8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
1/21
Society for merican rchaeology
Uses of the past: Archaeology in the Service of the StateAuthor(s): Don D. FowlerSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 229-248Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281778 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 22:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/281778?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/281778?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
2/21
USES OF THE
PAST: ARCHAEOLOGY
IN
THE
SERVICE OF
THE
STATE
Don D. Fowler
Nation
states, or partisans
hereof,
controland allocate
symbolic
resources s one means
of
legitimizingpower
and
authority,
and
in
pursuitof
their
perceived
nationalistic
goals
and
ideologies.
A
majorsymbolic
resource
s
the
past.
In
this
paper
I review
hreecases in which he
past
and,
in
particular,
elevant
archaeological
esources
were used forsuch
purposes,and
I
refer o severalother well-known nstances. The three cases
discussedare
Mexico
rom
ca.
A.D.
900 to the
present,
Britain
rom
ca. A.D. 1500
to the
present,
and the
People'sRepublic
of China
since 1949. The
implicationsof
such uses in
relation
to
archaeological
heoriesand
interpretations
re
discussed.
In The Uses of the Past, Herbert Muller (1952) sought for certainty of meaning in an analysis
of the
development
of
Western
civilization.
The
only
certainty
he found was that the
past
has
many
uses. This
paper
is concerned
with
some
specific
uses of
the
past:
1)
how nation-state
rulers and
bureaucrats have manipulated the
past
for nationalistic
purposes,
both
ideological
and
chauvinistic,
and
to
legitimize
their
authority
and
power; 2)
how nation-states have used
archaeological sites,
artifacts, and theories for such
purposes;
and
3)
how these uses of the
past
relate
to more
general
questions
about the
intellectual
and
sociopolitical
contexts in which
archaeology
is
conducted.
The
importance
to the state of
using
or
manipulating
its
past
is
neatly
delineated
in
two
great
dystopian novels, George
Orwell's
(1949)
Nineteen
Eighty-Four,
and Aldous
Huxley's
(1932)
Brave
New World. In the
former, the Ministry of Truth
totally revamps the past as
needed to justify and
lend truth
to
the immediate
requirements, actions,
and
policies of
the
state.
In
the
latter, the past
is blotted out. As the Resident World Controller
for Western
Europe, Mustafa Mond tells the
Savage,
We
haven't any use for
old things
here
(Huxley
1932:200).
In
both cases, control and
manipulation
of the
past
or its
complete
denial is critical to state
ideology
and
purposes. Here,
and
in
virtually
all
nation-states
past
and
present,
the aim
of the
manipulators
is to
convince
themselves, their
citizens/subjects,
and
the
relevant
rest of
the
world,
that their
right
to
rule,
their
dominion of other
states or
peoples,
or their
cause or mission is
just.
In
a
number of
instances, and specifically in
cases discussed
here,
these
manipulations
have
exploited
archaeological
remains or data.
Three
key concepts
require
definition.
Archaeology
is used in
its original and
broadest sense:
Ancient
history generally; systematic
description or study of
antiquities (Oxford English Diction-
ary 1:431).
Nationalism,
following
Berlin
(1980:338),
is
defined
as,
the
elevation of the
interests
of self
determination of
the
nation to the status
of the
supreme
value
before which
all other
considerations
must,
if
need
be, yield
at all
times. Third
is the
concept
of
legitimation, cogently
laid out by Kurtz (1984:302):
A
fundamental
goal
of
statepolicies is
acquisitionof support; .e. either
the active or passive compliance
of
citizens
with
state
policies
and
goals
....
Support
s the
underpinning f
legitimacyand providesthe most
fruitful
concept
for
understanding
egitimation ...
Legitimationof political authority s in
large measurea
consequence
of the
ability
of
authorities o
generate,control,and allocate,
economic andsymbolicresources
in
pursuit
of
public
and
privategoals
[emphasisadded].
Don D.
Fowler,Department
ofAnthropology,University f
Nevada,Reno,
NV
89557
American
Antiquity, 52(2),
1987, pp.
229-248.
Copyright? 1987 by the SocietyforAmericanArchaeology
229
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
3/21
230 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.
52, No. 2, 1987
The focus
herein is on the generation,
control, and allocation
of one symbolic resource, the
Past,
ancient
history generally,
particularly antiquities, physical
remains of past peoples and
their
cultures. Three
case studies are presented.
Each has been chosen to illustrate
specific ways
that
various pasts
and associated antiquities have
been used for official state
purposes by rulers
and
bureaucrats, or unofficially
by citizen partisans/patriots. The
case studies are: Mexico from
ca.
A.D. 900 to the present;
Great Britain from the sixteenth
century to the present; and the
People's
Republic of
China since 1949.
There are
many other examples. Best known is
the official creation and
manipulation of a
Nordic,
or
Indo-Germanic past
(Frick 1933; Rosenberg 1930; see also
Cecil 1972 and
Chandler 1945) by
the Nazi
regime
in
Germany,
a
past
verified
principally by
the works
of Gustaf Kossinna and his
colleagues
and students
(Gunther
1926;
Kossinna
1911,
1914, 1926-1927).
In
fact, throughout
Central
Europe, manipulations
for nationalistic
purposes
of both Slavic and Germanic
racial,
his-
torical,
ethnolinguistic,
and
archaeological pasts
began
as
early
as the sixteenth
century (Bierhahn
1964; Erickson 1973; Mallory
1973, 1976;
Poliakov
1974;
Silfen
1973; Sklenar 1983).
Nazi
Germany
was simply
the most
recent and most
tragic
instance
(Mosse
1961, 1964).
A second example lies in the struggles between Sweden and Denmark-Norway from ca. A.D.
1500-1800 for
political domination of the
Baltic Sea region. There, Goths,
Atlanteans, the Teutonic
god-king
Odin and his
sometime
enemies,
the
gigantic Aesirs, together with
archaeological sites
attributed to
them,
were
invoked by one side or the
other
in
attempts to establish
claims of nationalist
supremacy
and
precedence
(Klindt-Jensen 1975; Michell
1982:40-43).
A
third example is the
diverse uses of archaeological,
ethnographic, and
historical data and theories
in
African studies written
in
pre- and post-Colonial times
(Collins 1968; Heniger, ed. 1974 et
seq.;
Temu and
Swai 1981; Zwernemann 1983).
Specific archaeological examples
include the variant
interpretations of Zimbabwe (Garlake
1973:51-110, 1982) and of Iron Age
sites in South Africa
(Hall 1984).
A
fourth example is the United
States
in
the nineteenth
century. The Myth of the Mound
Builders
(Silverberg
1968),
which
often served
to
denigrate
American
Indians,
was never
official
government
policy
but it did
bolster
arguments
for
moving
the
savage Indians out
of the way of White
civilization
(see
also
Carpenter 1950;
Fowler
1986;
Meltzer
1985;
Pearce
1965; Trigger 1980a,
1981, 1986).
A
fifth
example is Palestine. Silberman (1982)
describes how European powers
used archaeological
expeditions
ostensibly
to seek verification of the Bible and Near Eastern
history generally,
but
also
as
a
cover for
seeking
control of that
strategic
area. The
modern state of Israel uses
archaeology
(Glock 1985; Trigger
1984:358-359)
as
a
means of
glorifying
the Hebraic
past,
and
of
validating
its right to exist as
a
nation,
as
frequent
news releases attest
(Friedman
1985;
Pear
1983;
Reif
1985).
