Archaeology and Censorship

Definition: Scientific study of human artifacts and structures whose interpretation can help to explain the past

Significance: Archaeological discoveries and interpretations that contradict accepted versions of history have often been subject to censorship

Archaeological excavation yields objective artifacts; these materials are then subjectively interpreted. Interpretations are more often the target of censorship than the artifacts. For example, in thousands of backyards in Texas, one may find fossils of sea life. It is impossible to censor such abundant objective evidence. The interpretation that Texas was once the floor of a sea, however, argues against the biblical account of the creation of the world; such interpretation is often the target of censorship. Censorship in archaeology has appeared in at least two forms: religion and politics.

Religion and Archaeology

Much early archaeology from the 1700’s was conducted by Europeans concerned with proving the accuracy of the Bible. A time line based on the creation of the earth related in Genesis was the early framework into which archaeological discoveries were forced. That the earth was created in six literal days was accepted as absolute by the Church as early as the early fourth century c.e. The Genesis chronology of humankind, dating human habitation from the time of Adam to Christ as about four thousand years, influenced scientific thought in Europe for several centuries. This chronology was generally accepted as late as the 1700’s.

Additionally most early archaeologists, such as Thomas Blackwell and James Burnett, built their ideas about human development on the medieval notion that all of life was based on the plan of a higher being in which every creature was located in a hierarchical position, with men of Northwest European extraction (as Blackwell and Burnett happened to be) at the pinnacle. Artifacts such as stone tools were explained as thunderbolts and fairy arrows.

The European discovery in the 1500’s of the Stone Age people of the Americas began the debate that the stone artifacts found in Europe were truly products of ancient people rather than natural productions. There were thinkers such as Isaac de la Peyrere and John Frere who maintained a greater age for the earth than what could be extrapolated from the Bible.

Evidence for the antiquity of the human race accumulated in spite of opposition, including acts of censorship, from the Church, which was concerned that Christian faith would be undermined if the literal interpretation of Genesis was found to be wrong. The biblical time line was firmly discredited in the late 1800’s with the development of fluvial geology. The geological processes that formed stratigraphy, a key in archaeological excavation, were recognized by the late 1600’s. This recognition culminated in Charles Lyell’s works, including The Principles of Geology (1930-1933) and The Antiquity of Man (1863). Lyell wrote specifically to refute theories more accommodating to the biblical interpretation of the origin of the world. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859) was widely denounced from pulpits; work such as Lyell’s also signalled, at mid-nineteenth century, a clear demarcation between religious and scientific interpretation of the origins of the world.

Lyell’s work marked a juncture in archaeology. Some antiquarians continued to use the Bible as the focal point of archaeology, but more began looking objectively at the evidence. During the 1800’s, the struggle between the two positions continued as Europeans discovered archaeological sites in Africa and the Americas. For example, the site of Great Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe, Africa, when discovered by Europeans in 1870, was determined to be of Semitic origin, probably built by the biblical Queen of Sheba. The prevailing European belief was that the native African population did not have the capability to build such a superbly crafted structure. In the Americas, great mounds were explored in the Midwest area of the United States. Archaeologists, in a stunning display of Old World chauvinism, credited these mounds, now known to be products of the early Indians of Ohio, to Hindus from India traveling to Mexico. John Lloyd Stephens worked against this biblical bias and maintained that the Mayan cities he discovered were products of local civilizations, not the results of builders from the Old World.

Politics and Archaeology

Old World-centered theories abounded during the 1800’s and 1900’s. Much archaeological theory of the time came from England. Grafton Elliot Smith proposed that all civilizations proceeded from Egypt. In 1939 Lord Raglan suggested a correction: that all civilizations originated in Sumeria. Other archaeologists worked against these Egypto- and Sumerocentric theories but many, scholar and layperson alike, found such simplistic theories acceptable and comfortable.

During the mid-1800’s archaeological theory turned political. This was especially evident in Germany. Gustav Kossinna wrote of the superiority of the Germanic race and substantiated his claims by biased archaeological findings. His theories were the basis for the Nazi precept of Aryan superiority. Prior to the rise of Hitler, prehistoric archaeology had been largely ignored in Germany in favor of classical archaeology. Under Adolf Hitler, prehistoric archaeologists combed the area for “Germanic” artifacts, and wherever “Germanic” sites were found (for example, in Poland and Czechoslovakia) the land was declared to belong to Germany. All excavation was focused on supporting Germany’s claim to territory, extending these claims as far into prehistory as possible. Revisionist German history books of the time showed maps with Germany in the center of great waves of diffused Germanic culture carrying civilization to the rest of the continent. Excavation information that did not support German claims to territory and cultural superiority was suppressed.

Other areas of the world that have been affected by political censorship include China and Guatemala. During the Cultural Revolution in China archaeological sites were viewed as the remains of an antiquated lifestyle, and many were destroyed. In Guatemala, the government attempted to negate the importance of Mayan research with the intent of devaluing the history of the living Maya Indians, whom the government considered racially inferior.

Politics and religion continued to affect archaeology into the 1990’s. In the political arena, Germany emerged again. As new museums were built and excavations proceeded, the question arose as to how to portray the Hitler era. Much concern was voiced over whether Nazi sites should be excavated, destroyed, or left buried, and over what the results of each of these actions would be.

Religion again became an issue in archaeology with the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, signed into effect in 1990. The religious position of many North American Indian groups affected the fate of past and current excavations, and artifacts from both, including human remains. Open archaeological sites such as the Dickson Mounds Museum were forced to close because of protests by American Indian groups against the open-burial exhibits. The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act required human remains to be removed from museums and returned to their tribes of affiliation. Additionally, tribes such as the Hopi and Zuni sued for return of religious objects from museums to their area of origin. With this precedent burial items, which make up a good portion of archaeological artifacts, became reclaimable from museums.

Bibliography

Bettina Arnold’s “The Past as Propaganda,” in Archaeology 45, no. 4 (July-August, 1992) discusses the use of archaeology as a political tool of the 1900’s, focusing on Hitler’s use of the discipline to justify racist designs. Glyn Daniel’s A Short History of Archaeology (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1981) is an excellent summary of the evolution of archaeology from its earliest beginnings, the issues confronted, and the men and women who were instrumental in its development. Robert W. Ehrich’s “Some Reflections on Archeological Interpretation” in American Anthropologist 53, no. 4 (October-December, 1950) is a thoughtful consideration of the goals of archaeology and the means by which those goals are achieved. Rod-erick J. McIntosh, Susan Keech McIntosh, and Tereba Togola’s “People Without History,” in Archaeology 42, no. 1 (January-February, 1989) focuses on the looting of cultural resources from Third World countries and on the problem of political agendas that deny a valid history to dominated societies.