in Egypt, Bernardino Drovetti. Other institutions followed suit. This inclu-
sion of Egyptian antiquities into the educational project of the museum
symbolized both how acceptable it had become to appropriate ancient
works of art of the Great Civilizations geographically located in other coun-
tries, and a greater degree of institutionalization that archaeology was attain-
ing as a discipline. The legitimization of transport of ancient works of art to
the main centres of European power as a means of rescuing them became
common. Years after the French attempt and the British seizure of Egyptian
antiquities, Colonel Vyse excused the sending of the sarcophagus found in the
pyramid of Mycerinus to the British Museum with similar arguments.
Unfortunately, this piece never arrived in England for the ship in which it
was transported sank. The sarcophagus cover, however, had a better fate for
it was sent on a diVerent ship and was exhibited for several years, after which
it was put in storage in a depot (Clayton 1982: 69). Egyptian antiquities were
eventually displayed in the Louvre from 1827, a year after Champollion had
been made their keeper (Clayton 1982: 47; Gran-Aymerich 1998: 82, 100).
Likewise, years later in Berlin an Egyptian museum was opened with about
15,000 objects and moulds collected during the 1842–5 Prussian expedition
to Egypt and Nubia. Its leader, Richard Lepsius (1810–84), was made the
museum director (Clayton 1982: 50).
The importance of antiquities in museums as an educational device was a
symptom of an incipient degree of professionalization, by which scholars
were paid by the state to work in the study of antiquities. This initial process
of institutionalization of archaeology, however, soon showed its weakness. An
analysis of the protagonists makes this especially evident: most of the anti-
quarians mentioned in this chapter were actually artists, architects, or were
intellectuals from other backgrounds who felt conWdent in interpreting the
ancient past. Although some became integrated into the incipiently institu-
tionalized archaeological sector, this was not common. A comparison with the
same situation during the eighteenth century would show that institutions
such as societies and associations were not structurally aVected. As then, most
were the result of private initiatives, and in them the Enlightened notion of
sociability still continued to be linked to patriotism. Even in museums, a
closer look reveals the embryonic stage of professionalization. The jobs
created were far from well-established. Champollion’s post as Keeper of
Egyptian Antiquities, for example, lay vacant for almost twenty years after
his tenure. A similar negligence occurred with respect to Champollion’s
teaching of Egyptian antiquities. After teaching a free public course on
Egyptian archaeology in the Louvre, in 1831 the Colle`ge de France created a
chair in archaeology for him. Although after his death in 1837 this post was
Wlled by Jean Leclant (1787–1848), from Leclant’s death the chair was not
76 Early Archaeology of Great Civilizations