Creating Prehistory: Archaeology Museums and the Discource of Modernism

NORDISK MUSEOLOGI 1994• l, S . 3-20

CREATING PREHISTORY: ARCHAEOLOGY MUSEUMS AND THE DISCOURCE OF MODERNISM

Bj@rnar Olsen Asgeir Svestad

In the 19th century a number ofnew scientific disciplines made their appearance in Europe. Among these was archaeology, a discipline concerned with mans very distant past. Archaeology unfolded in a space created by the collapse ofthe pre-modern, biblical conception ofhistory . This breakdown had left a void which archaeology, along with several other evolutionary disciplines, were able successfully to fill. By the end ofthe 19th century a vast number ofarchaeological collections, exhibitions and museums had grown up throughout Europe and stood as material signifiers ofthe newly established time-depth ofman.

If one reads research histories of archaeo Trigger 1989). logy two seemingly contradictory views on In this paper we will propose a slightly this development are noted. The first, and different approach to the analysis of how most traditional viewpoint, depicts the prehistory became the object of a discipli birth of archaeology as a consequence of nary discourse, paying special attention to fundamental discoveries made by certain the role played in this process by state gifted individuals. These texts focus on ments and practices associated with the Thomsen's discovery of the three-age sys archaeology museums. In brief, we argue tem, Worsaae's divison of the Stone Age, that the concept of prehistory was not a or on Boucher de Perthes' Paleolithic dis reality which preceded either an archaeo coveries (e.g. Daniel 1971, 1978, Klindt logical discourse or modernity. Prehistory, Jensen 1975). The second position, which as it came to be perceived and thought of, has attracted . a growing number of sup was not an unrevealed secret which was porters in recent years, maintains that the waiting for its discoverers. Archaeological early development of archaeology must be discourse was instead shaping this concept understood in relation to the social and of prehistory in a mould which was hand political demands of contemporary society ed to it by the modern episteme. {e.g. Kristiansen 1981, Patterson 1986, Thus, the aim of this paper is not to BJ0RNAR OLSEN & ASGEIR SVESTAD

4 · investigate traditional historiographic puzz conclusion of Archbishop James Ussher les such as: who "discovered" prehistory, (1581-1656) that the Creation had occur or who "invented" archaeology or the first red "upon the entrance of the night prece proper museums. We are concerned with ding the twenty third day of October" in the questions of a different kind: At what year 4004 BC (Grayson 1983:27), was but time did it become possible to talk about one of the many such estimates that had a history and a prehistory? What rules and been, and were to be, presented. techniques have made it possible to create The works of the Danish historian Peter "prehistory" as an object of knowledge; to Friderich Suhm (1728-l 798)are a typical separate it from other fields of knowledge? example of this pre-modern conception of It is in this process that we believe the man's past. He was concerned among museum, as a kind of "disciplinary techno other things with determining the exact logy': played a decisive role. Rather than date of the arrival of the first inhabitants regarding it as purely a reflection of ideas to Scandinavia. In his books Historie om created in advance in the minds of great de fra Norden Udvandrede Folk [History of thinkers, we will argue that the 19th cen the Nordic Emigrants] (1773) and tury museum played a creative and mate Historie af Danmark fra de addste Tider ti! rial role in the construction and enclosure Aar 803 [History of Denmark from the of an archaeological field of knowledge. Oldest Times Until the Year 803] (1782), Exhibitions, collections and the museum Suhm claims to have calculated the course buildings themselves "functioned" to of history following the stranding of make the past visible and concrete. In a Noah's ark on Mount Ararat. The distan very literal sense, they objectified prehis ce from Mount Ararat to Babel, where the tory as a separate and internally coherent confusion of languages took place in the subject matter. Moreover, the museum year 1757 after the Creation, is 90 supplied the discipline with an institutio German miles. The people took 101 years nalized space, a supportive base from to travel between these two places, and which serious speech acts about the past this constitutes the basis for formulating a could be uttered. constant rate for the geographical disper sal of people. Using this formula, Suhm arrives at the conclusion that Scandinavia CONCEPTION OF THE PAST ON THE was first inhabited 2623 years after THRESHOLD TO MODERNITY Creation and 865 years after the confu Until the end of the 18th century the cre sion at Babel. Suhm was also able to esti ationist view of man's history prevailed in mate the number of people in any histori Europe. God's creation of the earth and of cal period. He shows that Noahs's off all organisms, Noah's flood, and biblical spring gave birth to 16 sons. After 101 chronology in general constituted the years there must have been about 3000 basis of a universal history. The world was couples in Babel, or 16 tribes containing believed to be of recent, supernatural ori 375 persons each (Suhm 1773:141-159, gin and its exact age could be computed 1782:1-2, Svestad 1993:128-130). from biblical genealogies. The famous Suhm claimed that his history was the CREATING PREHISTORY

