Indeed, a review of the literature reveals that most Egyptological studies leap from selective quotations of Greco-Roman sources and the Bible directly to Enlightenment scholarship—entirely bypassing the Islamic centuries. In contrast, a study of medieval Muslim writings shows that scholars of the Islamic world developed a variety of analytical methods, made early attempts to decipher ancient Egyptian scripts, and sought to understand the religious practices, mummification techniques, and administrative structures of ancient Egypt. This evidence challenges the narrative promoted by many Western historians of archaeology who assert that archaeology only emerged as a legitimate field in the 19th century. While it is true that modern archaeology introduced novel techniques—particularly in archaeometry and dating methods—this should not imply a wholesale rejection or neglect of earlier traditions of inquiry.

In fact, this issue extends beyond archaeology to disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and the history of religions. It is often claimed, for example, that the history of religions began with the work of the German philologist Max Müller (d. 1900). However, as early as the 10th century, Muslim scholars made significant contributions to this field. Figures such as Ibn al-Nadīm (d. 995 [?]), al-Bīrūnī (d. 1061 [?]), and al-Shahrastānī (d. 1153) elevated the comparative study of religion to a high intellectual level. Yet, a key distinction must be made between the intellectual encounters that produced these two traditions. The evolution of the social sciences has often been shaped by encounters—whether cooperative or conflictual—between different societies. For Muslims, meaningful interaction with followers of other faiths fostered the production of notable works in the field of religious studies.

By contrast, the 19th-century emergence of the social sciences in the West coincided with the colonial subjugation of non-Western societies. The nature of these encounters fundamentally differed: the Islamic tradition was driven by recognition and acquaintance, whereas the colonial enterprise was motivated by knowledge for the sake of domination. This fundamental difference explains the enduring relevance and reliability of the information provided by scholars like Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Bīrūnī, and al-Shahrastānī concerning other religious traditions. Unfortunately, modern academic discourse often ignores these early Muslim contributions, perpetuating a limited and Eurocentric view of the history of knowledge.

Plundering the Past

From its very inception in the Western world, archaeology has been intricately linked with colonialism and Orientalism—a connection that is hardly surprising. In the 19th century, European powers viewed virtually all non-European lands as potential colonies. Military expeditions were frequently accompanied by so-called scientific missions. This trend, which began with Napoleon’s campaign in Egypt, was soon adopted by other European empires. While armies occupied and exploited the land above, the rich cultural substratum beneath regions such as Mesopotamia and Egypt—areas far more archaeologically fertile than Europe—was subjected to plunder by adventurous, often unscrupulous figures posing as archaeologists or antiquarians. Artifacts removed from these regions were smuggled into Europe through various means and have since begun to be exhibited in some of the world’s most prestigious institutions, such as the British Museum, the Louvre, the Berlin Museum, and museums in Copenhagen.

European interest in archaeology was further fueled by a fascination with biblical geography. The ruins and artifacts brought back from lands referenced in the Bible, along with publications introducing these distant geographies, captivated European audiences. Moreover, imperial powers found in these antiquities a symbolic resource to bolster their claims to civilizational prestige. Competing for global dominance, European states sought to portray themselves as the legitimate heirs of ancient empires. In fact, colonialism was often justified by drawing parallels between modern imperial practices and the ancient expansion of Mesopotamian civilizations. Just as the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians were thought to have disseminated their innovations through conquest, European powers positioned themselves as their modern successors in spreading civilization—again, by way of domination.

