ARCHAEOLOGY AND ORIENTALISM

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1-1-2004

Abstract

This chapter argues that Edward Said’s conception of “orientalism” is an inadequate lens through which to understand the history of European archaeological engagements in the Near East, South Asia, and East Asia. First, Europeans did not think of the “Orient” as entirely Other; as Christians, they knew their own civilization had originated in the Near East. Second, Said does not appreciate the important relationships between oriental scholarship and the interpretation of the Bible, and the deep ways in which Europeans after the Reformation were inclined to seek texts rather than objects in the East. Third, long before the great age of empire-founding, Europeans had already adopted aesthetic norms which inclined them to treat Asian artifacts as the monstrous or curious rather than beautiful. All of these factors shaped European collecting habits even before the founding of the Continent’s major public museums and the birth of archaeology proper. Understanding these factors allows for a deeper grasp of the unfolding of the various antiquities rushes during the period of Europe’s imperial dominance; it also permits us to see how much the collecting of previously little-appreciated “oriental” artifacts actually did disrupt long-held prejudices and prepared the way for multicultural understandings.

Publication Source (Journal or Book title)

The Oxford Handbook of the History of Archaeology

First Page

715

Last Page

735

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS