By Hanan Fikry — Watani –
Identity is rooted in history, and a sense of belonging depends on collective memory. A nation’s story cannot be reduced to a single chapter. People who do not know their roots cannot fully understand their present. If they cannot see themselves reflected in an honest account of their country’s history, how can they understand who they are—or feel that they truly belong?
When an entire era is largely absent from public awareness, it does not disappear from history. It does, however, fade from contemporary memory. The result is a narrower understanding of the country, a weakened collective memory, and a diminished appreciation of its diversity.
These thoughts came to mind when I read the remarks made by former Minister of Culture Dr. Helmy El-Namnam at the Fourth International Conference of the Institute of Coptic Studies. Held on October 8 and 9 in the presence of Pope Tawadros II, the conference was entitled “Coptic Studies and Deepening Awareness of Coptic Identity.”
El-Namnam revived an issue that has received little attention for nearly twenty years. He recalled that two decades ago he had called for the establishment of a center for Coptic studies at an Egyptian university. He emphasized that Coptic identity is a fundamental component of Egypt’s national identity and that its study should not remain confined to the Church. It should also have a place in universities, public culture, and the awareness of Egyptian society more broadly.
Twenty years have passed. What happened to that proposal?
Why was it never implemented? Was it ever formally considered? Was it submitted to the Supreme Council of Universities? Did it encounter academic, administrative, or financial obstacles? Who can explain why Coptic identity continues to be discussed at conferences while the institution that could bring that discussion into universities and public life has never materialized?
This is not a demand for religious privilege. Nor is it an attempt to construct a separate history alongside the history of Egypt. It is a question about Egyptian history itself: Why is part of that history being left out?
Why have Coptic studies not become an established field within Egypt’s national academic system, alongside the other periods of Egyptian history and civilization taught at its universities? Why does the Coptic era remain largely in the background?
At the conference, Pope Tawadros II described Egyptian civilization as a book containing Pharaonic, Coptic, African, Islamic, and Arab chapters, adding that these civilizations cannot be separated from one another.
That observation carries a responsibility. It is not enough to celebrate these historical roots; they must also be taught. If the different eras of Egyptian civilization are chapters of the same national story, do students receive enough knowledge to understand that story as a whole? Or are some periods prominently represented in curricula and public consciousness while others receive only passing attention—too little to explain their role in shaping Egyptian identity?
This is not an attempt to judge Egypt’s curricula. It is a call for independent committees to examine them. Nor do we claim that the Coptic period is entirely absent from university history departments or school textbooks. The question is how much attention it actually receives in formal education compared with the Pharaonic, Islamic, and other periods.
Equally important is how the Coptic era is presented. Is it taught as an integral period of Egyptian history, connected to what preceded and followed it? Or is it treated primarily as a religious subject concerning Christians alone?
At the same conference, El-Namnam recalled Pope Tawadros’s well-known statement: “A homeland without churches is better than churches without a homeland.” The Pope made that statement during a particularly difficult period marked by the burning of churches and an attack on the papal headquarters.
But protecting a country involves more than safeguarding its buildings and vital institutions. It also requires protecting its identity and collective memory. Preserving historical sites is not the same as preserving historical awareness. Likewise, acknowledging Coptic identity in official speeches is not the same as enabling younger generations to understand it.
Why not begin by establishing a university center for Coptic studies or an accredited academic program?
Why should researchers and students not be able to study the Coptic language, history, art, music, and manuscripts within Egypt’s universities? Why should the findings of such research not be made available to the public through educational materials and documentary productions?
What prevents Egyptian universities, the Ministry of Higher Education, the Ministry of Culture, and the authorities responsible for antiquities from cooperating with specialized academic institutions to make this possible?
The purpose is not to rewrite history as a competition between different eras or identities. It is to teach Egyptian history honestly and comprehensively, enabling younger generations to understand it as one continuous national history rather than a series of disconnected eras.
____________
Source: https://www.wataninet.com/2026/10/%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%
