Fowler, 1987 - Uses of The Past

Society for American Archaeology
Uses of the past: Archaeology in the Service of the State

Author(s): Don D. Fowler
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 229-248
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.
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 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USES OF THE PAST: ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE

SERVICE OF THE STATE
Don D. Fowler
Nation states, or partisansthereof,controland allocatesymbolicresourcesas one means of legitimizingpower

and authority,and in pursuitof theirperceivednationalisticgoals and ideologies.A majorsymbolicresourceis
the past. In this paperI reviewthreecases in whichthe past and, in particular,relevantarchaeologicalresources
were "used"forsuch purposes,and I referto severalother well-knowninstances. The three cases discussedare
Mexicofrom ca. A.D. 900 to the present,Britainfrom ca. A.D. 1500 to the present,and the People'sRepublic
of Chinasince 1949. The implicationsof such uses in relationto archaeologicaltheoriesand interpretationsare
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 Dictionary 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 fundamentalgoal of state policies is acquisitionof support;i.e. either the active or passive compliance
of citizens with state policies and goals .... Supportis the underpinningof legitimacyand providesthe most
fruitfulconcept for understandinglegitimation.... Legitimationof political authorityis in largemeasurea
consequenceof the ability of authoritiesto generate,control,and allocate,economic and symbolicresources
in pursuitof public and privategoals [emphasisadded].
Don D. Fowler,DepartmentofAnthropology,Universityof Nevada,Reno, NV 89557

AmericanAntiquity,52(2), 1987, pp. 229-248.
Copyright? 1987 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
229

230
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[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, historical, 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
particularly striking 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-

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 postConquest 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. 9001150) 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 citystates, 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 Tenochtitlan. 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 Tacubadefeated 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.

232
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[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 Huitzilopochtli 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 Tenochtitlan was apparently hidden after the Conquest (Padden 1967:270-274), an important indication 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.

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, published in 1615 (Franch 1973) and the works of later Creole historians. These writers viewed preConquest 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 Sigiuenza y 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 independence. 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

234
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[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 civilizations 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, heroicallydefendedby Cuaht&moc,fell into the power of Heman Cortes.
It was neithera triumphnor a defeat, but the painfulbirth 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 preConquest "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 Spanishstimulated 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).

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 enthusiasm 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

236
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[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 archaeological 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 archaeologists 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 publication 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 wellestablished 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 political thought. As Edward Said (1978:12) puts it, ". . . Orientalism is-and does not simply represent-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 persuasive 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).

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 prehistoric 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 communication 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 "conscious 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 archaeologists 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 Archaeology 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

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-excavations 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 development. 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 detailssuch 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 handicraft industries were mostly accomplished by slaves. The slaves, therefore, created these admirable bronze

Fowler]
USES OF THE PAST
239
and jade treasures,the wealth of the society, and ultimatelythe cultureof Shang.... The sculptureof the
Qin [dynasty]terracottafiguresis wholly based on realityand drawsits materialfrom actuallife. 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). Manipulations 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" supported 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 manipulate 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 Mesoamerica 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 Shakespeare 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.

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 philosophers 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 obtained (Becker 1932; Boorstin 1983; Rossi 1984; Toulmin and Goodfield 1966). In
The Death of the Past, the historian J. H. Plumb (1970:13) distinguishes between the sorts of pasts
constructed for the sorts of reasons discussed in this article and "true history-the attempt to see
things as they were." Plumb holds that only in the West has there been a conscious attempt to