Tab. I. Ta!>cllc Obtr 3olltnc4 Ubbrcbllft cfttr blll 20 9\tgl!. 5 lt't l>t ~orboo:lfft m1n9t lmcUcm lhmtnlrn og 'lf[9rhn crt lfruu, 6JJlfh Uggr PH Oen 3? ~rab Ulorbcr 0u&r, og at 6t ftrPt IJ1hnntf1tr, cfuro.t 6t1H fulot brm inblU bm• CQbligOr .fttinur Pall &en 33 0r4& I tu 94ngnr Olm 1.lgn Ii( JjtUa, frQ •Ptr Ill \ltOcr :2 Q)rdn, 61m &r 6QQbt 011it(, 6'0llhn e1rdnin9

6do6cr pg tlf 6 1 09 faOf

(!fur .«orlfl outr 'lf~rn I de -l'hlu E;amfln9 1 UQft Ill 1hnjlubo.n\ f. 1733 JJrb Covens OB Mortier, ll99cr JirUa omiunt PU Om 32! (!:)rob Ulorbrr Q)u&r, og pu om 61 11f lcrngocn.

morb. 0n1r. eionbtr. m1nrr.'

1 Pcri~du1. {JrA I?f? 0a6ofon, mltfopoto.mlrn / 'lff1'9rlcn / !llol91onlrn1 ~l9molf / Su. ma&Qlonlfn, Anbi1 Defer· Aubi1 DeJuu, Arabia Pmz1 , e91 Iii 1818. IJ)1m~trn, IDJcbltn, 'ltrmmlrn 38! Q)rab, fiono Iii 6S (llrob. u, IU 26f ~rGb , rim tll brn J6 (!)ro,

:1; Pcriodu1, 3ra 1SJ8 'lil 441

4 Puiodus. 3ro 2060 'tH J6f 010.1> QtuefanO / lnblll 6ioor 'lll 86 (!)rob ~n&lm, 05· 'lll St marcn, ~Ulbulguto, ea (lou 'to.10.rlr fo.afl frr(lt ~l~ioptcn. Saro, Oli91ili1n, 0rarcnfan6 1 m"lorftm, 111 2161, 'l:ncr / OllO . 91ott109rol> og (Qfan om1 ~nb"Oaanm; lanbrnr runbt on• ~Gclm 1 ~D9rlm, !p11nnonlrn / IJ)otrn. frtnt liggt. lrnltofpiftr eu b1b9gl<.

J Pcriodu1, O:ra 2161 'lll 61f_ (llrol 31nlonl, !lloflonb / 'lll 91 (llro& ~nblm, 111 'lll •! (IJ10b lnorl« lllw 'lll 32

6 Pcriodur. 3'ro 2262 'lll 68! (IJIQI 31nlonb, loplonl. 1112363.

7Pcriodur. 3ra2363 'lit 741 illrab nor&, 3J C!Jra& af itH rn4C!Jra& ~n&frn, btr 1.lf 9l ©rd / ~1~ioplrn. izu 20

8 Pctiodut. 3ro 2464 'tH 29 C!Jrab ganbfrr Svmlg oo 'tlf fIO @rab, ~nblrn, eu 1.IJ 1jf~o.&/ ~1~iopirn . 'tll 14 Q)rAb bU nrigr af3ro.nrtri!lt 1 Iii 2J6J. ~Qhntnmr. Dlorgt .bt .ftr~t, pore 't11111.rir. E5panlrn 1 <;!1191Uo.n6, Ecotl.tnb, lJr1, q)\f libufgnlb / Bara / Oligtilirn, ~ulnra .

