The State Hermitage Museum: Information

They made no way to Tutankhamun
Article in St Petersburg Vedomosti
24 February 2011 (No. 033)

Today the events taking place in Egypt are actively discussed.

I was lucky enough to live and study in this country. I know firsthand what the protest of a crowd is. I was there at the time of Nasser when student unrest was not uncommon. Egyptians have special national character, own culture of rallies and protests.

In Egypt, mass rallies may be called self-organizing. Even on television it is seen that one person sits on the shoulders of others, shouting slogans repeated by people that surround them. I would call this behavior a part of local folklore, part of nature and the Egyptian culture. But lately, Egyptians have been devoid of a possibility to freely exercise their protests, as it was under Nasser. Now almost theatrical protests have became rare. This is one of the usual things that has been taken away from Egyptians, against which, in particular, they objected. What happened there is still not quite clear. Although, of course, there were reasons for the unrest. From this perspective, the lessons of Egypt are important for all.

Mubarak continued Sadat’s policy. Its includes market economy, elimination of the socialist system of management, openness to the world, friendship with all, including Israel, restoring the international role of Egypt. All was done but there arose a sharp divide between the rich and the poor, and the possibility of holding public rallies was limited.

I have seen Egypt in different years. Today Egyptians live poorly. However not worse than it was under Nasser and perhaps even better. The middle class is certainly better. But, again, the difference between the rich and the poor has become too obvious. A significant part of Egyptian youth claims to take the best share. Young people have received some education but they cannot rely on anything other than the public service. The level of education does not allow to succeed in the industry, economy or banking sector.

Another thing must be mentioned. In Egypt, the word "Pharaoh" has two meanings. Pharaoh is the name of the great kings of ancient Egypt in which they take pride. Especially in the beginning of the century. Somewhat later there emerged a demand for different countries to return exported antiquities to Egypt. The Egyptian museum is a symbol of the national pride.

"Pharaoh" is used in the Quran and the Bible. There, Pharaoh is a negative figure, vile tyrant who did not allow the Jews to leave Egypt. Sadat was heavily islamized, and Mubarak, continuing his policy, put Islam aside. Gradually, in the minds of people he has become a pharaoh which makes it difficult to live. One did not let the Israelis to cross the Red Sea, the other does not allow to exercise protests on the streets. These notions are played over in people’s minds. What is going to happen is unknown, although the Quran has the conclusion. There, the Pharaoh pursued the Israelites, they passed through the sea, and he drowned. But God had mercy on him and threw him on a shore for the edification of future generations. He almost forgave him. Now, Mubarak is also on the shore of Sharm el-Sheikh. Everything is described in the Quran.

Representation of the bad Pharaoh is also manifested in the situation with the Egyptian museum. In one of the first responses to blogs on violence from the crowd it was said: these are not our valuables, they should be thrown out and destroyed. In Afghanistan, the Taliban destroyed Buddha statues. In the Egyptian museum, mummies’ heads were torn off, it was no robbery.

One can compare what happened in Iraqi and Egyptian museums. This example is a warning to all. You cannot hold political rallies where there is a museum. In such situations it is always in danger. I know Cairo’s Tahrir Square, I am very sorry for it as I imagine what it looked like after Egyptians lived on it for eighteen days. There is the Arab League, next to it the building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hilton Hotel, the Office of Antiquities, and numerous cafes. It is a nice place but when there appears a crowd it becomes dangerous. Despite the fact that the Egyptian crowd is controllable. In Egypt, if cars crash, people will jump out, holding sticks, and swear, and it seems they are about to kill each other. But they will shout and then peacefully disperse.

Though the crowd in Egypt is self-regulatory, it is clear that the Muslim brotherhood has had a hand in what has happened. When I studied in Cairo, I saw how they work in youth organizations, in the social sphere. They work quietly, and then suddenly there emerges a league, which already includes the ideology. They know how to regulate outdoor unrest: how to direct and stop the crowd. Therefore, the Egyptian unrest, compared to the Tunisian one, was much calmer. This is the result of activity of grassroots mass organizations associated with Islam. They do not stand out, keep a low profile, but clearly want to show that there is order, and look what happens next.