Fowler]
USES OF THE PAST
241
develop the kind of objectivity implied by the term "true history." The hallmarks of the attempt,
he says, are all the tools of critical documentary and textual analyses used by historians, and insofar
as possible, an abjuration, through overt recognition of their influences, of ideological presuppositions.
It is clear that archaeologists are now making a parallel attempt. A hallmark of good archaeology
has always been the critical application of all available tools for classification, analysis, and the
establishment of relations. But there must also be a concomitant awareness of the influences of both
covert and overt presuppositions on archaeological interpretations. The lesson of the cases presented
here is simple: when archaeology (or history) is used for nationalist purposes, the resultant pictures
of the past are severely distorted to reflect nationalist goals and ideals. But archaeology qua archaeology seeks to use the past for purposes quite at variance with the needs and requirements of
nationalist ideologues. The crucial difference lies in approach and purpose. Archaeologists seek both
to chronicle the past as accurately as possible and to use information about the past to ask general
questions concerning human behavior. The data generated to answer the questions, and the answers
themselves, are subject to continuing critical scrutiny and analysis. Uses of the past to satisfy
nationalistic needs involve the manipulation of data and of answers to fit the needs. So stated, the
uses of the past by archaeologists on the one hand and by nationalist ideologues or apologists on
the other appear as polar opposites. But between the poles there is a vast middle ground in which
nationalist, ethnic, social, political, and economic ideologies and values influence or condition
interpretations of the past. Awareness of these influences on cultural behavior generally is taught
routinely in introductory anthropology classes. But the criticisms of archaeological practice and
interpretation recently advanced by Gero (1985), Patterson (1986), Trigger (1984, 1986), Wilk
(1985), and others indicate that this awareness tends to be submerged or forgotten. In seeking
accessibility to the "real" past, archaeologists must continue to be aware of the influences of ideologies
and values on their own professional culture, and hence on how they use the past. One of the
salubrious results of the "new" archaeology has been the insistence that hypotheses and "linking
arguments" be rigorously framed and scrutinized. The emerging critical discussions of archaeological
analyses and interpretations carry this insistence on rigor a step further. Covert influences derived
from ideologies and values must be recognized and made explicit as well.
To conclude, the major point of this article is that interpretations, or uses, of the past are seldom
value neutral. Nation states have long used and manipulated the past for their own needs and
purposes. Since its inception as a field of study and later as a discipline, archaeology has been
immersed in, and conditioned by, the economic, political, and governmental institutions of nation
states. In various nation states at various times, some archaeologists have analyzed and interpreted
the past to fit the ideological requirements of those states. That is one end of the spectrum. The
other is the implicit and therefore unquestioned acceptance of ideological tenets and values from
within the archaeologist's culture and how they influence the archaeologist's uses of the past. In the
continuing quest for the "real" past, awareness of both ends of the spectrum is required. The
refractory and "unself-evident" nature of archaeological data makes inference about the real past
an extremely difficult undertaking at best. Concerns since the 1930s with typology and analytical
procedures, and since the 1960s with explications of methods, the development and application of
linking arguments, and the framing of general hypotheses, all reflect the difficulty of the enterprise.
To these concerns we must add the ones discussed in the present article. Only by a continuing
critical awareness of all the factors at play in the doing of archaeology will we be able to approach
and provide valid explications of the real past.
Acknowledgments. An earlier version of this paper was presentedin a symposium, "The Social Uses of
Archaeology,"organizedby Jesse D. Jennings, for the XIth InternationalCongressof Anthropologicaland
EthnologicalSciences, Vancouver,B.C., August 18, 1983. That version and subsequentdraftshave benefited
greatlyfrom the cogentreviewsand criticismsof ChristopherChippindale,CarolCondie,RobertC. Euler,Brian
M. Fagan,CatherineS. Fowler,Diane Gifford-Gonzales,Donald K. Grayson,JonathanHaas,Jesse D. Jennings,
KristianKristiansen,BruceG. Trigger,and PattyJo Watson.K. C. Changkindlyprovidedreprintsof his papers
for the China section. Two anonymousAmericanAntiquityreviewersadded measurablyto both clarity and
organizationwithin the article.I thankall these colleaguesand hastento absolve them for responsibilityfor any
errorsof fact or interpretationfound here.