9Pcriodu1, (5ra2s6s 'tif 116 ©re&, ~nblrn, eu 'tll 21! (llro&. 'til g @ro.6 ~tfQnb O!J btl 1vrlgt af Ill 2666, ~ngrUanb ~01fano . pore '!ahulf / ~~lnfl ti ftrfh 1 1 epanirn 1 Iii lfn• 1op11 '01\lllg(lr ltonur ; IDlaroc

tzil 2 (!)rab mtarocco; 3atA, ffilgrh lirn, ©uinra, ommn1 Iii 'ltfdc« 'OtPllgpe .Kantn.

~fur bmnr ProgrcRion tan I ern. 13 Pcrtodo Uf 3070 ganb('fc ~Ina tit !angCifn• 139 «Mr46 6au HW 616011; forra i 6tt1 14 Iii 3171 og 14, (!)rd; ~o.pan t bm IJ Iii 3272 ~Q\lf fao.U rerpr ~nb'OQllJUrt Ill Jj2 ~ro.6; 09 I "&rn 16 llf 3373 ~O.Vt ~O.'Ot ~nb\IQQhfrt Ill IJ8

Fig. 1. Table showing the geographical dispersal ofpeople after Babel according to Suhm '.r 20th rule. The left column lists the successive periods dated according to years after the. creation. The remaining four columns map the limits ofthe distribution ofpeople, respectively, to the north, east, south and west at any given period (from S11hm 1769). most certain ever written (Jensen 1988:3). truths and the genealogical sequence. In a He supports this claim by establishing work published in 1769, Suhm established rules and tables covering the historical a number of rules covering increasingly BJ0RNAR OLSEN & AsGEIR SvESTAD

6 more complex conditions related to the this universal and fixed chronology of a historical migrations. The first and basic general history collapses. History no long rule claims that "the Bible is the primary er appears as a homogeneous and fixed source for fixing the origin ofpeople·: while order which can be presented in detailed the second ascertains that "the flood was calculated tables. One expression of this general" (Suhm 1769:8, our translation). transition is that exact chronologies and Suhm proposed a total of 36 rules and tables, like those established by Suhm and many of these were explained by tables others, disappear from the field of know incorporating language, dates, compass ledge. Biblical exegeses no longer constitu points and geography (Svestad 1993:129- te the self-evident source for tracing the 130). origin of peoples and languages. Simulta Suhm's works are an excellent example neously, a new and particular interest ari of how knowledge about the past was con ses in antiquities and prehistoric monu structed in the 17th and 18th centuries. ments (Svestad 1993:154). Through mathematical calculation and The conception of the past was comple the formulation of rules, Suhm manages tely changed. The certainty and self-confi to prove the order of history (Svestad dence with which 17th and 18th century 1993:30). His work illuminates the role scholars talked about even the most dis mathesis played in all knowledge in this tant past were replaced by a feeling of period. Things became the object of uncertainty and loss. The past was no knowledge only by being measured, divi longer a continuous and meaningful story ded and ordered. The access to the world laid out by Gene~is, but appeared as a lost was immediate; language constituted the time covered in darkness. It is a noticeable link between man and reality, understan feature in the works of early 19th century ding was equated with naming. By sear historians and antiquarians that they often ching for similarities and differences, all resort to metaphorical expressions such as things could be ordered within a table "darkness", "fog" or "void" when addres (Foucault 1989a). ' sing the prehistoric past. At the same time Is it worth noting that in establishing there is a lack of references to the flood such a general history as Suhm did, which constituted an inevitable starting monuments and antiquities played a mar point in 17th and 18th century chronolo ginal role. Although Suhm did have some gies (Svestad 1993:154, 170-171). experience with archaeological material, One of the earliest expressions of this this never constituted a basis for his histo new attitude towards the past is the work rical conclusions. The reason for this of the Swedish scholar Nils Henrie Sjo seems obvious: history was a fixed scheme borg, Inledning Ti! Kannedomen af Fader laid out in advance. It constituted a great, neslandets Antiquiteter [Introduction to the unified entity which these monuments Knowledge of Antiquities of the Father and artefacts could hardly serve to illumi land] from 1797. Here he states that: nate. They were at best illustrations of the great order of history and nature. .. . not without a delightful satisfaction are we dis · However, in the decades around 1800 entangling the labyrinths of dusk, and when no ray C RE ATING PR E HI S TORY

