Assyriology instead of Egyptology

hey, all. in relation to this old thread of mine, i've been thinking recently: what if some of the events that led to Egyptology as we know it never came to pass? what if, in its place, a different archaeological study--namely Assyriology (which encompasses Ancient Babylon and Sumeria as well as Assyria)--became the forefront of archaeology in popular culture, eg that ancient Mesopotamian mythology and religion replaces Egyptian mythology in broad popular culture (with Egypt being the more mysterious and less-known culture). for example, while mummies would undoubtedly become known to the world with the march of archaeological science into the future, it could very well be that TTL's version of "The Mummy" (envisioning the more recent series since i'm familiar with that one) would focus on Iraq and Syria rather than Egypt and the antagonist could potentially be Gilgamesh stealing peoples' life force to be immortal (inaccurate as hell, but hey, it's hollywood :rolleyes:)

i have a soft spot for Mesopotamian mythology, so i'd appreciate discussion on this
 
One issue is that Egyptian artifacts just tend to be that much more well preserved than Mesopotamian ones.

A second issue is that regarding your thoughts about the influence of Mesopotamian mythology on pop culture to moderns, I think Mesopotamian mythology is a bit more alien to most modern perspectives than Egyptian mythology is- the gods of Mesopotamia can seem rather cold and callous as a matter of practice.
 
A second issue is that regarding your thoughts about the influence of Mesopotamian mythology on pop culture to moderns, I think Mesopotamian mythology is a bit more alien to most modern perspectives than Egyptian mythology is- the gods of Mesopotamia can seem rather cold and callous as a matter of practice.

The latter half of the 19th century was a rather peaceful one for Europe. Outside of the Austro-Prussian War/Third War of Italian Independence and the Franco-Prussian War, there were no major campaigns on the continent, and both of those were the last of the 'traditional' European campaigns. If you introduce a conflict to the same scale as WWI, but with mid-to-late 19th century technology, something like an American Civil War transplanted to Europe, you'll see a pretty big shift in European social trends and how the Victorian Age is viewed ITTL.
 
Well, the majority of Egyptian sites best preserved are located in the Upper Nile. Which as a region really hasn't seen all that much conflict in its history.
 
Part of it was sort of faddish, however. The discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamen created an Egypt craze that inspired the mummy films and much of Art Deco's ornamentation among other things.

Perhaps if that discovery was delayed and if a comparable find had been made in Mesopotamia? Someone more familiar with archaeology could probably give an example.
 
It is faddish, but you'd need to start earlier. If the expedition to Egypt volumes are not published, you wouldn't see the Egyptian craze in early 19th century Europe. And if you get rid of Champollion, or delay the discovery of a bilingual inscriptrion, the deciphering of hieroglyphs could be belayed significantly.

A political POD in the early modern Middle East might be best. Ensure that Egypt is riven by internecine conflict and/or inaccessible to European archeologists without a death wish while Mesopotamia and the Persia are open earlier. Egypt will eventually be discovered, and it will stun collectors and archeologists, but by that time they will have learned to think in the grammar of the Mesopotamian cultures. So your Archeology 101 intro could go "And the Egyptians also built ziggurats, but they didn't put temples on them. They are called by the Greek term "pyramid" today."

Of course, there would be all kind of annoying mythology around the peaceful, matriarchal, mystical, inward-looking and beauty-obsessed Egyptians that must be true because I read it in a paperback.
 
I think the biggest issue is that Egypt already has a lot going for it. Think about how the Pyramids were long known to be the only surviving Wonder of the Ancient World, whereas the Mesopotamian ziggaruts, being made of mud brick usually, tended to be visually less impressive and less well preserved. The Great Ziggurat of Ur was excavated in the 1850s, but it looked more like a sort of 'hill too regular to be natural' than a pyramid. At a similar time (the 1840s to 1870s) we see the lamassu of Nimrod, the Bronze Gate of Balawat, friezes from the royal Palaces of Ahurbanipal at Nineveh and statues from the Palaces at Khrosoan arrive in the British Museum and the Louvre.

The biggest problem, IMO, is that Egypt has the mummies, the story of Anthony and Cleopatra and other stuff already in the conciousness of the wealthy even before Tutankhamun's tomb was uncovered. The Oxus Treasure and Standard of Ur just can't compare with that.
 
You could mess with the Napoleonic Wars quite a bit. Say Napoleon doesn't invade Egypt, which stays nominally part of the Ottoman Empire (so the European archaeologists never get their hands on the Rosetta Stone etc) so Egypt remains a mystery for longer. Then you could have Egypt successfully breaking off and staying independent throughout the 19th century, so European archaeologists never loot most of Egypt's ancient sites, and Egyptian are responsible for most archaeological work there until some point in the 20th century when Egypt opens up. This way Europeans are never exposed to much of it.