This narrative of continuity helped solidify a Western claim not only to political authority over foreign lands but also to the archaeological and cultural legacies buried within them. Recognizing this exploitation of archaeology as a tool of imperialism, the Ottoman Empire began to take protective measures. Thanks to the initiatives of Osman Hamdi Bey, legal frameworks were established—most notably the promulgation of the Asar-ı Atîka (Antiquities) Regulations—aimed at preventing the illicit export of cultural artifacts. The founding of the Imperial Museum (Müze-i Hümâyun) in Istanbul, and later in Jerusalem—particularly as biblical archaeology gained traction—marked further efforts to institutionalize heritage preservation within the Empire. However, these developments elicited negative reactions in European media. The prospect of an Ottoman institution rivaling Western museums sparked discomfort. Western discourse, grounded in the belief that it was both the rightful ruler of the earth’s surface and the custodian of the treasures beneath it, advanced the claim that Eastern societies—past and present—lacked a meaningful connection to material culture and archaeology. According to this worldview, civilization began in Mesopotamia, passed through Egypt and Greece, and ultimately reached its culmination in Europe. Anatolia, within this framework, was depicted merely as a bridge, a conduit for civilizational transmission. Yet subsequent archaeological discoveries have challenged this Eurocentric narrative. Sites such as Göbekli Tepe, Çayönü, and Çatalhöyük reveal that Anatolia was not merely a passageway, but a cradle of advanced and complex human settlement in its own right. These findings clearly illustrate that Eurocentrism was not limited to shaping the modern political order but also played a pivotal role in the very construction and interpretation of the past.

Conclusion

It is difficult to assert that Muslims have fully confronted the profound trauma they experienced in the 19th century—a rupture that spanned political, social, economic, cultural, and intellectual dimensions. The responses that have emerged in an attempt to comprehend this multifaceted rupture often appear partial and fragmented. This, in part, reflects an inadequate grasp of the complexity of the historical moment. Despite being significantly implicated in this historical juncture, Muslims have largely remained indifferent to fields such as material culture, cultural heritage, and archaeology. Yet it is well known that Western hegemony has exerted its influence not only over the present but also in shaping our understanding of the past. This influence is observable in numerous domains, from the inclusion of archaeological sites in World Heritage lists to the interpretative frameworks applied to material culture. It is particularly telling that even the nascent field of “Islamic Archaeology” has emerged primarily from Western academic traditions, with relatively few Muslim scholars engaged in the discipline. The issue at stake, however, is not merely one of scholarly identity, but rather the interpretive paradigms applied to material culture. Similarly, the relationship between Muslims and cultural heritage is often framed through selective and exceptional cases—such as the destruction of the Buddha statues by the Taliban in 2001 or the damage inflicted by ISIS on the ancient city of Palmyra. These acts are frequently interpreted as indicative of a broader Islamic iconoclasm, and at times equated with Byzantine iconoclastic movements. Rather than focusing on a few exceptional cases, attention should be directed to the fact that these artifacts have survived intact for fourteen centuries under Muslim rule. In contrast, the destruction caused by French researchers in Palmyra in their attempt to foreground the Roman heritage, as well as the significant damage inflicted by Israel in Gaza and by the United States in Iraq on cultural heritage, are often overlooked. In sum, it is imperative that Muslims—and indeed all other civilizational spheres—strengthen their relationship with archaeology and cultural heritage. Only through such engagement can a non-colonial and inclusive paradigm be developed, one that embraces the shared past of all humanity. Nations that can liberate their histories from the shadow of colonialism will be better equipped to build futures grounded in intellectual and cultural sovereignty.

Çelik, Zeynep. Asar-ı Atika: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Arkeoloji Siyaseti. İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2016.

El-Daly, Okasha. Kayıp Binyıl: İslam Dünyasında Hiyeroglifler ve Eski Mısır. Trans. Ümran Küçükislamoğlu. İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları, 2013.

Flood, Finbarr Barry. “Between Cult and Culture: Bamiyan, Islamic Iconoclasm, and the Museum.” The Art Bulletin 84, no. 4 (2002): 641–659.

Hemdānī, Ahmed b. Yaʿqūb. al-Iklīl. Baghdad, 1980.

Idrīsī, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Anwār ʿuluww al-ajrām fī al-kashf ʿan asrār al-ahrām. Frankfurt, 1988.

Mulder, Stephennie. “Imagining Localities of Antiquity in Islamic Societies.” International Journal of Islamic Architecture 6, no. 2 (2017): 229–254.

Toprak, Bilal. Din Arkeolojisi ve Göbekli Tepe. İstanbul: MilelNihal Yayınları, 2020.

Trigger, Bruce. Arkeolojik Düşünce Tarihi. Trans. Fuat Aydın. Ankara: Eskiyeni Yayınları, 2014.