242
AMERICANANTIQUITY
REFERENCES
[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987
CITED
Adams, R. McC.
1966 The Evolution of Urban Society. Aldine, Chicago.
Anderson, A. J. O., and C. E. Dibble (translators)
1978 The War of Conquest: How It Was Waged Here in Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Atkinson, R. J. C.
1966 Moonshine on Stonehenge. Antiquity 40:212-216.
1974 Neolithic Science and Technology. In The Place of Astronomy in the Ancient World, edited by F. R.
Hodsen, pp. 123-132. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Aubrey, J.
1980 Monumenta Britannica, or a Miscellany of British Antiquities. MS on file, Bodleian Library, Oxford
University. Facsimile edition published as, Monumenta Britannica. John Aubrey (1629-97), Parts One and
Two, edited by J. Fowles. Dorset, Sherborne.
Bailey, J.
1973 The God-King and the Titans. The New World Ascendancy in Ancient Times. St. Martin's Press, New
York.
Balazs, E.
1964 Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy, Variations on the Theme. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Becker, C. L.
1932 The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Berlin, I.
1980 Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas. Viking Press, New York.
Bernal, I.
1980 A History of Mexican Archaeology. The Vanished Civilizations of Middle America. Thames and Hudson, London and New York.
Bierhahn, E.
1964 Blondheit und Blondheitskult in der deutschen Literatur. Archivjfar Kulturgeschichte 46:309-333.
Binford, L. R.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225.
1986 In Pursuit of the Future. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by D. J. Meltzer, D. D.
Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp. 459-479. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Boece, H.
1526 Scotorum Historiae a Prima Gentis Origine .... I Badii Ascensii, Paris. (English trans. 1821; that
trans. reissued 1946 as The Mar Lodge Translation of the History of Scotland, edited by G. Watson. Scottish
Text Society, 3rd series, vol. 17.)
Bonwick, J.
1894 Irish Druids and Old Irish Religion. Griffith, Farran, London.
Boorstin, D. J.
1983 The Discoverers. Random House, New York.
Braybrooke, G.
1979 Recent Developments in Chinese Social Science, 1977-79. The China Quarterly 79:593-607.
Brundage, B. C.
1982 The Phoenix of the Western World. Quetzalcoatl and the Sky Religion. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Caesar, J.
1980 The Battle for Gaul. Translated by A. Wiseman and P. Wiseman. Chatto and Windus, London.
Calnek, E. E.
1982 Patterns of Empire Formation in the Valley of Mexico, Late Postclassic Period, 1200-1521. In The
Inca and Aztec States. 1400-1800. Anthropology and History, edited by G. A. Collier, R. I. Rosaldo, and
J. D. Wirth, pp. 43-62. Academic Press, New York.
Camden, W.
1586 Britannia. Sine Florentissimorum Regnorum, Angliae, Scotiae, Hiberniae, et Insularum .... Ralph,
Newberry, London.
Carpenter, E. S.
1950 The Role of Archeology in the 19th Century Controversy between Developmentalism and Degeneration. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 3:15-18.
Carrasco, D.
1982 Quetzalcoatl and the Irony of Empire. Myths and Prophecies in the Aztec Tradition. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Cecil, R.
1972 The Myth of the Master Race: Alfred Rosenberg and Nazi Ideology. Dodd, Mead, New York.
Chadwick, N. K.
1966 The Druids. University of Wales Press, Cardiff.

Fowler]
USES OF THE PAST
243
Chandler, A. R.
1945 Rosenberg's Nazi Myth. Greenwood Press, New York.
Chang, K. C.
1977 Chinese Archaeology since 1949. Journal of Asian Studies 36:623-646.
1980 Archaeology. In Science in Contemporary China, edited by L. A. Orleans, pp. 496-507. Stanford
University Press, Stanford.
1981 Archaeology and Chinese Historiography. World Archaeology 13:156-169.
Cheng, T. K.
1965 Archaeology in Communist China. The China Quarterly 23:67-77.
Childe, V. G.
1939 The Dawn of European Civilization. 3rd ed. Kegan Paul, London.
Chippindale, C.
1983 Stonehenge Complete. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
1986 Stonehenge Astronomy: Anatomy of a Modem Myth. Archaeology 39(1):48-52.
Clark, G.
1966 The Invasion Hypothesis in British Archaeology. Antiquity 40:172-189.
Clark, R. T. R.
1959 Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt. Thames and Hudson, London and New York.
Clavigero, F. J.
1979 The History of Mexico. 2 vols. Garland, New York and London. (Facsimile of 1787 ed. The History
of Mexico. Collected from Spanish and Mexican Historians, from Manuscripts, and Ancient Paintings of
the Indians, trans. from Italian by C. Cullen. 2 vols. G. G. J. & J. Robinson, London.)
Cleere, H. (editor)
1984 Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage: A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Collea, B. A., and A. F. Aveni (compilers)
1978 A Selected Bibliography on Native American Astronomy. Colgate University Dept. of Physics and
Astronomy, Hamilton.
Collins, R. 0. (editor)
1968 Problems in African Prehistory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Conrad, G. W., and A. A. Demerest
1984 Religion and Empire. The Dynamics of Aztec and Inca Expansionism. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Daniel, G. E.
1967 The Origins and Growth of Archaeology. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York.
1982 Megalithic Monuments. In Readings from Scientific American. Archaeology: Myth and Reality. Introduction by J. A. Sabloff, pp. 56-66. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Davies, N.
1974 The Aztecs. A History. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York.
1977 The Toltecs until the Fall of Tula. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1980 The Toltec Heritage. From the Fall of Tula to the Rise of Tenochtitlan. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Diehl, R. A.
1983 Tula. The Toltec Capital of Ancient Mexico. Thames and Hudson, London.
Dorson, R. M.
1968 The British Folklorists. A History. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Engels, F.
1884 Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privatei genthums und des Staats. Hottingen, Zurich. (English trans.,
1902, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in the Light of the Researches of Lewis
Henry Morgan, trans. by E. Untermann. C. H. Kerr, Chicago.)
Erickson, P. A.
1973 The Indo-European Hypothesis in Nineteenth Century Physical Anthropology. KroeberAnthropological
Society Papers 48:165-179.
Evans, J.
1956 A History of the Society of Antiquaries. Oxford University Press.
Fagan, B.
1984 The Aztecs. W. H. Freeman, New York.
Fairservis, W. A., Jr.
1971 The Roots of Ancient India. The Archaeology of Early Indian Civilization. Macmillan, New York.
Fowler, D. D.
1982 Cultural Resources Management. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5, edited by
M. B. Schiffer, pp. 1-50. Academic Press, New York.
1986 Conserving American Archaeological Resources. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by
D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp. 135-162. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