You could also (not completely sure how) have Napoleon launch an alternate campaign in Mesopotamia. It wouldn't be that impossible considering how irrelevent the whole Egypt campaign was. Maybe Napoleon could keep the alliance with the Ottomans and allied with them attack Persia through Mesopotamia, and again draw all the links with Alexander the Great there. After all Mesopotamia was part of the core of the Achaemenid Empire, and Babylon was Alexander's capital. Alternately you could have Napoleon and Russia actually carry out their plans and invade the Ottoman Empire, and Napoleon or one of his marshals fights a campaign in Mesopotamia, maybe a major battle near the site of Gaugamela too might encourage interest from the European public. Either way when the invasion happens, Napoleon takes all the experts he otherwise took to Egypt, and Babylon, Assyria and Sumer come to dominate the European consciousness of the mysterious East.

Great topic btw oshron, I too think that Mesopotamia doesn't get anywhere near enough love!
 
As I recall, at least in the ideas behind it, Egypt was relevant - it wasn't picked by throwing darts at a map.

And would those experts necessarily discover anything as, in a word, obvious?

Stuff for people to grab on to and lead to Asyriology developing like Egyptology did.

I'm not concerned which gets love, but I think Egypt is more likely to get it.
 
Ok, this is going to be a bit of a stupid question, but how was cuneiform deciphered? Discovering the Rosetta Stone was a boon for Egyptology, and I am just assuming that Cuneiform was cracked through people just plugging away at it for decades; that makes Egypt low hanging fruit so to say.

I mean, Egypt has a lot more going on with the well known ancient past and better preserved Pre-Islamic ruins. Plus, Egypt has always been a major part of the Mediterranean as a major trade area, and Mesopotamia is further away from Europe and deeper in Ottoman territory.
 
Egyptology really rose to prominence after the French invaded, especially as it led to Champollion's decipherment of Hieroglyphics.

If instead of Egypt, a European expediition had conquered Syria, leaving Egypt under the Mamelukes as a satellite of the Ottomans, then maybe Assyrianism would have had the push it needs for this

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Last edited:
Ok, this is going to be a bit of a stupid question, but how was cuneiform deciphered? Discovering the Rosetta Stone was a boon for Egyptology, and I am just assuming that Cuneiform was cracked through people just plugging away at it for decades; that makes Egypt low hanging fruit so to say.

I mean, Egypt has a lot more going on with the well known ancient past and better preserved Pre-Islamic ruins. Plus, Egypt has always been a major part of the Mediterranean as a major trade area, and Mesopotamia is further away from Europe and deeper in Ottoman territory.

Another problem is that Cuniform's Rosetta Stone Equivilent was the Behistun Inscription in Persia. There was some work pushing forward in the 1830s as it was, but yeah that's a long way for Napoleon to have to go to get to it.

And as for attacking Syria, the problem there is that Egypt was attacked because it was considered to be a position where a fleet could be assembled in the Indian Ocean to then attack India.
 
Part of it was sort of faddish, however. The discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamen created an Egypt craze that inspired the mummy films and much of Art Deco's ornamentation among other things.

Perhaps if that discovery was delayed and if a comparable find had been made in Mesopotamia? Someone more familiar with archaeology could probably give an example.
The royal tombs at Ur would be an obvious option for this. If Leonard Wooley gets funding a touch earlier and Howard Carter doesn't stumble upon Tutankahmen's tomb when he does that would perhaps lessen the egyptology craze. Another option might be managing to put a proper archaeologist in Nimrud and having him find the Assyrian royal tombs that were OTL excavated in the 1980s. Might having the inscriptions of Naqsh-i-Rustam or Persepolis published earlier help? IIRC, they're both easier to get to than Behistun and Persepolis at least has several nice long inscriptions in Old Persian complete with trilinguals mixed in.
 
Another problem is that Cuniform's Rosetta Stone Equivilent was the Behistun Inscription in Persia. There was some work pushing forward in the 1830s as it was, but yeah that's a long way for Napoleon to have to go to get to it.

And as for attacking Syria, the problem there is that Egypt was attacked because it was considered to be a position where a fleet could be assembled in the Indian Ocean to then attack India.

If you were going to go by land instead, then Syria-Mesopotamia would make more sense?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
If you were going to go by land instead, then Syria-Mesopotamia would make more sense?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

But you wouldn't go by land because that would be making it harder for yourself and you'd have to invade Persia, the Mughal Empire and whatever other states are inbetween.

Remember, this is Napoleon thinking 'after I've destroyed the Royal navy, I'll go annex British India'.
 
Top