Acknowledging Imperialism through The Mummy (1932)

Jessica Parant, Spinsters of Horror

Westerners have a long history of going into conquered nations and extracting artifacts all in the name of science. Egypt has perhaps suffered the most at the hand of European imperialism in the name of colonization. The Mummy (1932) is a pre-code American horror film directed by Karl Freund about a pair of British archaeologists who inadvertently bring the ancient Egyptian priest Imhotep (Boris Karloff) back to life. Imhotep then searches for his lost love, who was reincarnated as Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann), a modern half-Egyptian woman. The Mummy is not only a tale about love and superstition but about colonialism and its impact on the cultural antiquities of other countries. The archeologists in the film debate over which museum should house the artifacts from the Tomb of Princess Ankh-esen-amun, with the younger of the pair arguing that they should go to the British Museum, certainly an example of cultural inheritance of a nation being appropriated by colonizers.

In the 1930s, countries like Egypt started passing laws to protect their ancient cultural heritage from being taken out of the country. But the damage had already been done from decades of foreigners/colonizers taking artifacts from expeditions and selling them to private collectors and museums, or as spoils of war. The push for the repatriation of art and artifacts with questionable histories has now become widespread. The conversation today is about whether museums should return these artifacts as countries attempt to reclaim their history. Some museums have begun the process of repatriating artifacts, while others continue to resist. The Mummy does right in keeping the artifacts at the Museum of Cairo, and it brings to the forefront precisely this problem of many Western museums holding on to art and artifacts that were stolen from other countries, particularly colonized ones. It also highlights how the study of Egyptology has been largely dominated by Westerners—inaccessible, for the longest time, to Egyptians themselves.

The Mummy was released during the “Golden Age of Horror” when Universal Studios was still interested in promoting the monster theme in horror films. It was the first of the Universal Monster movies to be based on an original horror property and not on classic Gothic literature, as Dracula (1931) and Frankenstein (1931) were. The concept of the film came from the public interest in ancient Egypt that was galvanized by the 1922 finding of King Tutankhamun’s tomb by British archeologist Howard Carter and the resulting rumors of a “Mummy’s Curse” that came from it (Marchant). Indeed, the popularity of the film was shaped by the idea that a “Mummy’s Curse” was killing off members of the 1922 expedition team that found King Tutankhamun’s tomb: the most prominent death had been that of George Herbert, the 5th Earl of Carnarvon, who had sponsored the expedition and died of blood poisoning due to an infected mosquito bite (Marchant). But rumors spread that there were warnings all over the tomb that decreed if anything were to be removed that the thief would be cursed and die. This rumor gained more life when an ominous warning came from romantic novelist, Maria Corelli, who had supernatural leanings and was popular with Queen Victoria. In the British press in March of 1923, she proclaimed that, “The most dire punishment follows a rash intruder into a sealed tomb” (Marchant). People became afraid, and the British museum started to receive a flood of mummy-related artifacts that people had gotten as souvenirs from Egypt, mostly illegally from collectors.

The Mummy plays upon this fear in the opening sequences when, during a 1921 expedition, Sir John Whemple (Arthur Byron) and his partner Ralph Norton (Bramwell Fletcher) discover the mummy of Imhotep with the ancient Scroll of Thoth, believed to be an ancient life-giving scroll. The two British archaeologists see their find as not only sensational but an incredible opportunity to further the study of Egyptology. They thus disregard the warnings of the Egyptian specialist accompanying them, who insists the mummy is cursed and that they should return it to its burial ground. But Sir John scoffs at his peer’s “foreign superstitions,” as they are intelligent men of science. Curious greed gets the better of Ralph, however, as he reads from the scroll and awakens the mummy Imhotep, who creeps up on him and takes the scroll while he stares in shock. When Sir John finds him, Ralph is delirious from his supernatural encounter, and the audience is later informed that he was never the same again. Sir John is also left in shock and unable to explain the events of that day; he vows never to return to Egypt, fearing that he himself may be cursed.

The lure of another sensational Egyptian discovery means that Sir John Whemple cannot stay away forever, however. Ten years later, his son Frank Whemple (David Manners), along with Professor Pearson (Leonard Mudie), is on another expedition to Egypt for the British Museum. About ready to call it quits with little to show for their work, they are visited by the Egyptian Historian Ardeth Bey (the mummy/Imhotep) who requests that they continue their dig in another location believed to be the resting place of the tomb of Princess Ankh-esen-amun. When asked by Frank why he doesn’t lead the expedition himself, Ardeth Bey states that “Egyptians are not allowed to dig up our ancient dead. Only foreign museums.” To viewers watching the film in 1932, this could be seen not only as giving credence to the “mummy’s curse,” since even the locals fear it, but also as justifying foreign archeologists in digging up another country’s ancient past. Yet, the reality was that, for decades, the practices by which European countries excavated and extracted the physical remains of Egypt’s ancient past to be preserved and studied in foreign museums were simply inaccessible to Egyptians themselves.