There are
many
similar
examples (Trigger
1984),
but the three
presented
below illustrate
in
particularlystriking ways
how nation-states
and
their
partisans
have
used
archaeology, archaeological
remains,
and the
past generally
for
purposes
of national or
chauvinistic
ideology,
or
the
legitimation
of power, or all three.
MEXICO
One of the
primary symbolic
resources controlled
by
nation-states is
religious ideology
and its
supporting myths.
A
principal
means of
legitimizing
a
ruler's
authority
is to
establish,
or
validate,
the ruler's
genealogical
links back
through
time to
the
founding
deities: the ultimate
symbolic
sources
of
power
and
authority.
Whether
the
genealogical
links are actual
or
putative
is irrelevant. As
long
as the
populace
and the
loyal opposition (if
any)
act as
if
they
are
actual, they
are. The
process
is
as old as nation-states.
Certainly
it was
well
understood
by
the
god-kings
of
ancient
Egypt
and
by
rulers of later states
and
empires
in
Mesopotamia
as
well
as
in
Egypt, India,
and China
(Balazs
1964;
Clark
1959;
Fairservis
1971:217-310;
Frankfort
1948;
Kramer
1963),
and
was
equally
familiar
to the governing class in New World Mesoamerican civilizations.
Several
recent studies
(Calnek
1982;
Carrasco
1982;
Conrad
and Demerest
1984:11-83;
Kurtz
1984;
Rounds
1982; Zantwijk 1985)
have shown how the Aztecs of
pre-Hispanic
Mexico
manip-
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
4/21
Fowler]
USES
OF THE
PAST
231
ulated economic
and
symbolic
resources
in
their
rise
to
power
between
A.D. 1375
and the
Spanish
Conquest of 1519-1521. But the Aztecs were
neither the
first nor
the
last
in
Mexico to undertake
such
manipulations,
and to use the
past
as
well
as
archaeological
ruins for
ideological purposes.
The studies by
Calnek and others
should be
considered
in
conjunction with
Davies's (1980) and
Diehl's (1983)
works on the
Toltecs,
and
Lafaye's
(1976) and Phelan's
(1960) studies of
post-
Conquest Mexican
nationalism.
Le6n-Portilla's
(1963)
classic
study
of Aztec
thought,
Bernal's
(1980)
and
Lorenzo's (1981,
1984) histories of Mexican
archaeology,
and
Keen's
(1971)
study
of Aztec
imagery
in
Western thought
provide additional useful
insights into
Mexican
uses of the
past.
Highland
Mexico,
like
Mesopotamia,
witnessed the
rise and fall of
successive nation-states and
empires through the centuries
(Adams
1966).
The
highlands
and
adjacent
areas
were
dominated
for
nearly
a millennium
by
the
great city
state
of
Teotihuacan (ca.
200 B.C.-A.D.
750).
Its
great
truncated-pyramid
temple
platforms,
now called the
Pyramids
of the
Sun
and the
Moon,
rank
high
among
the
engineering
feats of the
ancient
world.
Many
deities were
worshipped
at
Teotihuacan,
including
Tlaloc,
the
god
of rain
and
fertility,
and
Quetzalc6atl,
the Plumed
Serpent;
both
are
represented on the
facade
of the so-called Citadel
(Le6n-Portilla
1963:51).
Teotihuacan declined after A.D. 750 and was largely abandoned by A.D. 800. But the decaying
city was still
the
place
of
the
gods,
as
the name
translates from the
Nahuatl. After
the
fall
of
Teotihuacdn,
there was
a
period
of
confusion,
followed
by
the rise of the Toltecs
(ca.
A.D.
900-
1150)
centered
on their
capital,
Tollan
Xicoctlan,
now called Tula
(Diehl
1983:43-67).
The Toltecs inherited
the elaborate
cosmology
of
Teotihuacan
and reformulated it for their
own
purposes. Quetzalc6atl
became a
major deity
of
Tollan, through
whom
the Toltecs laid claim
to
genealogical
descent from the rulers
and
deity-rulers
of
Teotihuacan
and those of earlier
civilizations.
The
Toltec claim was
personified
in
their last
major
priest-king,
the
legendary Topiltzin Quetzalc6atl
(Conrad and
Demerest
1984:17-19;
Davies
1980:3-41;
Zantwijk
1985:94-97,
180-18
1).
The
Toltec hegemony
began
to
disintegrate ca. 1150.
Groups of
Chichimeca pushed their
way
into the Valley of
Mexico and
became variously entangled
in
the
struggles
for resources and
power
that
characterized
the remainder
of
pre-Conquest
Mexican
history (Calnek 1982;
Zantwijk
1985:
57-124). Toltec
groups remained in
the Valley of
Mexico and environs,
however, and several
city-
states, including
Culhuacan,
claimed
direct descent from them.
Culhuacan,
in
fact,
had
succeeded
Tollan as
a major center of
religion and
culture
in
Highland Mexico
(Davies
1980:338-339). Toltec
came to
symbolize civilization
and
legitimation
of
power.
The
many city-states
and the
various
Chichimec
interlopers
each
worked to
legitimize
its claims
to
power
through
Toltec
ancestry.
Such
an
ancestry
could be obtained either
through creative
mythography
or
through marriage
alliances
with rulers
having better
established claims
to Toltec descent
(Conrad and
Demerest 1984:20).
One of the
interloper
groups,
the
Mexica
(hereinafter Aztecs
in
the
sense
established
in
the
nineteenth
century by Alexander von
Humboldt and W.
H.
Prescott), took
both routes to
power.
In
the mid-i
300s, the Aztecs
established a marital alliance with
Culhuacan. Legend
indicates that
the alliance
got
off
to a
poor
start
because the
Aztecs,
rather than
marrying
her
to one of their
young
men, sacrificed the Culhua princess and paraded her flayed skin before her father during a religious
festival
(Carrasco
1982:154). Nevertheless,
in
1376
Culhuacan
granted
an
Aztec
petition to
give
them a ruler
from its
reigning
house.
Acamapichtli,
a
half-Culhua
prince,
became ruler of
Tenoch-
titlan.
At the
same
time,
Atzcapotzalco granted a
ruler to
Tlaltelolco, the Mexica
town adjacent to
Tenochtitlain
(Carrasco
1982:156-157). The granting
of rulers to the
Mexica may reflect a
later
Aztec
view of history.
Conrad and Demerest
(1984:25)
point out that in the
1370s both
Tenochtitlan
and
Tlatelolco
were
tributaries of the powerful
Tepanec
alliance, centered at
Azcapotzalco.
The
Tepanec may well
have imposed
the rulers on their
Mexica
vassals. In any case, the
granting of
rulers
gave the Aztecs
legitimacy.
Acamapichtli's
genealogy of authority
and power became
the
Aztecs'
genealogy. They
could, and did, claim
legitimation of
authority back through
Culhuacan
to
Tollan
Xicoctlan,
thence
back to Teotihuacan
and beyond
(Rounds 1982:83-84).
After
1376, the
Aztecs expanded
their quest for power
in the Valley of
Mexico. The
crisis came
in the great turmoil of
1426-1428.
The
Triple
Alliance -Tenochtitlan,
Texcoco, and
Tacuba-
defeated the
Tepanec
alliance and
took over their
realm
(Conrad and
Demerest
1984:31; Zantwijk
1985:113-124).
Ultimately, Tenochtitlan
emerged as the
dominant city-state of the
Triple Alliance.
