The Colonial Fantasy of Foreign and Exotic Histories

Indiana Jones carefully holds the bag, roughly the same weight of the idol on the stoop he
wishes to claim. With a deft motion of hand he swaps the golden head relic with his little bag. He
boldly escapes, only to run into a cadre of angry looking natives, armed with primitive weapons,
body paint and a heap of aggression. Jones outmaneuvers them, makes it to his schooner and
heroically brings the looted artifact back to the museum, where it belongs. Though I love the
Indiana Jones trilogy, there is an attitude running through the films that represents the epitome of
western cultures dismissal of other cultures right to history. Lets look at what dear Indy has
done, shall we? He is in a foreign nation, apparently without consent of its government to claim a
physical piece of their history, he takes the shiny object, neglecting the rest of the temple (and
destroying it), then he escapes the bad guys. All in one go we see the overriding of a non-white
nations sovereignty, taking an object of historical and fiscal value to put on display in a western
nation, and a disregard for the clearly upset population living in proximity to an ancient site.
Now, fairness where its due, this movie is not an accurate depiction of how archaeology actually
works, but the dominant white supremacist attitude in Indys actions do highlight some moral
questions to pose towards modern archaeology as a field and reflect the cultural attitude of
western nations of commodifying history and historical artifacts as exotic. This attitude is a
direct remnant of colonial attitudes towards those Western Europe subjected, and still carries
many material disadvantages to those outside of the white supremacy ring. The academic
principles guiding archaeology, the politics of historical sites and artifacts, and the
commodification of foreign cultural heritage are all material representations of the ways in which
colonial white supremacy still affects subjugated groups today.

Academic Principles in Archaeology

Archaeology is the study of history via the excavation and study of historical sights and
artifacts. This is a vague, though encompassing definition of what archaeology is as an academic
field. What this definition does not provide, is an origin of archaeology. It is a relatively young
field, only being formally acknowledged in the mid nineteenth century in the wake of
Egyptomania, which refers to the craze Europeans had over the acquisition of Egyptian artifacts.
Archaeology is often looked at as a departure from the reckless destruction of sites that could be
historically relevant in an effort to extract valuable artifacts expediently. This archaeological
society, however, was made by European academic centers, for the benefit of giving European
historical studies a wider breadth. It abstracted from the pure economics of lootings, allowing
academics to comfortably loot n learn. The handling of artifacts and treatment of natives didnt
change very much, only now it was academic and explicitly approved of by the powers that be.
Archaeology was made by and for Europeans, and while it was a step up from desecrating local
historical sites, the point of forming the standardized practices of archaeology and discouraging
looting was not explicitly for the benefit of preserving history for a countrys natives, but for the
acquisition of it for Europeans.
This is archaeologys origin, though its face has changed for the better since its inception,
the euro-originated themes of this field of study still run as its foundations and has effects on its
modern methods of study. Even away from the actual field work of archaeology, there are
colonial sentiments at play. For example, when analyzing a society, archaeologists look for
evidence of ironworks, use of symbols and plant domestication to be markers for cultural
advancement and success (Ferris 424). These foundations of Europes cultural priorities, and can
only tell a the story of a culture through specifically European lenses, which leaves the field of

archaeology inadvertently turning the study of history into a comparison of every foreign culture
to that of the culture that managed to subjugate the rest through greed and military might. It does
in part explain why the parts of history considered to be the most intriguing to western society
centers around conquerors. There is a seemingly compulsive tendency of western white societies
to farm, categorize and benchmark phenomena of other cultures that are not native to them.
Benchmarking, farming and categorizing the features of other races and cultures in such a way
that grossly oversimplifies them and casts these groups as inferior is at the heart of many
European notions of the colonial era. Though as an academic field archaeology has made many
strides to move away from this paradigm, its politics remain dubious and carry the scent of
colonial power.
Politics of Historical Sites and Artifacts
Archaeological dig sites have conditions attached to them that most either deprioritize or
dont know about. The process of how a dig proceeds may shine some light on these
aforementioned conditions. When an archaeological dig begins that region must be expunged of
any non-archaeology related elements, which frequently includes citizens. Egyptians have
naturally formed communities near and around the monuments of their ancient past; they come
from those monuments, and exist by them. They have themselves become part of these
monuments, but have also repeatedly been moved away from them, for the safety of the
monuments themselves (Meskell 153). These commands and desires stem from a very colonial
mindset that Egyptians themselves will not treasure or manage these historical resources that
they have and they must be managed for them. It is also very noteworthy that an incredibly low
number of archaeological projects are launched domestically, that is, almost all archaeology
expeditions are launched from western nations. These expeditions offer little in the way of access

to be a part of the archaeological team for any domestic entrants, unless manual labor counts.
There is a clear divide between the people of a nation, and their history that archaeological
expeditions wish to demarcate. It is less problematic for their purposes, but this time-honored
methodology is based on the imperial colonial model, one that disrespects native sovereignty and
the rights to their history. Their sites are not being used in the European vision of how they
should be, and so they are taken and made a commodity.
The nature of an excavation site is such that it is physically a part of a nation, but that
requirement does not extend to the artifacts archaeologists may find there. Ancient artifacts of
civilizations long past were considered a resource to colonial powers, and were harvested, and
exported as such. It was not until 1970 that international law to protect antiquities from being
stolen and looted from countries of their origin. The modern international community would say
that antiquities are first and foremost the property of the governments that reign over them, and
this law is meant to enforce that notion, allowing nations to legally claim any found artifact as
belonging to them. It raises the question of every other artifact taken before 1970, and the answer
is to return the smaller ticket items for good will. The Rosetta Stone, however, is unlikely to
leave British hands. Despite Egypts expressed desire for this artifact, it is still held in the British
Museum. It was stolen by the French, and then in turn stolen by the British following the fall of
Napoleon. The Rosetta stone marks an incredible advancement in the deciphering of
hieroglyphics, but is also a monument to the colossal disregard of colonial sovereignty over the
objects from their history. To proudly display that artifact is to proudly display that the British
were righteous in taking it and keeping it against the will of its rightful owners. Words against
the negative effects of colonialism are cheap, but trying to make amends for them merits a half
effort at best for museums of colonial privilege.

Commodification of Cultural Heritage

So far it has been mainly the physical symptoms of a deeper problem being discussed, but
the driving force behind archaeologys inception was the simplistic fantasy of Egypts history
and the desire to sell it. Egypt, though certainly not the only country to suffer from this, stands as
a highlighted example of archaeologys relationship to owning culture. Part of this simplification
lies in the truth that Egypts historys depth and complexity outweigh that of the European
modern age (following the dark ages), and so the oriental and simplistic interpretation of Egypts
history became essential to maintain a status of being the superior society. Exporting artifacts in
masse from Egypt became a way to turn this fetishization into a commodity, but artifacts are only
the physical part of it. The warped history of Egypt served also as a vessel for entertainment and
commodification in of itself, making for a long and profitable set of films, novels and other
media releases that played on the infantilization of Egypts history, but also the European claim
over it. Cleopatra was played by Elizabeth Taylor and was portrayed as an icon of sexual fantasy
and oriental intrigue, while still also maintaining the accessibility of white viewers by casting
Cleopatra herself as white.