of light will lead us, the true lover of the past will ... the imaginative values then assumed by the past, 7 not be scared, but without resorting to fantasies and . .. the conciousness of history of that period, the romances, he will say frankly - here is the darkness - lively curiosity shown for documents and for traces and return (Sjoborg 1797:2, our translation). left behind by time - all this is a surface expression of the simple fact that man found himself emptied In 1806, Rasmus Nyerup, the librarian at of history (Foucaulc l 989a:369). the University of Copenhagen and first secretary of The Royal Commission for the But, as Foucault continues, this curiosity Preservation ofAntiquitues, wrote that: was also a sign that he was already beginning to recover in ... everything which is left from the oldest past, is the depths of his own being, and among all drifting for us as in a chick fog. We know it is older the things that were still capable of reflecting than Christianity, but whether it is just a few years, his image, .. . a historicity linked essentially hundreds, or even thousands of years older, we are to man himself(1989a:369). only able to guess (Nyerup 1806:1 , our translati According to his argument it is only by on) . acknowledging that we have lost history that we are able to recover it. It is the lack The fixed ongm which the creationist of a fixed chronology and detailed know paradigm had supplied to human history ledge of the past which creates a historical was lost in the early 19th century. This consciousness. History was no longer a erosion of a unitary, biblical chronology secure and fixed foundation but an had left a historical void. Fixed points uncomfortable abyss which had to be fil such as creation, the flood and Babel led. The new interest in monuments and found no existence in this "empty space" antiquities in the early 19th century is which modern thought introduced into related directly to this recovery. Material history. However this did not put an end remains became both witnesses to a lost to history, quite the reverse: through the origin and the promises of its return. The discovery of this abyss history could now traces which prehistoric humans have left, begin. It was exactly this loss, this open the objects they have made, appear as a space, which created the possibilities for manifestation of a lost origin which only an archaeological study of prehistory. these objects themselves make it possible How can this be explained? If early 19th to recover (Svestad 1993: 154). century men and women felt such a histo Material remains have their own histori rical loss, how should we then explain this city which the historian and archaeologist simultaneous curiosity for history and for have to reveal. From now on their work antiquities and prehistoric monuments? expresses a connection between antiquiti In his "archaeology of the human scien es/monuments and history which was not ces", the French philosopher Michel articulated earlier. It is interesting to note Foucault has decribed this break as a situ that in 1806, Rasmus Nyerup refers to the ation where man found himself in a de earth as an archive, and to the prehistoric historicized condition. He states that: remains as documents stored in that archi ve (1806:3) . This reveals a faith, if yet un- BJ0RNAR OLSEN & ASGEIR SVESTAD

