Egyptian archaeology (original) (raw)

The Egyptian archaeological record, with its almost intact temples, vividly decorated tombs, relatively undisturbed desert sites, and incredible preservation of organic materials, makes for an embarrassment of riches. The effect of this was that until recently Egyptian archaeologists felt that this wealth of information simply spoke for itself. Wood, papyrus, textiles, basketry, leather, zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical remains were recovered without diffi culty. The uniqueness of their preservation was often not even recognized and exploited, because these organic materials represented only a fraction of an impressive material culture, and an equally impressive textual record. No need was felt for an approach that would explicate research questions, and provide a theoretical framework to enhance our knowledge. Consequently, very few publications on Egyptian archaeology specifi cally mention method or theory. In the 1960s and 1970s, while much of world archaeology was participating in, or at least aware of, the debates, Egyptian archaeology was ancillary to Egyptology (Andr é n 1998 :37 -38). In both scholarly and popular publications one encounters unspecifi ed claims phrased as " archaeology has shown that … . " The misunderstanding here is, of course, that archaeology is not capable of " showing " something. It is the careful weighing of information, and the explication of how data are collected and taken to relate to the research question and theoretical context, which contributes to our knowledge. This na ï ve take on what archaeology is, and how it relates to our (re)construction of the past, was an effect of Egyptology ' s focus on textual sources, while archaeology ' s task was to provide illustrations or support for the texts.