Due to its strategic position as the gateway to Asia and the crossroads for trade routes into sub-Saharan Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East, Egypt was a highly sought-after colony (Rocheleau). It was also believed that whichever country had ‘ownership’ of Egypt held the knowledge of the history of Western civilization. Thousands of artifacts left the country to be studied and displayed in foreign museums, and anything that did remain in the country was under the control of the colonists (Naunton). This systemic colonization of artifacts denied the Egyptians any agency in preserving or studying their own heritage. Egyptology operated outside of its country of origin and symbolized the dominance that Westerners exerted over the country. It would not be until 1922, when Egypt won its independence from the British Empire, that the partage system was created – an agreement through which the Egyptian Antiquities Service and foreign excavators shared discoveries, and Egypt would have first right to choose (Naunton).

The ‘heroes’ of The Mummy are not adventurers but archaeologists employed by the British Museum. Both John and Frank Whemple are stark examples of how the study of Egypt, known as Egyptology, is an integral part of Western colonialism. In the nineteenth century, it was mostly Europeans who led the archaeological digs for Egypt’s treasures. First it was the French and Germans, who were procuring Egypt’s treasures for private collections and profits. Then in 1882, when the British took over, archaeology turned to the preservation of Egyptian heritage and antiquities by white scientists (Watson). The only involvement the Egyptians had in these discoveries was as physical laborers working at the digs or informed locals giving tips as to where to dig next, and often the British would take all the scholarly credit and media attention for their finds (Watson). This can be seen in the film when Frank’s team of Egyptian laborers find the entrance to the tomb of the Princess, while he and Professor Pearson watch from overhead, shaded by umbrellas from the hot desert sun.

After the discovery of the Princess’s tomb, her body and treasures are housed at the Museum of Cairo. Frank argues with his father that it was a ‘dirty trick’ for the museum to keep what they found and that everything should have been taken back to England. However, John reminds him that not only it is part of the contract (referencing the partage system) but that this discovery is about science and knowledge, not fame and fortune. The British Museum still has ownership of the items, moreover, they just can’t be taken out of the country. This would not change until the 1950s when the dissolution of colonial empires would allow for the Egyptian government to strengthen and enact new laws to protect their national identity (El-Geressi). Finally, in 1983, the Egyptian government passed a law that outlawed the private sale of antiquities and declared that all excavated items of cultural significance and over a century old belonged in Egypt, its country of origin (El-Geressi).

In a small number of scenes, The Mummy exemplifies how the history of Egypt’s colonization was both continued and amplified through the work of European archaeologists. While these expeditions certainly brought the world insight into an ancient past, it also led to the unethical removal of thousands of objects from Egypt. This is a common act in colonization, where colonizers take items of value home with them for ‘study’, and where they then place Western interpretations upon them, thus enhancing the colonists’ attitude of superiority over Egyptians and Othering their culture. The Mummy portrays these archaeologists as heroes, since Ardeth Bey (Imhotep/The Mummy) intends to use the Scroll of Thoth to bring the Princess back to life through the body of her reincarnation, Helen Grosvenor. The artifacts are portrayed as dangerous, and Imhotep is the villain who practices the occult and intends to harm others and unleash evil onto the world. That is why, the logic of the film goes, these precious artifacts must remain under the care of Western custodians, to protect Egyptians from themselves and their own dangerous artifacts, thus perpetuating the imperialist attitude that the Egyptians cannot not be trusted to care for their own past themselves.

The topic of repatriation (the process of returning an object or person back to their country of origin) is heavily debated among academic and museum communities. Repatriation re-entered the heritage debate in 2019 when French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would return objects that were taken from their colonies in Africa back to them (Ahmadi). He argued that countries needed to get onto the right side of history and return what were often stolen treasures from their ex-colonies (Paul). Macron believed that this act would be part of the long process of restorative justice for the past wrongs of colonialism and put an end to the exhibition of the visible legacy of colonization and the appropriations of foreign heritage as trophies (Ahmadi). Those in favor of repatriation have already begun the process of working with governments as a way to help heal wounds. They realize that culturally these artifacts belong to the nation they were found in – that they are an important part of their heritage. This also elevates the structural and financial burden of housing these artifacts, as often thousands of them live in storage (“Should”). By returning items that are linked to a country’s own national identity, the West is taking a step toward atoning for the tragedies caused by colonization.