Many analysts have written: we were fooled with Islamism, and the causes of unrest are purely social. All is according to Marxism. Indeed, to a large extent, unrest is a manifestation of the social protest. What we have now in Egypt is similar to the situation in 1952 when the revolution took place. "Muslim Brotherhood" was a mass movement which realized it. Officers took advantage of the situation. Then there emerged the opposition between the army and the huge Muslim masses with religious ideology. Nasser began to feel pressure. He imprisoned, hanged, and destroyed many people. Now there is no confrontation but again there are two forces - the army, which holds all in its hands, and the public masses.

It is interesting to compare the attitude of the army and the people to museums in Iraq and Egypt. The Iraqi museum from the very beginning was in the focus of military actions. This story was well analyzed by Americans who wanted to explain that they are not to blame for what happened. Nobody thought that the museum should be excluded from the scope of military actions - neither Americans who fired, nor Iraqis who set a firing point there. In the Iraqi museum, among those who could plunder were American soldiers, which hardly corresponds to reality, and the crazy crowd.

In Egypt, a crowd looted a shop of museum souvenirs, thinking that these are the real exhibits. The crowd is always followed by plunderers who are looking for something more valuable, which happened on the very first night. Then there appear antiquity plunderers who know where to enter and what to take. They have not made their way to Tutankhamun, where, obviously, they intended to enter. Messages are unclear but they managed to take something. There is a speculation that, as in Iraq, in Egypt museum attendants took part in the robbery as well. For plunderers, in order to get into the museum, for example, through the roof, someone had to help them. In Egypt, they came round and put things in order quicker than in Iraq, although theft and attacks on antiquity outside the walls of the museum took place there as well. Organized part of people formed a human chain, holding the crowd back. When the army arrived, it took the museum under protection. The army, as the symbol of pharaonic ideal, defended the country’s cultural heritage.

Iraq was prepared for attack. As it turned out, much of the museum treasures has been taken out, placed in the bank and other repositories. In Egypt, the Army was not prepared for attack but it quickly arranged the protection of the museum and the suburbs where monuments are available. The heritage was protected.

A comparison of the events which took place on the squares in Egypt and Iraq can be made. The history of the statue of Saddam is known. Television showed the footage as a rope was put around his neck and he was dropped off the pedestal. Meticulous Americans figured out how it happened. All action took place by Palestine Hotel where mostly journalists were present. The monument was overthrown by several Iraqis and American soldiers who helped them. This action was not planned beforehand. Among the spectators were many journalists, basically, they filmed each other. Therefore, participants of this scene were not shown at a close range. It can be concluded that the manifestation of protest in this case was not massive, though a statue of a tyrant, who was hated, was overthrown. I know how horrendous it was to live in Iraq under Saddam, people were arrested and killed.

In Egypt, the movement at Tahrir Square was massive. This can be judged by faces of participants. First, there were the faces of declassed people. Egyptian television showed arrested looters. Gradually there began to appear intelligent people, older people, peasants and common people. The society was formed with unexpected unity. There was an explosion of resentment against the man who became a symbol of all that is necessary to destroy. Once we experienced this as well. The crowd eagerly undertakes to overthrow something without thinking what it would receive in return.

Let’s see what happens next. At first glance, it might seem that there emerged new relationships, ideas, a new course of revolutionary struggle. In fact, all is as before. Driving forces are masses, the army, and religion. Religion is no good or bad, different movements can be covered by it. In Iran, people came to the square from the mosque. Mosque - sermon - demonstration. In Egypt, people went to the streets not because of religion. There, unrest had a social background. There is a Marxist thesis: class struggle is taking place in the world, and it may take any forms.