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
5/21
232
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987
After
1428, the Aztecs embarked on
a calculated course of imperialistic
expansion that led to
the
hegemony
(fragile though it was) encountered
and shattered by the
Spanish in 1519-1521 (Conrad
and Demerest
1984:44-70).
The
Aztecs also embarked on a basic
restructuring of social and
symbolic institutions. A
new
system
of land tenure and wealth distribution
was instituted,
concentrated in the hands
of the warrior
elite rather than the calpulli.
A new ideology was formulated
to justify and support
a program
of
continual imperialist expansion
and warfare, an ideology
centering on the elevation
of Huitzilo-
pochtli to the role
of
principal
Aztec
deity (Conrad and Demerest
1984:32-33). Historical
and
religious texts
were burned,
and the Aztecs rewrote
history to make their ascension
to power seem
supernaturally
foreordained (Le6n-Portilla
1963:155-163). Their journey
from the north became
an
epic
trek toward their place of destiny
in the Valley of Mexico, and
they continued
to syncretize
their past with the Toltec
past (Carrasco 1982:148-204;
Kurtz 1984:306-312; Fagan
1984:60-73).
In Aztec mythology the
Toltecs, inspired by Quetzalc6atl,
became Promethean figures,
the bearers
of culture. The
Aztecs'
great capital,
Tenochtitlan, itself
became mythologized, a sacred city
laid
out
on the
plans
of Tollan and Teotihuacdn.
The symbolic importance of geographical Tollan, the site of Tula (there was also an idealized,
conceptual
Tollan that
was sometimes
merged
with Teotihuacdn
and
Tenochtitlan [Davies
1977:
25-75]),
is
succinctly
stated
by
Diehl:
They [the Aztecs] thought
of it as the birth place of civilized
life and much of their cultural
heritage. They
tried
to
identify
with their
putative
Toltec ancestors by expropriating Toltec
art and religious objects for their
own use and
intermarrying
with the local ruling families
in the Tula area who claimed
legitimate Toltec
descent
[Diehl
1983:166].
It
was also at Tula,
or
nearby,
that the idol of Huitzilopochtli
from the
great
temple
in
Te-
nochtitlan
was
apparently
hidden after
the
Conquest
(Padden
1967:270-274),
an
important
indi-
cation
that
Tula both
symbolized
and
embodied
power. Tula,
Cholula,
and
Teotihuacan
were
all
places closely
associated
with
Quetzalc6atl,
and hence
places
of
reverence.
Teotihuacan
was said to
be
the
place
where
the
gods
created the
Fifth
Sun
(i.e.,
the
present
universe),
the
sun
that shone on
the Aztec world
(Davies 1974:144;
Le6n-Portilla
1963:43).
As sacred
places, Tula,
Teotihuacan,
and Cholula
were
pilgrimage
centers
(Brundage
1982:151),
ancient ruins that were
symbolic
focal
points attesting
to
the
power
and
continuity
of
the ancient deities whom
the
Aztecs
had
incorporated
into their pantheon (Nicholson
1971:408-430 and
Table
3). They
were
places
associated
with the
ultimate
sources of
power
and
authority
in
the
Mesoamerican
world
(Lorenzo
1984:89).
The sites
became
integral parts
of the
Aztecs'
self-legitimization
process.
Faced with the
overwhelming
evidence of
their
predecessors'
monumental
achievements,
sacred
genealogies,
and
complex
social
structures,
the Aztecs
..
.
strove to construct
a
city, mythology
and
destiny
in
order to
impress
and
intimidate
others and legitimate
themselves
(Carrasco
1982:160). They
succeeded
admirably
in
part by incorporating
and
sacralizing
ruins
(and deities)
from others'
pasts
into their own. Once
they achieved political dominance, the Aztecs rewrote the past; i.e., they gained control of a major
symbolic
resource
and used it
for nationalistic
purposes.
In
1519,
Hernmndo
Cort6s
and
his
soldiers
landed on the
east coast of Mexico.
Prevailing legends
led
the Aztecs
to believe
that
Quetzalc6atl,
the
fair-skinned,
bearded
god-king
of Tollan and
the
more
ancient
past,
had returned
in
the
person
of Cort6s
(Fagan
1984:261-277).
Aided
in
part
by
the
Quetzalc6atl
legend and,
more
importantly, by
the fact that the Aztec
empire
was
teetering
on
the
brink
of internal
collapse (Conrad
and Demerest
1984:44-70),
Cort6s
and
his
handful of followers
conquered
the
great
Aztec
empire
and established
New
Spain
in
its
stead
(Anderson
and
Dibble
1978).
The
Spanish
were,
of
course,
heirs to
European
traditions
of
legitimation
of
authority:
Apostolic Succession,
Petrine
Supremacy,
and
rule
by
Divine
Right.
They
ruled
New
Spain
in
the
name of those
authorities
for three
centuries.
But
during
that time
there
slowly
came to be
a Mexican
national consciousness,
centered
on the idea that
Mexico
was more than
a
colony,
that it
ought
to
be a nation-state in its own right. The development of such a consciousness is, of course, common
as colonies
metamorphose
into
nation-states;
the United
States is one well-known
example.
What
bears
noting
in
the Mexican case
is the
syncretization
process.
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
6/21
Fowler]
USES OF THE PAST
233
Keen
(1971:217-508), Lafaye
(1976), and Phelan (1960),
among others, have
reviewed various
aspects of
post-Conquest
Spanish
and
Mexican uses
of the
past
for both
religious
and
nationalistic
purposes,
and the
present
discussion follows their
analyses.
In
pre-Spanish
times there was
an
important female deity,
Cihuacoatl,
or
Tonantzin,
Our
Mother,
who was sometimes
regarded as
a consort of
Quetzalc6atl.
The hill
of
Tepeyac,
in
the
Valley
of
Mexico,
was
closely
associated
with
Tonantzin.
In
1557,
the
Spanish
built a church at
Tepeyac
dedicated to Our
Lady
of
Guadalupe.
The
intent was to supplant Our
[Mexica] Mother with Our
[Catholic]
Mother,
but
the result
was the syncretism of the
two deities. Visitors to
Tepeyac
Hill
who watch
the thousands of
pilgrims
crossing
the
plaza on
their
knees to
worship
at
(now)
the third
of the churches dedicated to
Guadalupe,
become
aware
of
her
great significance
to the Mexican
people.
She is not
only
a healer but a
symbol
of
faith,
and
of the nation
(Lafaye
1976:256-257, 274-300).
Quetzalc6atl,
at
least
the
priest-king, Quetzalc6atl of
Tollan,
came to be
identified,
and
finally
syncretized
with,
the
apostle
St. Thomas
(Lafaye
1976:157-208).
The belief
grew up
in
Mexico that
St. Thomas
not
only
had travelled to Persia and
India,
as Christian
legend
had held
for
centuries,
but
also
that he had come
to the New World
bringing
the
word of Christ and civilization
(recall
the Promethean aspects of Quetzalc6atl). St. Thomas-Quetzalc6atl became the Apostle of Mexico
and,
like
Tonantzin-Guadalupe,
a
major
religious
and nationalistic
symbol.
This sort of
religious syncretism
was,
of
course,
a
common
practice
in
Europe
for
centuries. As
Christianity spread
across
Europe
after A.D.
400,
local
pagan
deities
and
cult
figures
were
often
syncretized
or converted into Christian
saints,
or sometimes devils
(Smith
1952:166-296;
Murray
1970). Nor was the
process
new to the Mexicans for
pre-Conquest city-states
and
empires
had
syncretized
deities for centuries.