244
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987
Franch, J. A.
1973 Juan de Torquemada, 1564-1624. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 13. Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources, part 2, edited by H. F. Cline, pp. 256-275. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Frankfort, H.
1948 Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and
Nature. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Frick, W.
1933 The Teaching of History and Prehistory in Germany. Nachrichtenblatt fur deutsche Vorzeit 9(6):8 184. (English trans. in Nature, February 17, 1934, pp. 298-299.)
Friedman, T. L.
1985 In a Jerusalem Basement, 3,000 Years of History. New York Times, March 3, 1985, sec. 1, p. 14.
Garlake, P. S.
1973 Great Zimbabwe. Thames and Hudson, London.
1982 Prehistory and Ideology in Zimbabwe. Africa 52(3):1-19.
Gerbi, A.
1973 The Dispute of the New World. The History of a Polemic, 1750-1900. Translated by J. Moyle. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Gero, J. M.
1985 Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American Antiquity 50:342-350.
Glock, A. E.
1985 Tradition and Change in Two Archaeologies. American Antiquity 50:464-477.
Grayson, D. K.
1986 Eoliths, Archaeological Ambiguity, and the Generation of "Middle-Range" Research. In American
Archaeology Past and Future, edited by D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp. 77-133. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Green, S.
1981 Prehistorian. A Biography of V. Gordon Childe. Moonraker Press, Bradford-on-Avon.
Gunther, H. F. K.
1926 Rassenkunde Europus. No publisher, Munich. (English trans., 1927 as The Racial Elements of European History. Methuen, London.)
Hall, M.
1984 The Burden of Tribalism: The Social Context of Southern African Iron Age Studies. American Antiquity
49:455-467.
Hawkes, J.
1967 God in the Machine. Antiquity 41:174-180.
Hawkins, G. S.
1965 Stonehenge Decoded. Doubleday, Garden City.
Heniger, D. (editor)
1974 et seq. History of Africa, a Journal of Method. African Studies Association, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Hodder, I. (editor)
1982 Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Holmes, T. R. E.
1907 Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hunter, M.
1971 The Royal Society and the Origins of British Archaeology: Parts I & II. Antiquity 45:113-121, 187192.
1975 John Aubrey and the Realm of Learning. Science History Publications, New York.
Huxley, A.
1932 Brave New World. Chatto and Windus, London.
Huxley, J., A. C. Haddon, and A. M. Carr-Saunders
1935 We Europeans: A Survey of "Racial" Problems. Jonathan Cape, London.
Jefferson, T.
1944 Notes on the State of Virginia. In The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by A.
Koch and W. Peden, pp. 186-288. Modem Library, New York.
Jessup, R.
1961 Curiosities of British Archaeology. Butterworths, London.
Jong, E.
1980 Fanny. Being the True History of the Adventures of Fanny Hackabout-Jones. New American Library,
New York.
Kahn, H., and A. Feurwerker
1965 The Ideology of Scholarship: China's New Historiography. The China Quarterly 22:1-13.
Keen, B.
1971 The Aztec Image in Western Thought. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
Kendrick, T. D.
1927 The Druids. A Study in Keltic Prehistory. Frank Cass, London.