8 rewarded, in the way these material rary culmination of this epistemology remains might be able to inform us about (Svestad 1993: 170). the past. Although archaeology did not yet con Some decades later, in 1836 when the stitute a formalized scientific practice, a fog had started to clear, Christian very important step had been taken. As Thomsen and others expressed this new stated in the preface to the periodical faith in prehistoric remains in an illumi Annaler for Nordisk Oldkyndighed (Annals nating way with an article in Ledetraad til of Nordic Antiquarian Knowledge) publis nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie [English hed in 1837: version "Guidebook to Nordic Antiquity" published in 1848]: .. . we may already now have a legitimate hope that our archaeology in the future could deserve the ... they enable us to rise up to our Nordic "urvolk", name of a science, which to a considerable extent they enable us to re-live our forefathers' lives and to could compensate for the loss of our oldest history wander among them. A burial mound, a single sto (Der Kongelige Nordiske Oldskrifts-Selskab 1837, ne circle, a stone artefact or a metal ornament our translation). (Thomsen et al. 1836:28, our translation). MUSEUMS AND ARCHAEOLOGY Contrary to earlier conceptions, antiquiti IN 19TH CENTURY es and monuments are not mere illustra tions of the great order of history but The study of material remains from the reflect the inner life of man. They hide past did not constitute a separate field of the secret of life itself and through these study in Scandinavia before the 19th cen material remains we are able to trace an tury. Before this century it is impossible to origin and to re-enact the past (Johnsen speak of a discipline of archaeology and to and Olsen 1992). an even lesser extent of archaeological Thus, what characterizes the earliest museums. Rewriting Foucault's famous decades of the 19th century is the appea statement about marxism (1989a:262), we rance of a new historical consciousness. may say that archaeology exists in 19th The realization of an almost totally un century thought like a fish in water: that known past, as expressed in currently uti is, it is unable to breathe anywhere else. lized metaphors such as "darkness" and In the 17th and 18th centuries there "thick fog", is a manifestation of these were no enabling conditions for an episte changed conditions and forms the mology of prehistory or of prehistoric "object" for an epistemology about prehis objects. There were of course deeper layers tory. In a manner similar to that in which of knowledge which affected the way anti philology was tracing the authentic condi quities were perceived, but no exclusive tion in spoken words to find the system epistemology like that which emerged in and history of languages, archaeology tur the 19th century. In the 17th and 18th ned to the material remains themselves to centuries, being was spread out over an construct its own independent system. immense table, a universal taxonomia. Life The three-age system represents a tempo- was the province of an ontology which CREATING PREHISTORY

dealt in the same way with all material collection of artefacts from all over 9 beings (Foucault 1989a:273). In this dis Denmark, and this collection soon beca cursive formation there was no space for a me one of the largest and most representa separate archaeological or antiquarian tive in Europe. In Norway a similar com field of knowledge. mission was established in 1811 (Klindt What may be termed antiquarianism in Jensen 1975). Scandinavia in the previous centuries was The secretary of the Danish commissi expressed in different fields, and carried on, Rasmus Nyerup, had published a out by different professionals such as pri book one year earlier with the quite ests (Pontoppidan), medical doctors expressive title Oversyn over F£dernelandets (Rudbeck) or natural historians (Stoba:us). Mindesm£rker fra Oldtiden, saaledes som Even if there were attempts at classifying samme kan t£nkes opstillede i et tilkommen and systematising antiquities, it is impos de National-Museum [Survey of the sible to find a similar, overarching syste National Monuments of Antiquity, such matics as in natural history as represented as they may be displayed in a future by Linneus. It is true that antiquarianism National Museum] (1806). In this work, was linked to natural history through Nyerup presents a detailed and ambitious many of the natural cabinets and collec plan for how a National Museum for tions. People like Stoba:us, Pontoppidan, Denmark and Norway should be organi Bircherod and others had personal collec zed. This museum should be divided into tions of natural artefacts which also con three main halls containing respectively, tained coins and prehistoric objects. In prehistoric monuments, runic inscriptions general terms, however, antiquarianism and Christian remains. The prehistoric represented a far less formalised system of hall, or the hall from the savage past, knowledge than did natural history in the should be further subdivided into two 17th and 18th century. It is primarily by rooms, one containing purely prehistoric being separated from natural objects and monuments and objects, while the other through some initial attempts at classify was intended to contain monuments with ing antiquities that antiquarianism in certain historical traditions. In his intro Scandinavia reflects the order of this peri duction to the description of the first of od (Svestad 1993:132-133). these rooms, Nyerup states that: As noted above, this situation was dra matically altered at the beginning of the Prehistory is laid out before all time, before any 19th century. From occupying a marginal determination of time. Thus, this room contains position in the field of knowledge in the monuments and remains whose age goes so far 17th and 18th century, prehistory and back, that no dating can take place ... it can only be antiquities now entered the very heart of a said to be indefinitely old. Everything that belongs discourse designed to suit them. to this period drifts before us as in a thick fog A symptomatic manifestation of this (Nyerup 1806:1, our translation). new development is the establishment of The Royal Commission for the Preservation Describing the difference between this ofAntiquities in 1807. It began to amass a room and the next, Nyerup continues in a BJ0RNAR OLSEN & ASGEIR SVESTAD

10 similar manner: and displayed in a museum, has the time come for In the next room the visitor somehow enters a quite the archaeologist to survey and arrange all these different world. Unlike the first room, where he materials, and if possible, to construct from them a was surrounded by an almost totally impenetrable system. Only then is he able to decide what we are chronological darkness, the dawn of the historical still with some certainty able to know (Werlauff day starts here, and occasionally there is a dim light 1808:61, our emphasis and translation). (Nyerup 1806:89, our translation). Thus, only by studying the material Nyerup's detailed discription of the con remains themselves are we able to bring tents of the various halls in this future the distant past closer in order to know it. national museum provides a fascinating The word "still" in Werlauff's statement picture of how prehistory was perceived at points to the new uncertainty which the the beginning of the 19th century. collapse of the former episteme has However, it is even more interesting to ask brought about. It is interesting to note why Nyerup wanted to produce such col that when the system Werlauff was predic lections of prehistoric remains when so ting had come into use to some extent, in little was known about their dating and terms of the three-age system, there is cultural origin. Why should anyone want similar credit given to the museum. Thus to wander among objects whose age and in 1833, Magnussen, Thomsen and Rafn, meaning were said to be "drifting before all members of the Antiquities Commis us as in a thick fog"? sion, wrote that: There are certain statements in Nyerup's work, and in the work of others, which Among our antiquities the stone artefacts are belie point to some interesting reasons for this ved to be those which may belong to the most dis seemingly paradoxical plan of displaying tant period of time ... However it is only in the that which is almost totally unknown. most recent years that, due to the establishment of Nyerup himself provides a hint in the fol larger public museums, we have gathered such a lowing statement about the displayed arte collection from different regions of the Nordic facts: countries that we have been able to think more seriously about arranging these antiquities into Here these strange remains from the past are dis classes with subdivisions, and to suggest that fixed played in long rows, which makes contemplation of concepts be used to designate the different forms the things themselves a clearer idea (Nyerup (Magnusen et al. 1833:421, our emphasis and 1806:2, our emphasis and translation). translation).

In his "comments" related to the estab Related views are expressed still later by lishment of The Royal Commission for the Christian Herbst who in 1861 wrote that Preservation of Antiquities, published in "by comparing and repeatedly investigating 1808, the historian Erik Werlauff expres the details in the museum, the eye is sharpened ses this view even more clearly. He writes: to make new observations and discoveries" (Herbst 1861:306, our translation). ... only when all mobile antiquities are collected The content of these statements makes CREATING PREHISTORY