However, not all Western museums and governments feel that same. Currently the British Museum houses over 50,000 artifacts from Egypt that were obtained during the colonial era (Ahmadi). Their Egyptian gallery brings in the largest numbers of crowds, as people come to see items like the Rosetta Stone, a 5000-year-old mummy, and the sculptures of Ramses II. The museum has flat out refused to return any of the requested artifacts to Egypt, stating that, because they are state funded, they are prohibited by the government from returning the artifacts (Paul). Moreover, the countries requesting them do not have the proper means to care for the artifacts and keep them from being damaged or stolen during times of civil unrest (“Should”). It would also mean enacting the process to detangle the origins of all the artifacts in their collections, thus leading to financial ruin for the institution whose profits rely upon visitors’ attraction to them. These arguments for the refusal to return these artifacts back to Egypt continue imperialistic practices. Yet in 2020, Dr. Zahi Hawass, archaeologist and former Minister of Antiquities of Egypt, launched a campaign to repatriate ancient Egyptian treasures from all over Europe and house them in the Grand Egyptian Museum (Margit). Many of the artifacts in the British Museum came from the expeditions of adventurers and archeologists in Egypt, like Frank and John Whemple, who believed that what they were doing was all in ‘good faith’ and enhancing the world’s knowledge of ancient civilizations. But continuing to keep these artifacts is to maintain the racist idea that Western cultures are somehow the authorities on and keepers of the truth and history Egypt, thus continuing to legitimize colonization and the privilege of Westerners.

In many ways, then, the modern horror contained in the film The Mummy is not the supernatural love story of a cursed mummy coming to life but the story of colonization. The archaeologists’ attitude towards the Egyptian scholars and the Museum of Cairo as depicted in the film is disdainful and dismissive. The British scientists carry with them a colonialist attitude of superiority, pretending to be able to access previously unattainable knowledge of the dead that is ‘culturally’ denied to the Egyptians, or so they tell themselves. The discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922 and its ‘Mummy’s Curse’ not only inspired the 1932 movie but also the Egyptian government’s insistence that artifacts found in foreign expeditions on Egyptian land belonged to them. This would be a turning point for the newly-independent nation, changing its relationship with its former colonizer. But it was also the beginning of a long road in which Egyptians would fight to protect their history from being exhibited in foreign museums to which they had no access and no ability to study in their own language. The Mummy also shows how the colonial mindset of the archaeologist is used to combat a supernatural entity that is ‘Othering’ of their culture. The Western scientists are, on the surface, depicted as protecting the world from Egyptian superstition/magic. On a deeper level, however, the film shows how modern Western civilization triumphs over the ‘cursed’ relics of another nation’s ancient past – by insisting that, as colonizers, they know better.

---

Works Cited

Ahmadi, Ali Abbas. “Should the British Museum Return Its Egyptian Collection?” The New Arab, 31 Dec. 2019, https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2019/12/should-british-museum-return-its.html.

El-Geressi, Yasmine. “Egypt Wants its Treasures Back.” Majalla, 19 July 2010, https://eng.majalla.com/node/73996/egypt-wants-its-treasures-back.

Marchant, Jo. “The Mummy’s Curse.” Eon, 25 Oct. 2013, https://aeon.co/essays/why-does-the-mummy-s-curse-refuse-to-die.

Margit, Maya. “Archaeologist Launches Repatriation Campaign for Egyptian Treasures.” The Media Line, 29 Jan. 2020, https://themedialine.org/life-lines/archaeologist-launches-repatriation-campaign-for-egyptian-treasures/.

Naunton, Chris. “Decolonising, Egyptology & the dirty little secret.” ChrisNaunton.com, 23 July 2020,  https://chrisnaunton.com/2020/07/23/decolonising-egyptology-the-dirty-little-secret/.

Paul, Gill. “Why artifacts should be returned to their countries of origin: A look inside the debate.” Crime Reads, 2 Sept. 2021, https://crimereads.com/artifacts-returned-debate/.

Rocheleau, Caroline. “Golden Mummies: Reckoning with Colonialism and Racism in Egyptology.” North Carolina Museum of Art, 8 June 2021,  https://ncartmuseum.org/golden-mummies-reckoning-with-colonialism-and-racism-in-egyptology/.

“Should Museums Return Artifacts to the Countries They Came From?” Invicta, 2022. https://www.invictamobileshelving.co.uk/insights/museums-return-artefacts-countries/.

Watson, Sara Kiley. “Egypt is reclaiming its mummies and its past.” Popular Science, 3 Dec. 2019, https://www.popsci.com/story/science/egyptian-archaeology/.