Fowler]
USES OF THE PAST
245
Klindt-Jensen, 0.
1975 A History of Scandanavian Archaeology. Thames and Hudson, London and New York.
Knight-Ridder News Service
1985 China Acts to Save Ape-Man Discovery Site. The Denver Post, July 7, 1985, p. 3G.
Knudson, R.
1986 Contemporary Cultural Resource Management. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by
Kossinna, G.
1911 Die hernkunft der Germanen; sur methode der siedlungsarchaeologie. C. Kabitzch, Wurzburg.
1914 Die deutsche Vorgeschichte eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft. C. Kabitzch, Wurzburg.
1926-1927
Ursprung und verbreitung der Germanen in vor-undfrtigeschichtlicher zeit. Germanen-Verlag,
Berlin; reissued, 1936, C. Kabitzch, Leipzig.
Kramer, S. N.
1963 The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kurtz, D. V.
1984 Strategies of Legitimation and the Aztec State. Ethnology 23:301-314.
Lafaye, J.
1976 Quetzalcoatl and Guadalupe: The Formation of Mexican National Conciousness. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Leone, M. P.
1986 Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by
Le6n-Portilla, M.
1963 Aztec Thought and Culture. A Study of the Ancient Nahuatl Mind. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Lockyer, J. N.
1906 Stonehenge and Other British Monuments Astronomically Considered. Macmillan, London.
Lorenzo, J. L.
1981 Archaeology South of the Rio Grande: Past and Present. World Archaeology 13:190-208.
1984 Mexico. In Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage, edited by H. Cleere, pp. 89-100. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lubbock, J.
1865 Pre-historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and with the Manners and Customs of Modern
Savages. Williams and Norgate, London.
MacKie, E.
1977 Science and Society in Prehistoric Britain. St. Martin's Press, New York.
Mallory, J. P.
1973 A Short History of the Indo-European Problem. Journal of Indo-European Studies 1:21-65.
1976 Time Perspective and Proto-Indo-European Culture. World Archaeology 8:44-56.
McDowell, B., A. F. Molina Montes, and E. M. Moctezuma
1980 The Aztecs; the Building of Tenochtitlan; New Finds in the Great Temple. National Geographic 158:
704-755.
Meltzer, D. J.
1985 North American Archaeology and Archaeologists, 1879-1934. American Antiquity 50:249-260.
Michell, J. F.
1977 Secrets of the Stones: The Story of Astro-Archaeology. Pelican Books, Baltimore.
1982 Megalithomania. Artists, Antiquarians and Archaeologists at the Old Stone Monuments. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Morgan, L. H.
1877 Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to
Civilization. Henry Holt, New York.
Mosse, G. L.
1961 The Mystical Origins of National-Socialism. Journal of the History of Ideas 22:81-96.
1964 The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich. Grosset & Dunlap, New York.
Mouldy, M. (pseudonym)
1842 Stonehenge; or, the Romans in Britain. A Romance of the Days of Nero. 3 vols. Richard Bentley,
London.
Muller, H. J.
1952 The Uses of the Past. Profiles of Former Societies. Oxford University Press, New York.
Murray, M. A.
1970 The God of the Witches. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nicholson, H. B.
1971 Religion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, part 1, edited by G. F. Ekholm and I. Bernal, pp. 395-446. University of
Texas Press, Austin.

