has chosen to tell this portion of their story through the biographical perspective of the collectors, ‘ourselves,’ rather than continuing the artefact-based narrative, ‘object,’ found in the main narrative. The collections are displayed in the bookshelves that are along the walls, each shelf is behind panelled glass (figure 4). The viewer is faced with an immense number of artefacts that represent each individual collection. The focal point for each vitrine is a black and white portrait of the ‘white’ collectors in the display. The collections’ classifications are stated in the brief biographical text such as “Classical and Egyptian Antiquities” or “antiquities from Greek and Roman Egypt,” were collected, but the text does not acknowledge the displayed material culture within the vitrines. The value of the artefacts is drawn away from their meaning in history to the intrinsic value of possession. Six of the nine collectors displayed in their cabinet had gathered material culture from Egypt. The approach of presenting European collecting of Egyptian artefacts in an historical mode extends the universal historical account and presents material culture as passive rather than active.
For an exhibition based on largely new archaeological approaches it is disappointing this does not continue within the Cabinet of Collectors. The methods of archaeology are not completely unbiased as the people interpreting the artefacts are subjective and are influenced by the ‘attitudes’ of their time. Post-processual archaeology emphasised archaeology was subjective and proposed there is room for interpretation when studying ancient societies and that material culture is more than empirical data. A pointed article titled “Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique [and Comments and Reply]” summarises historical studies are constructed from present existing outlooks. This debate did not only impact archaeological theory it opened the discussion to biases of past archaeological conclusions (Earle & Preucel, 1987). The narrative of the Cabinet of Collectors is dependent on material culture’s intrinsic value of being owned by Western people falls into the traps of 19th Century. No viewer entering this room leaves with a comprehensive understanding of the colonial-era impacts on intellectual knowledge and the consequences of
ransacking Egypt for antiquities. That at one point in the 1830s, the foreign ruler of Egypt, Mohamed Ali Pasha wanted to dismantle the Great Pyramids at Giza to build a dam to increase agricultural land in the Delta or that entire temples were dismantled by consul agents for resale (Thompson, 2015). Not addressing these consequences of imperial power and collecting continue the archival perspective that Egypt’s heritage is under the possession of the West. This is further perpetrated by the one-sided historical presentations of the collections in this cabinet.
The Allard Pierson’s cabinet creates similar biographical texts that were found in the University Bonn’s Egyptian Museum. The strictly encyclopaedic texts in Allard Pierson’s Cabinet of Collectors are under seventy words. One of the collectors highlighted is Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bissing. The museum highlights his contribution to the Allard Pierson’s collection as follows:
Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bissing was a prominent German Egyptologist with over 500 publications to his name. He was a keen collector of antiquities from Greek and Roman Egypt and was a professor in Munich and Utrecht. In the 1920s he was so short of money that he had to sell his collection, a large part of which went to Lunsingh Scheurleer and through him accrued to the museum (Allard Pierson, 2019).
A project called the ‘Bissing Link’ has researched this Egyptologist. Their research has surfaced cultural and historical relationships that may allow a viewer to better understand the early and mid-20th Century. Von Bissing was an Egyptologist operating under the Third Reich and was known as an anti-Semitic and nationalist politician (Mondriaan Fonds, 2019). The political perspective is not included or condoned within his biography. Though he was widely known as a Nazi, he was a professor at Utrecht University and was only dismissed from his position in 1926 for engaging in homosexual acts (Mondriaan Fonds, 2019). This information is absent from his biographical text found in the Allard Pierson. The Cabinet of Collectors’ basis on individual stories is meant for the viewer to understand collecting but how can that be done only through biographic text that does not include academic or political perspectives. The inclusion of a political perspective or an academic perspective could create a balanced narrative using historical content to find unexpected relationships and draw away from the conclusion that ‘white’ collectors are the owners of the past. The ancient Egyptian narrative within the main exhibition at the Allard Pierson has a postcolonial perspective in that the artefacts are not placed in a cultural hierarchical narrative. Within their Cabinet of Collectors, the Allard Pierson stressed why the collection is important to their institution and how these important collections were made into their ‘collection of