The syncretism of
Tonantzin-Guadalupe
and St.
Thomas-Quetzalc6atl
took
place
within the
context of a
larger
intellectual movement
in
Mexico that
Phelan
(1960)
calls
Neo-Aztecism. The
movement
developed primarily
among
Mexican
Creoles-people wholly
or
partially
of
European
descent born
in
the New World.
Phelan
(1960:760-762)
sees
the roots of
the movement
in
the
writings of
various historians, e.g., Spanish-born
Juan
de
Torquemada's Monarqufa
indiana, pub-
lished
in
1615 (Franch
1973) and the
works of
later
Creole
historians. These writers
viewed pre-
Conquest
Aztec times as the
period
of
Mexican
classical
antiquity, similar to classical
Greek and
Roman
times
in
the Old
World. That
is,
classical Aztec
and classical
Greco-Roman
cultures
were seen as
idealized, antecedent, Golden
Age cultures.
The theme of a classical
Aztec Golden
Age was taken up by various
Mexican Creole
writers, particularly Bemardo
de Valbuena (Van
Home
1930;
Pierce
1968),
Carlos de
Sigiuenzay G6ngora
(1954)
and
Mariano
Veytia (1836).
These
writers
focussed
at
first
on
an
idealized,
conceptual past
rather than
on
specific places
associated with
that
past.
The
theme reached its
culmination
in
Francisco
Javier
Clavigero's (1979), Historia
antiqua
de
Mexico,
first
published
in
1780-1781.
Clavigero updated
and
expanded
Torquemada's exposition of
parallels between
classical
Aztec
and classical
Greco-Roman cultures.
He also drew a
picture of the
Aztecs
in
anti-Spanish terms,
and was the first to relate the cult of Aztec antiquity to the social problems of contemporary
Indians
(Phelan
1960:763). Clavigero's glorification
of the Aztecs had
other purposes as well.
He
felt
compelled
to answer the
charges
of
European
savants, particularly
Cornelius de Pauw
(1806,
first
published 1770) that all forms
of New World
plants,
animals, and people were
degenerate as
compared
to those of
the Old World. This
dispute
of the
New
World, as Gerbi
(1973) calls
it,
raged from at least
1750 to 1900
among Old and New World
scholars.
The dispute was a
principal
impetus for
Thomas Jefferson's Notes
on Virginia, among
many other works by
various authors.
In
refuting
Pauw and
others, Clavigero
not only glorified the
Aztecs, but
argued that
contemporary
(eighteenth-century)
Mexican
Indians had
been
rendered brutish
by Spanish
oppression, and not
through
innate
degeneracy.
And
he held
that
Mexico would
reach its true potential
only through
biological integration
of
its ethnic
groups, i.e., as a
nation of mestizos
(Clavigero
1979:11:225-226).
Indianism
became a major theme in
the early
nineteenth-century drive for
Mexican indepen-
dence. Both Carlos Maria de Bustamente and Jos6 Maria Morelos sought Mexican
independence
through
a
repudiation
of the
Spanish
heritage and the
restoration of an idealized
Aztec empire
(Phelan
1960:767-768). Such
ideas were
sidetracked after Mexican
independence in 1821. But
they
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
7/21
234
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
[Vol.
52, No. 2,
1987
re-emerged very strongly
in the Revolution of 1910. As part of this
re-emergence, the Mexican
archaeological past began to be studied systematically,
initially through
the efforts of Manuel Gamio
after
1907. The
places
associated with an ideology derived
from
the
past again became important.
Over the years, Gamio,
Alfonso Caso, Ignacio Bemal, and their many
distinguished colleagues and
co-workers clearly demonstrated the brilliance
and achievements of pre-Conquest Mexican
civili-
zations
through
their work
at
Teotihuacdn,
Monte
Alban, Tula,
Chichen Itza,
and
other
major
sites.
Archaeology became an integral part of the
emerging and on-going indigenismo movement, a
core
feature of Mexican nationalism (Keen 1971:463-508;
Lorenzo 1984:90-91).
The contemporary
importance of the syncretized past in Mexican ideology
is reflected in various
ways. One is the great National Museum of
Anthropology in Mexico
City. The physical layout of
the building stresses the continuity of past
with present Mexican peoples: the halls of regional
prehistory on the
first level are superimposed by the co-ordinate historic
and ethnographic halls for
each
region directly
above. The focal point of the entire museum is
the great calendar stone on
which the Aztec cosmos
is depicted, the complex
face of the stone being widely used throughout
Mexico as both an official and unofficial symbol
of the nation.
A second example is the use made by the Mexican government, since 1978, of the excavations
of
the Templo Mayor
in
the center of Mexico
City. The temple was the liturgical center of the
Aztec
state,
its
twin sacrificial sanctuaries
dedicated to the
gods Huitzilopochtli
and
Tlaloc.
The
Templo
Mayor
is
adjacent
to the
National Cathedral
because,
as
at
Guadalupe
and
elsewhere,
the
Spanish
built their sacred
shrines atop the ruins of
Aztec sacred shrines. Given the syncretism characteristic
of the Mexican
past,
the
juxtaposition
of the Templo Mayor (now that it is visible) and the National
Cathedral takes on
added nationalistic symbolic weight. The Mexican
government has given the
temple excavations
great publicity (e.g., McDowell et al. 1980), has
issued coins with Aztec deities
on
them, and
in
other
ways
has used the Templo Mayor finds to continue to bolster the syncretized
past,
and hence national
ideology.
A final
illustration
of how this continuity and syncretism is expressed
is found in the wording of
a
plaque
dedicated
in 1964
by
then-President
Lopez Mateos,
at
the Plaza of
the
Three Cultures
in
Mexico
City.
The Plaza
has
on
it the ruins
of the
temple
of
Tlatelolco, adjacent
to
a
Spanish
cathedral, and
is flanked
by
modern
high-rise
buildings. The Aztecs made their last concerted
stand
against
the
Spaniards
on the steps
of
the temple.
The
plaque reads:
On
13
August,
1521, Tlatelolco, heroically
defended
by Cuaht&moc,
ell
into the
power
of Heman
Cortes.
It was neithera triumph
nor a
defeat, but the painful
birth of the mestizo
people that is Mexico today.
Clavigero
would
surely
be
pleased by
the
plaza
and
the
plaque.
The Mexican case is a cogent example
of successive nation-states
in
one region manipulating
the
past
for various reasons.
The
Aztecs,
and
presumably
their
predecessors,
did
so
to
legitimize
lines
of
power
and
authority.
The
post-Conquest
Mexican nationalists linked themselves
to
the
pre-
Conquest
Aztec
past
to
justify attempts
to
rid
themselves
of
Spanish rulers,
and
subsequently
to
solidify the Mexican nation under the banner of Indigenismo. Yet they also retained the Spanish-
stimulated
syncretism
of Aztec
and
Catholic
deities and saints.
GREAT BRITAIN
Great
Britain
provides
an instance
in which
archaeology
and the
past
were
rarely officially
used
for
nationalistic
purposes,
but
unofficially
have often been
manipulated
and
interpreted
for
such
purposes.
The
history
of
antiquarianism
and
archaeology
in
Britain
from the
early
1500s
until
well into the
nineteenth century
is
primarily
a
history
of the
elaboration
of
archaeological myths
to
glorify
Britain's
past.
Stimulus
for the
study
of British
antiquities
was
provided by Henry VIII,
who
appointed
John
Leland as
King's
Antiquary
in 1533. Leland's
method of
study-extensive
tours
through
counties
or regions recording buildings, ruins, and inscriptions, and collecting manuscripts and data on
heraldry
and
folklore-set the
pattern
for British
antiquarian
studies
over the next
two centuries
(Daniel 1967:22-45;
Dorson
1968:1-90;
Evans
1956;
Hunter
1971; Piggott 1976:1-24,
101-132).
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
8/21
Fowler]
USES OF
THE
PAST
235
Although the
position of
King's
Antiquary was
not
continued beyond
Leland's
death, chauvinism
toward Britain's
past and its
antiquities
continued to
develop.
For
example,
one
John
Collinson
(1779,
cited by
Jessup
1961:186)
bragged that
Italy, whose
ruins are so
much
glorified
by
the
legendary
traveller,
had only
the
remains
of its
own ancient
people ;
Britain on the
contrary
can
boast not
only the works of
its
Aborigines,
but those of
its
conquerors and invaders
.... We
join to
the massive
rudeness of
the
Briton,
the
elegance
of
the
Roman,
and
the
clumsy ornament
of
the Saxon.
(The
well-established idea
that Britain drew
its
uniqueness
and
strength
from
its
mixed
ethnic origins
became a
popular
rallying point
in
the
1930s for British
arguments
against the
Nazi
Nordic
monomania
although scientific
analyses
of
ethnic
mixtures were much
more
carefully
couched
[Huxley
et al.
1935:193-196].)
British
archaeological
myth-building is best
exemplified
in
the
elaboration over
four
centuries of
interpretations of late Neolithic
and
Bronze
Age
megalithic
sites. The
interpretations
began
in
the
1500s with
the
invention of the
Druids and continue at
present
with
Druidic,
or
other, designers
of
astronomical
computers
in
the form of
megalithic
mainframes.
There is a
plethora of
historical,
ethnographic,
and
legendary
information on the
Druids.
The
clearest attempts to separate fact from fiction are by Chadwick (1966), Kendrick (1927), Owen
(1962), and Piggott
(1968).
The
account of the
Druids
on
which
most of the later
myths
and
speculations are based is
Julius
Caesar's
(1980:121-123)
description
of
them
in
the
Gallic
Wars.
Caesar
describes
the
Druids
in
Gaul as
in
charge
of
religion,
instructing young
men
in
Druidic
lore,
acting
as
judges
in
criminal
and
civil
disputes,
and being
greatly
honored
by
the
people
....
It is
thought
that the
doctrine
of the
Druids
was invented
in
Britain and was
brought
from
there
into
Gaul; even
today
those
who want to
study
the
doctrine
in
greater
detail
usually go
to Britain
to learn there
(Caesar
1980:121).
The
Druids
in
Gaul were
suppressed
after A.D.
14.
Large
numbers
of
them were
massacred
by
the Roman
general
Seutonius Paulinus
in
A.D. 60. After
that
time, they
are
generally spoken
of
in
the
past
tense;
they
are
last
mentioned
in
Classical
literature ca. A.D.
300
(Owen
1962:15-26),
then
forgotten
for a
millennium.
Druids were
rediscovered
by
French
literati
toward the end of
the
fifteenth
century.
In
1526,
the
Scottish historian Hector
Boece
(1526)
revived
knowledge
of
them
in
Great
Britain. He
claimed
that
in
ancient times
the
Druids'
headquarters
was
the Isle of
Man.
They
were rich
experts
both
in
natural and moral
philosophy
..
. advisers of
kings
and
nobles
and
instructors of
nobles'
sons
in
'virtue and
science. ' He also
associated
them with
megalithic
stone
circles (Owen
1962:28-31).
John
Leland studied
in
Paris
in
the
1530s and
became a
Britannic
Druidophile. Leland's
enthu-
siasm was shared
by
William
Camden.
In
his
influential and
oft-reprinted
Britannia,
Camden
(1587)
became the
champion
of British
Druids: our
Druids,
great
scholar-priests who
imparted
much
knowledge
to the rest of
Europe.
Although Boece
(1526)
had
suggested
a
relation
between
Druids
and
megalithic
stone circles,
the
identification
was not
systematically made until
the
seventeenth
century. The
Druidic:
Stone
Circle
linkage
grew,
especially
in
the
hands of
John
Aubrey,
who
made
careful studies
of
Stonehenge and
other sites. In his Monumenta Britannica (written by 1693, but not published until 1980), Aubrey
called
Stonehenge
Templa
Druidium.
Though
not
published,
the
Monumenta was
well known
to later
antiquarians,
and others
soon
found
that
various
megalithic stone
circles
were
Druidic
temples (Hunter
1975;
Owen
1962:109-117;
Stover
and
Kraig 1978:6-9).
But it was
William
Stukeley, law
student,
physician,
Anglican
minister,
and fervent
antiquarian
(Piggott
1950)
who
Restor'd
(as
he
put
it)
Stonehenge,
Avebury, and most
other
British
megalithic
monuments to
the Druids
(Stukeley
1740, 1743).
Late in his
career,
Stukeley came to
suffer from
what
Christopher
Chippindale
(personal
communication
1985) calls
Druid
dottiness.
Stukeley
concluded
that,
in
addition to
building
the
circles, the
Druids knew
in
principle
of the
divine
emanation,
i.e.,
the
Christian
nativity,
and
believed
in
the Trinity
long
before the
birth of
Christ
(Owen
1962:125,
128; Piggott
1935,
1950:129,
1968:152-154). Thus, the
Druids
were
transformed
from
Caesar's
Gaulish
diviners
and
judges
to
Stukeley's
British
scholars, teachers,
priests,
and
anticipators of true (i.e., Anglican) Christianity.
In
the
hands
of
later
eighteenth-century
Romantic
antiquarians,
writers, and
poets, our
holy
Druids
became British
patriots and the
fonts of
philosophical and
scientific
knowledge.
According
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
9/21
236
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
[Vol.
52,
No.
2,
1987
to
some, British Druidic learning was carried eastward, first to Greece, there stimulating the early
Greek philosopher/scientists, thence to India, there giving rise to
a caste of scholar-priests, the
Hylobii (Brahmins?), and finally to China where it became the basis for Confucianism (Wood
1747:9-12, cited by Owen 1962:11). And scattered across the
British Isles were the stone circles
and the megalithic tombs, evidence of the long reign of the Druids and their abilities as engineers
and scholars. Druidic archaeology was a major factor in British Romanticism' in the latter half
of the
eighteenth
and
throughout the nineteenth centuries (Piggott
1937), despite vehement protests
from critics (Herbert 1838; Higgins 1829; Ledwick 1790; Lubbock
1865; Pinkerton 1789, cited by
Owen
1962:238). By 1900, Druid had become a word not to be uttered in respectable archaeo-
logical company;2 but Druidism, especially in relation to
Stonehenge, was well established in the
mainstream of British popular history, culture, and folklore (Kendrick 1927; Owen 1962:239; see
also
Bonwick
1894; Piggott 1949:193; Rutherford
1978).3
Although the Templa Druidium theory of British megalithic
sites had lost favor among ar-
chaeologists by 1900,
the sites
themselves soon found new interpreters (few of them archaeologists)
who saw (and see) them as astronomical observatories and, latterly, astronomical computers. The
new wave of interest, part of the continuing fascination aptly called megalithomania (Michell
1982), has historic antecedents. From at least Stukeley's time, various authors (e.g., Smith 1771)
had hinted that Stonehenge and other megalithic circles had some relation to astronomy, whether
the
astronomers were, or were not, identified with the Druids
(Michell 1977).
Modem astronomical megalithomania began with Lockyer (1906). It continued in the first
issue of Antiquity (Trotter 1927). Thereafter, astronomical interest abated somewhat until the pub-
lication of Hawkins's (1965) Stonehenge Decoded. Interest in
astroarchaeology, or archaeological
astronomy,
was rekindled not
only
in
Britain
(Michell 1977), but
elsewhere (Bailey 1973; Collea
and
Aveni
1978).4
Whether Stonehenge
or other
megalithic
sites
in
Great Britain
were,
in
fact,
used
for astronomical
purposes
is
not
the
issue here.
What
is
of
interest
is the
popular
interpretation
of
Stonehenge and
other
sites as
computers,
or astronomical observatories. Given
their
great age,
now
well-
established
by
14C
determinations,
the
implication
drawn is that their
builders,
be
they Druids,
Neolithic farmers,
or
Bronze
Age pastoralists,
were
scientifically very advanced folk. By further
implication, they
were
more
advanced than other
contemporary European folk,
hence somehow
better.
In
short,
a chauvinistic
popular interpretation
of the
past
is
operative.
With the
exception
of MacKie
(1977),
few
contemporary
British
archaeologists accept
the
idea
of an association of
astronomer-priests
with
megalithic
monuments
(Atkinson 1966; Chippindale 1983:216-236, 1986).
But, since
at least
1771,
the
popular image
has
existed,
and
makes Hawkes's
(1967:174)
observation
even more
telling: Every age
has
the
Stonehenge
it
deserves-or desires.
One
apparent
line
of
support
for the
argument
that
Stonehenge
and other
megalithic
sites
in
Britain
were built under
the
supervision
of
indigenous astronomer-priests
or
engineers
derives
from
the recalibration
of 14C
determinations
(Renfrew 1973).
The
consequent
redating
of
European
late
Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures drastically altered accepted chronological relations both within
Europe
and between
Europe
and
the
Near East.
It was no
longer necessary
to
posit
the arrival of
Mycenaean
or
other
engineer-astronomers
from the civilized East to
supervise
the
barbarian
Britons
in
the construction
of
megalithic
sites. Recalibration
made it
equally possible
that the
engineer-astronomers
were
home-grown.
On a broader
scale,
the
recalibration of
the
'4C
chronology
also
forced
a
general rethinking
of the
archaeological implications
of
Orientalism,
the Eastern
Other,
in
European scholarly
and
po-
litical
thought.
As
Edward
Said
(1978:12) puts it,
. . .
Orientalism is-and does
not
simply rep-
resent-a
considerable
dimension
of modem
political-intellectual culture,
and as such
has
less
to
do
with the Orient
than it does with
'our' world.
Said
demonstrates
how Orientalism
grew
out
of
European
colonialism
and
colonial
ideology.
Full
justice
cannot be done to
his
complex
and
per-
suasive
arguments
here.
For
present purposes,
the
important point
is that the East
has
figured
prominently in colonialist thinking as well as in historical and archaeological interpretation in
Europe;
for
archaeological interpretation
see Clark
(1966),
Poliakov
(1974:255-325),
Renfrew
(1974:
14),
and
Trigger (1978:74-114, 1980b:82-123, 1981).
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
10/21
Fowler]
USES OF THE PAST 237
The theory that most elements of civilization diffused to Europe from the East was tenaciously
held by most archaeologists during
the second
quarter
of this
century (Daniel
1982:63).
The
work
of V. Gordon Childe, especially
the third
edition
of
The
Dawn
of European
Civilization (Childe
1939; see also Green 1981 and Trigger 1980b), is an obvious example.
Christopher Chippindale (personal communication 1985) casts an interesting light on the influence
of Orientalism
in British
archaeology
and British colonial and nationalist
ideologies.
He
notes that
in lieu of absolute dating methods, diffusionism was a necessity
if
some semblance
of chronological
order
was
to be imposed
on
European prehistory.
That
is,
an
apparent
relative
chronology
could
be
(and was)
derived
by establishing
links
across
Europe
to the
Near
Eastern
high
cultures
dated
by
calendric
means, a
la Childe.
But a further
implication
was that the
good
phenomena
of
civilization-writing, monumental architecture, metallurgy, farming, states,
etc.
-began
in
the East
and diffused to
the West.
Certainly
Britain had received much
of
the
benefit from
the East
by
diffusion
in
historic times, e.g.,
the Roman
and
Saxon
invasions,
and
presumably
also
in
pre-
historic times, e.g, the postulated Mycenaean engineer-astronomers.
In
short,
in
prehistoric
and
early
historic times
the source of culture
and civilization was the
East.
But,
at the
height
of the
British Empire (ca. 1850-1950), it was Britain's turn to be the source of culture and civilization.
Her self-defined mission was the transfer of
material
culture,
technical
expertise,
and
advanced
forms of government to
the now-backward East
(an argument congruent
with that of Said
[1978]).
The key assumption, of course,
is
the central tenet of diffusionism
and
its derivative
concepts,
the
age-area hypothesis and
Kulturkreislehre:
cultural elements
originate
at a center of
high
culture
and diffuse toward
the
peripheries. Chippindale concludes,
That
is
why
it
was unthinkable
that
Stonehenge
was
British,
and
why
as late
as
the
early
1950's a
Mycenaean
architect was
sought
for
Stonehenge:
the diffusionist
imperative
was
to search elsewhere rather than to conceive of native
British ingenuity. With the demise of the empire, British archaeology could
take on board more
happily autonomous ideas,
such
as
a British
Stonehenge (Christopher Chippindale,
personal com-
munication 1985). The recalibration
of '4C
chronology seemed to clinch the
case.
Bringing together Chippindale's analysis with earlier British ideas as outlined
above creates an
interesting picture
of national chauvinism and sense of national
destiny
in
British uses of the past.
The monuments of the past are interpreted as evidence of early British cultural
superiority. The
builders of
those monuments,
the ancient
Britons,
also created and diffused the
seeds of higher
knowledge to the Continent and Asia. That knowledge flowered and ultimately returned to Britain
via the successive invasions
of
the Saxons, Danes, Romans,
and others. The resulting physical and
cultural
hybrid vigor
enabled the British
to
carry
culture
and
civilization,
higher knowledge,
via the Empire back out
to the world for a second
time.
CHINA
Archaeology
in
the service of
the state
is
currently
well
exemplified by
the
policies
and
practices
of the People's Republic of China. Prior to the establishment of the current government in 1949,
archaeology
was
a
well-developed discipline
in
China
(Triestman 1972),
aided
in
part by scholars
from Japan and the West (Chang 1977:623). Since 1949, Chinese archaeology
has occupied a
privileged political position (Cheng 1965:73), stimulated by a governmental policy to make a con-
scious and conscientious effort
to
include
archaeology
as an
important part of the political education
of the
people (Chang 1980:497).
The organization of archaeological
research
in
China
reflects this nationalistic
policy. All ar-
chaeologists
in
the
country
work
directly
for the central
government.
In
Beijing, the National Bureau
of Cultural Relics is
directly
under
the State
Council.
Archaeologists work
for the
hundreds of
provincial or subprovincial museums administered by the Bureau; through
the Institute of Ar-
chaeology
or the Institute
of
Paleontology
and
Paleoanthropology of
the
Academy Sinica; or
in
and
through
one of
eight
universities
teaching
and
conducting archaeological research at the doctoral
level (Chang 1977:624, 1980:499; Cheng 1965:68-73).
Under this
organizational
structure
archaeological
work has
proceeded apace since the early 19
5Os.
During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s to 1970s, archaeology went through
a period of internal
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
11/21
238
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol.
52,
No.
2,
1987
criticism and slowdown
(Cheng 1965:76-77), but apparently
was not as severely damaged as were
history and ethnology
(Braybrooke
1979:593-594). Major discoveries, excavations,
and re-exca-
vations throughout the country have
provided a plethora of new data from
early Paleolithic times
to the late historic period (Chang 1977:626-634). The amazing terracotta army from the tomb
complex of Emperor Zheng, founder
of the Qin dynasty, the jade burial suits
from the Han dynasty
tombs
in
Hebei Province (Qian et al.
1981:65-86, 127-138), and numerous
other spectacular finds
have rightfully
received world attention
and admiration in recent years.
Traditionally for the Chinese, the
past has always been in part a morality tale
providing precepts
for
proper behavior
and thought
in
the present. But in
China, as elsewhere, which precepts
are
provided is a
matter of ideological
interpretation and the current needs
of the state. Boorstin
(1983:562) points out that an official
history office was established during the
Tang dynasty, and
thereafter controlled
all the accessible past. In succeeding
dynasties official historians wrote and
reinterpreted the
histories of previous dynasties according
to their own presuppositions.
Often the
histories held that previous dynasties
fell because the Mandate of Heaven
had been withdrawn
but was reinstituted at the onset of
the then-current dynasty (Plumb 1970:27-28).
Such histories
were written by bureaucrats for bureaucrats to justify the present dynasty's power and authority.
Thus, Chairman Mao's dictum,
The
past
should
serve the
present (cited
by Chang 1980:505),
is
not new. What is new since 1949 is,
first, that the past is now the People's
past and not just that
of rulers and bureaucrats and, second,
the interpretation of the past is framed
within a variation
of
the Marxist
perspective
(Chang 1977:625, 1980:501).
Between 1949
and 1959, Chinese archaeological interpretations
were couched in Marxist-Leninist
terms
derived
from Russian archaeological theory (Cheng
1965:68). But after the Sino-Soviet rift
began
in
1959, Chinese archaeological
interpretation began to change. Archaeologists
and historians
faced the problem
of
having
to balance the traditional Marxist schemata of
world history with
an
attempt
to do justice to
the
scope and weight
of a
cultural
tradition as magnificent as any that
human
genius
has created (Kahn and Feurwerker 1965:2).
Chinese archaeologists, at least, seem
to have
succeeded.
In
1960-1961,
they adopted
a
standard framework of
Chinese cultural devel-
opment.
Chinese
prehistory
and
history
are
periodized
into
three
stages
or states, derived
ultimately
from Morgan (1877)
and
Engels's (1884)
interpretation
of
Morgan,
in
relation
to Marxist
theory: 1)
Primitive
society
in
prehistoric times; 2)
Slave
society
in
Shang
and
early
Zhou
dynasties;
and
3)
Feudal societies
in
late Zhou and
subsequent
dynasties (Cheng 1965:76).
Marx's Asiatic
mode of production
seems
to have
proved
an embarrassment
(Cheng 1965:76;
Kahn and Feurwerker
1965:5)
and is quietly ignored.
Within the overall
paradigm
of
history
as
class
struggle,
and
the
three-stage
framework of
cultural
development,
there is
apparently
room for
quibbling
over details-
such as the
timing
of
stage
transitions-but
no
possibility
of
questioning
the
conceptual
framework
or the
stages per
se
(Chang
1980:501;
Pearson
1976).
In
their
technical reports,
Chinese
archaeologists,
as
do
those
in
other
countries, usually separate
data, analysis,
and
interpretation (Chang 1981:167).
But
it is
the
interpretation
of
archaeological
data for national and international consumption that is relevant here. In a recent, large-format
volume (filled
with brilliant color
plates
and
published simultaneously
in
Beijing
and
New
York),
Qian
et al.
(1981) present
to the non-Chinese
world several
of the recent
spectacular
finds and
excavations.
These include
Shang bronzes, Zheng's
terracotta
army,
and
silks,
bronze
statuary,
and
other sublime
art
works from Han
and later
dynasties.
In
the
accompanying
text we see
how
Chinese
archaeologists
have achieved
a balance between the
Marxist historical schematic
and an
appreciation
for their
own
magnificent
cultural tradition.
The
interpretations
presented are,
in
fact, part
of a
morality
tale.
The
evil, pre-
1949
past
is contrasted
with
the
glory
of the
present
and the future.
The
past
was
evil,
not
in
itself,
but
because
those who ruled China
in
the
past
were evil.
There is
a
concomitant
celebration
of the
slaves, peasants,
and
crafts-people-the People-as
the true loci
of
Chinese
wealth, culture,
and art.
And
there
is
great pride
in
the cultural
heritage
the
people produced
despite
the
oppressive
rulers:
By
the late
Shang period
the
rulers
had amassed
huge
wealth
through
the
exploitation
of
slaves,
and led
lives
of
luxury
and
extravagance
....
Shang
was a slave
society
and
agriculture,
animal
husbandry,
and the
hand-
icraft
industries
were
mostly accomplished
by
slaves. The
slaves,
therefore,
created these admirable
bronze
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
12/21
Fowler]
USES OF THE PAST
239
and
jade
treasures,
he wealth of
the society, and ultimately
the culture
of Shang....
The
sculpture
of
the
Qin [dynasty] erracotta igures
s wholly
based
on
reality
and draws
ts material
rom actual ife. It
reflects
the spirit of
the times of the First
Emperorof Qin as
he unifiedChina with
his
powerfularmy,
and it brings
out
a national style
of
lucidity
and grandeur Qian
et
al.
1981:26-27,
82].
We see
in
these quotes,
and
in
other official
interpretations
of
Chinese history,
a
very
different
use of the past
from
that revealed
in
the other
examples.
The
purpose
is not to
legitimize
authority
by genealogical
linkage,
not
to justify imperial
hegemony
of a
superior people
over
inferior
ones, or
to
claim
intellectual or
philosophical priority
over
other nations.
Rather,
the
past
is
seen
as
a testimonial to the Chinese masses,
the People, who created
and
carried forward
a magnificent
civilization despite
their
overlords,
but whose
full
potential
was unleashed only
in 1949.5
IMPLICATIONS
Three instances
are examined
in
which
the past, particularly
those portions
in
which archaeological
phenomena or theories figured prominently, was used for nationalistic purposes. Voltaire once wrote,
History
is after
all only
a
pack
of tricks
we
play
on
the dead
(cited by
Becker
1932:44). Manip-
ulations
of
the
past by
nationalistically
motivated
ideologues
and chauvinists are also, however,
a
matter
of
playing
tricks on the
living. They
serve to convince the
governed
that
those in power
rule
legitimately:
that
they
have
genealogical
links,
or other
lines of
authority, connecting
them
directly
to
the ultimate
sources
of
power
and
legitimacy,
however
conceived. Mexico
is offered as an
example
of
this
type.
A second method
of manipulating
the
past
is
more diffuse
and propagandistic.
Nationalist partisans
use
and interpret
the
past
to
advance claims
of their nation's
peoples' indigenous
physical
or mental
superiority.