246
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987
Orwell, G.
1949 Nineteen Eighty-Four. Signet Classics, New York.
Owen, A. F.
1962 The Famous Druids. A Survey of Three Centuries of English Literature on the Druids. Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
Padden, R. C.
1967 The Hummingbird and the Hawk. Conquest and Sovereignty in the Valley of Mexico, 1503-1541.
Ohio State University Press, Columbus.
Patterson, T. C.
1986 The Last Sixty Years: Toward a Social History of Americanist Archaeology in the United States.
American Anthropologist 88:7-26.
Pauw, C. de
1806 A General History of the Americans, of Their Customs, Manners, and Colours. T. Wood, Rochdale,
England.
Pear, R.
1983 Archeologists Now Say Philistines Weren't So Bad After All. New York Times, April 3, 1983, sec. 4,
p. 8.
Pearce, R. H.
1965 Savagism and Civilization. A Study of the Indian and the American Mind. Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore.
Pearson, R. J.
1976 The Social Aims of Chinese Archaeology. Antiquity 50:8-10.
Phelan, J. L.
1960 Neo-Aztecism in the 18th Century and the Genesis of Mexican Nationalism. In Culture in History.
Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, edited by S. Diamond, pp. 760-770. Columbia University Press, New
York.
Pierce, F.
1968 La Poesia Epica del Siglo de Oro. 2nd ed. Biblioteca Romanica Hispanica II. Editorial Gredos, Madrid.
Piggott, S.
1935 Stukeley, Avebury and the Druids. Antiquity 9:22-32.
1937 Prehistory and the Romantic Movement. Antiquity 11:31-37.
1941 The Sources of Geoffrey of Monmouth II. The Stonehenge Story. Antiquity 15:305-319.
1949 British Prehistory. Oxford University Press, London.
1950 William Stukeley: An Eighteenth Century Antiquary. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
1968 The Druids. Frederick A. Praeger, New York.
1976 Ruins in a Landscape. Essays in Antiquarianism. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Plumb, J. H.
1970 The Death of the Past. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Poliakov, L.
1974 The Aryan Myth. A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe. Basic Books, New York.
Qian, H., H. Chen, and S. Ru
1981 Out of China's Earth. Archaeological Discoveries in the People's Republic of China. China Pictorial,
Beijing; Harry N. Abrams, New York.
Reif, R.
1985 9,000-Year-Old Objects to be at Israel Museum. New York Times, March 21, 1985, sec. c, p. 3.
Renfrew, C.
1973 Before Civilization. The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
1974 British Prehistory. A New Outline. Noyes Press, Park Ridge, New York.
Rosenberg, A.
1930 Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts, eine Wertung der seelisch-geisigen Gestalten Kampfe unserer Zeit.
No publisher, Munich.
Rossi, P.
1984 The Dark Abyss of Time. The History of the Earth and the History of Nations from Hooke to Vico.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Rounds, J.
1982 Dynastic Succession and the Centralization of Power in Tenochtitlan. In The Inca and Aztec States.
1400-1800. Anthropology and History, edited by G. A. Collier, R. I. Rosaldo, and J. D. Wirth, pp. 43-62.
Academic Press, New York.
Rutherford, W.
1978 The Druids and Their Heritage. Gordon and Cremonesi, London.
Said, E. W.
1978 Orientalism. Pantheon Books, New York.
Sigaenza y G6ngora, C. de
1954 Relaciones hist6ricas. Selecci6n, pr6logo y notas de M. R. de Terreros. 2nd ed. Universidad nacional
autonoma, Mexico.

Fowler]
USES OF THE PAST
247
Silberman, N. A.
1982 Digging for God and Country. Exploration, Archaeology, and the Secret Struggle for the Holy Land,
1799-1917. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Silfen, P. H.
1973 The Volkish Ideology and the Roots of Nazism. Exposition Press, New York.
Silverberg, R.
1968 Mound Builders ofAncient America; theArchaeology of a Myth. New York Graphic Society, Greenwich.
Sklenar, K.
1983 Archaeology in Central Europe: The First 500 Years. Leicester University Press, Leicester; St. Martin's
Press, New York.
Smith, H. W.
1952 Man and His Gods. Little, Brown, Boston.
Smith, J.
1771 Choir Gaur: The Grand Orrery of the Ancient Druids, Commonly Called Stonehenge .... E. Easton,
Salisbury.
Spriggs, M. (editor)
1984 Marxist Perspective in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stover, L. E., and B. Kraig
1978 Stonehenge: The Indo-European Heritage. Nelson-Hall, Chicago.
Stukeley, W.
1740 Stonehenge, a Temple Restor'd to the British Druids. W. Innys & R. Monby, London.
1743 Abury, a Temple of the British Druids, with some Others Described .... No publisher, London.
Temu, A., and B. Swai
1981 Historians and African History: a Critique. Zed Press, London.
Tilley, C.
1984 Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Middle Neolithic of Southern Sweden. In Ideology,
Power and Prehistory, edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley, pp. 111-146. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Toulmin, S. E., and J. Goodfield
1966 The Discovery of Time. Harper and Row, New York.
Triestman, J.
1972 The New Archaeology of China. Natural History 76(7):30-40.
Trigger, B. G.
1978 Time and Traditions. Essays in Archaeological Interpretation. Columbia University Press, New York.
1980a Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45:662-676.
1980b Gordon Childe. Revolutions in Archaeology. Columbia University Press, New York.
1981 Anglo-American Archaeology. World Archaeology 13:138-155.
1984 Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man, n.s. 19:355-370.
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology and American Society: An Historical Perspective. In American Archaeology
Past and Future, edited by D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp. 187-215. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington.
Trotter, A.
1927 Stonehenge as an Astronomical Instrument. Antiquity 1:42-53.
Van Horne, J. (editor)
1930 La Grandeza a Mexicana de Bernardo de Valbuena, edita segun las primitivas ediciones de 1604.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Veytia, M.
1836 Historia antigua de Mejico. J. Ojeda, Mexico.
Watson, P. J.
1986 Archaeological Interpretation, 1985. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by D. J. Meltzer,
D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp. 439-457. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Wilk, R. R.
1985 The Ancient Maya and the Political Present. Journal ofAnthropological Research 41:307-326.
Weise, H., and H. Fricke
1931 Handbuch des Druiden Ordens. Carl Gerber, Munich.
Wilson, R. L., and G. Loyola (editors)
1982 Rescue Archeology. Papers from the First New World Conference on Rescue Archeology. The Preservation Press, Washington.
Zantwijk, R. van
1985 The Aztec Arrangement. The Social History of Pre-Spanish Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Zink, D. D.
1979 The Ancient Stones Speak. A Journey to the World's Most Mysterious Megalithic Sites. E. P. Dutton,
New York.

248
AMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987
Zwememann, J.
1983 Culture History and African Anthropology: A Century of Research in Germany and Austria. Uppsala
Studies in Cultural Anthropology 6. Almzvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.
NOTES
1 An Ancient Order of Druids was founded in London in 1781. A splinter group, the United Ancient Order
of Druids, was founded in 1833. Weise and Fricke (1931) list numerous chapters in Britain, the United States,
Australia, and Germany. "Druidic rites" are still practiced at Stonehenge at each summer solstice.
2 In a major summary of British prehistory, Holmes (1907:289-298)
devotes 10 pages and 42 footnotes (one
of which is 2 pages long) to then-current controversies over whether Druids were of Celtic or pre-Celtic origin,
and what roles they played in pre-Roman and Roman Britain. Holmes (1907:113-114, 477-481) took no stand
on whether the Druids built Stonehenge or other megalithic sites, concluding only that Stonehenge, at least, was
probably a temple for sun worship.
3Next to the pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge has probably had more ink spilled over its purported builders
and uses than any other archaeological site in the world (Chippindale 1983, 1986). In addition to the interpretations cited here (and there are dozens more), Stonehenge has figured prominently in British folklore (Chadwick
1966:84-102; Kendrick 1927:1-30; Michell 1982; Piggott 1941, 1968:131-171; Stover and Kraig 1978:1-12,
83-186), and in British and American novels from the pseudonymous Malachi Mouldy (1842) to Erica Jong's
(1980) recent parody of the works of John Cleland and Henry Fielding.
4I noted, in just a cursory search, over 50 books and major articles on European "megalithic astronomy"
published since 1965, from Atkinson (1974) to Zink (1979).
5A news story (Knight-Ridder News Service 1985), received just as this article was put in final form, contains
the welcome news that a cement plant near the Zhoukoudian site, where "Peking Man" remains were first
discovered, is being closed to prevent further damage to the site (despite a pressing need for cement in nearby
Beijing). According to the article, a guidebook to the site says that the Peking Man find proves that Engels and
Darwin were right, and that "he" has become a symbol for the workers of China because the stone tools from
the site "prove that he knew how to work and that probably he worked together [sic] in a sort of protocommunist state, sharing equally with his fellows."


Fowler, 1987 - Uses of The Past

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Fowler, 1987 - Uses of The Past

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Society for American Archaeology

Uses of the past: Archaeology in the Service of the State

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST: ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE

Nation states, or partisansthereof,controland allocatesymbolicresourcesas one means of legitimizingpower

Don D. Fowler,DepartmentofAnthropology,Universityof Nevada,Reno, NV 89557

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

USES OF THE PAST

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

[Vol. 52, No. 2, 1987

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 22:50:57 PM

Вам также может понравиться