For
example,
there are the
British claims
that
Druids are
the true source of
Western
(and
even
Eastern, i.e.,
Brahmanic
and
Confucian) religious
and
scientific
knowledge,
and that the
Druids or other indigenous
Britons
were
the
designers
and builders of
megalithic
mainframes,
or
Stone-
and
Bronze-Age
astronomical observatories.
The
implication
is that
early
Britons
were
mentally and organizationally
more advanced than
their Continental
peers, and that
somehow this
superiority
carries down to
the contemporary
British. This purported
natural
superiority
sup-
ported
Britain's
right,
or
duty,
to
carry
the White Man's Burden: to bring culture
and civilization
to the
less
fortunate
rest
of
the world.
A
similar,
if
more
sinister, example
was Nazi Germany's
officially-sponsored
attempts to
ma-
nipulate
the past by
marshalling anatomical,
linguistic, and
archaeological
data to
prove Aryan
superiority
and
with
it,
the
right to conquer
and rule the world.
Although Nazi
Germany is
the
most
blatant
recent
example,
history
is
replete
with
others (Plumb
1970:62-101):
all would-be
and
all
successful
conquerors
are
always
superior and the
deities are always
on their sides. It
was
so when
Sargon
came to
power
ca. 2370
B.C.;
when Ur established
hegemony over other
Sumerian
city-states around 2050 B.C.; when Hammurabi and the Babylonians conquered Sumer-Akkad in
1750
B.C.; when the
Hebrews besieged
Jericho; when the
Aztec Triple Alliance
dominated
Me-
soamerica
in
1500;
and
when
the Spanish conquered
the Aztecs and
the Incas soon thereafter.
Finally,
there are uses of the
past for internal
legitimation of a
nation-state's policies,
actions,
and
ideologies.
Both Huxley and Orwell
recognized the
importance of the state's
need and ability
to control
the
past,
and
made them
focal
points
of their
dystopian
novels.
The
example
used
here
is
contemporary
China.
Like
Orwell's
state,
China
uses
and
manipulates
the
past.
Its
purposes
are
to
glorify,
and
hence,
justify
the
present
and
the future
by
denigrating
the
evil
past.
Huxley's
World
Controllers
obliterated
the
past
because
its
perceived
heresies threatened
the
present
stability
and
happiness
of
a
populace
tranquilized by
soma and
feely
movies.
There was no room for Shake-
speare
or other old
things
in
such
a
world,
as the
Savage
found out
to his sorrow.
In
China,
at
least
since the
end
of
the
Cultural
Revolution,
there is room once
again
for Confucius and
Mencius,
although they
are
officially interpreted,
and there
is
clearly
room
for the
Qin
terracotta
army
and
the
other
great
treasures
from
the
past.
The
latter have become visible
symbols
of
the
strength
and
genius
of the
People
throughout
three millennia of
oppression
that ended
in
1949.
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/19/2019 Fowler, 1987 - Uses of the Past
13/21
240
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol.
52,
No.
2,
1987
The uses of the past
for nationalistic and chauvinistic
purposes
discussed here raise
a set of issues
within emerging critical
discussions about the
purposes of archaeology,
and the sociopolitical and
epistemological contexts
within which it is conducted.
Worldwide in the
1980s, there is
a great deal
more to
archaeological inquiry than
is posited in the original
OED
definition given at
the outset of
this article:
Ancient history generally;
systematic
description of study of antiquities.
The scientism
of the now-aging
New Archaeology (Binford
1962, 1986), the exigencies
of rescue archaeology
and cultural resource management
(Cleere 1984;
Fowler 1982; Knudson
1986; Wilson and Loyola
1982), and the attempted
integration
of post-processual symbolic,
structural, and Marxist
concepts
into archaeological
analyses and theorizing
(Hodder 1982;
Leone 1986; Spriggs 1984;
Tilley 1984)
have all
conspired to push archaeology
far beyond the simplicities
of culture history implied
by the
OED definition.
That archaeological study of
the past does not take place
in an intellectual or
sociopolitical
vacuum
is
obvious.
That the contexts in which
archaeology is practiced
may structure
or influence how
the
past
is
interpreted
is becoming a matter
of critical
concern.
A
host
of complex questions is
raised. On a general level,
there are questions about
philosophies
of history.
Historians
and social
philosophers
have
long
wrestled
with the
question,
what is
history?,
and a series of related questions about historical process (Becker 1932; Plumb 1970; Toulmin
and Goodfield 1966). Archaeologists
generally have focused
on middle-range
theory in seeking to
answer
questions
of historical process
(Grayson 1986) and
less on grandiose what
is history?
issues. The emerging
critical discussions
require that attention
be given to the grandiose
questions,
to
the intellectual
and sociopolitical contexts that
overtly and covertly give
form and substance to
those
questions,
and to
middle-range theory.
Clearly, the past
and archaeology, as
a provider of
various
interpretations of the past,
have often been used for
nationalist, colonialist, and
imperialist
purposes,
to use
Trigger's
(1984)
terms. As
I
indicate here, the past
and monuments of the past
have long been used to
legitimize authority and
to assert, or
symbolize, nationalist ideologies.
Such
usage
may
well be coterminous
with the state as an
entity
in
human
history. Since
the sixteenth
century,
scholars
styling
themselves as
antiquarians,
and
latterly
as
archaeologists,
have, wittingly
or
otherwise, participated
in
these
uses for overt nationalistic
purposes.
But
knowledge
of such
participation
raises
the other
side
of
the issue.
That
is, how, and
to what
degree,
do
nationalist,
colonialist, imperialist
aims and the
ethnic,
social-class,
and
political-party
ideologies
and values
in
which archaeologists
are
immersed covertly
influence archaeological theory
and
interpretation?
Fowler
(1986),
Gero
(1985),
Meltzer
(1985),
Patterson
(1986), Trigger (1984,
1986), and
others
have
recently
begun discussions
of
various covert influences
on
archaeological
interpretations
of
New
World
pasts.
Hall
(1984)
and Garlake
(1982)
raise similar issues
for
Africa.
Wilk
(1985)
raises
fascinating questions
with
his
correlations
between
contemporary
political
and
environmental
issues
in the United States and
archaeological
interpretations
of the ancient
Maya.
If
the ideologies
and values
of
their
sociopolitical
milieus
influence or
structure
how
archaeologists
interpret
the
past,
then to what
degree
are
they pursuing,
or
delineating,
what Watson
(1986)
calls
the real
past?
Watson
critically
summarizes
various
contemporary approaches
to
archaeological
interpretation, as those interpretations derive from theoretical and methodological assumptions
within archaeology.
She
notes
that the
majority
of
archaeologists
think that the real
past
is
accessible,
and
what
archaeologists
do is
to
(more
or
less
successfully)
delineate
that
reality (Watson
1986:442-443).
The
cases
discussed herein,
blatant
manipulations
of
the
past
for
political
ends,
and the
covert
influences of
ideology
and values
on
archaeological interpretations,
raise
complex epistemological
issues
in relation
to Watson's concerns.
Real
in Watson's sense
implies
that
objective
and
perhaps
value neutral
interpretations
of the
past
are
possible.
Philosophers
of
history
and
phi-
losophers
of
historical
sciences, e.g., geology,
paleontology,
and
astronomy,
have
for a
long
time
explored
the
epistemological implications
of historical
reality.
The
general
conclusion
appears
to
be
that
true
objectivity
and
value-free
interpretations
are worthwhile
ideals,
but ideals not
likely
to
be
fully