this a timely place to proceed to the next knowledge and language help to constitu 11 part of this paper which deals with te it. museums and the representation of the In terms of archaeology, this implies past. that. archaeological statements, like books and museum exhibitions, create not only MUSEUMS AND THE knowledge of the past but, at least to a REPRESENTATION OF THE PAST certain degree, also the very reality they intend to describe. Taking this view seri As the Dutch anthropologist Johannes ously, we should be willing to accept that Fabian has noted, the traditional problem it is the various textual and museological with representations has been their "accu techniques of representation in the present racy", the degree of fit between reality and that make the past visible and clear, and its reproduction in knowledge and langua that these representation rely upon insti ge (Fabian 1990:754). This of course, is tutions, traditions, conventions, and agre also a classic problem in archaeology. For ed-upon codes of understanding the past example, in what way are typology or the (Olsen 1991). three-age systems correct representations Edward Said's work Orienta/ism (1978) in of prehistoric realities? Similar questions our opinion exposes this problem of repre have been raised in museology by Eileen sentation very well. Here he shows how Hooper-Greenhill who asks, "If new taxo representations of the Orient in Western nomies means new ways of ordering and discourse form self-sufficient systems documenting collections, then do the existing which have constructed and objectified ways in which collections are organised the Orient for our perception. Said uses mean that taxonomies are in fact socially the concept of "strategic formation" to constructed rather than 'true' or 'rational'?" analyse the representational archive from (Hooper-Greenhill 1992:5). which the Orient is created. This concept In the introduction to this paper, we designates the "relationship between texts made some statements which questioned and the way in which groups oftext, types of the idea that our concept of prehistory text, even textual genres, acquire mass, density, precedes an archaeological discourse, and and referential power among themselves and we shall now elaborate a little on this thereafter in the culture at large" (Said point. In very general terms, knowledge is 1978:22). Following this line of argument traditionally defined as the correct depic one may regard the 19th century archaeo tion of reality which mirrors the essence logical museum as part of such a strategic of its subject matter (Rorty 1979). Our formation where words and things such as position questions this mirror-image view books, catalogues and objects, and typolo of knowledge and suspends the assumed gical and chronological schemes, commu correspondence between knowledge and nicated and referred to each other in a vast reality. Knowledge, and what is allowed to representaional web. This web created count as such, are regarded as constituted prehistory as an object of knowledge and within semantic fields, discourses and tra covered up that empty space which dition. Rather than imitating reality, modern discourse had created. BJ0RNAR OLSEN & ASGEIR SVESTAD

12 The statements from Werlauff, Nyerup facts become statements which substantia and Thomsen referred to above, all under ted the very system they themselves were line the creative role assigned to the the result of. museum collections and arrangements. Analysing the role of the museum in the Even though it is likely that these pioneers creation of an archaeological discipline, it believed that the system they were estab is not sufficient to ask what the museum lishing provided correct representations, represents. We have to ask how it repre their statements do point to the creative sents. In what way did it enable some ness of museum arrangements. In 1926, ways of knowing while preventing others? the Norwegian archaeologist Anton What rules and techniques were utilised Wilhelm Brngger expressed this view even to discipline the past and to create prehis more clearly: tory as an object of knowledge? Analysing how institutional power ope This main division of our country's prehistory rates through processes of objectification, which is known through the scheme Stone Age, Michel Foucault (1979) has introduced Bronze Age and Iron Age, has never aimed at a real the concept of" disciplinary technologies". representation of the construction of our prehisto These technologies includes institutions ric culture ... It is a necessary chronological scheme such as prisons, hospitals, factories and to be used co order materials of such a quantity schools. Disciplinary technologies work in chat it would have been chaos without the help of several related ways; they survey, classify chis scheme (1926:1, our translation). and control time, space, bodies and things. Discipline proceeds from an orga Brngger emphasises that typology provides nization of individuals in space, and it a means of handling and organizing requires not only a specific enclosure of immense amounts of material. However, space but also an internal partitioning of despite this apparent consciousness which this space (Foucault 1979:141-143). Once Brngger expresses with respect to typology established, this grid permits the certain as an ordering scheme, it had nevertheless distribution of the individuals who are to become an indispensable part of archaeo be disciplined and supervised. It organises logical reasoning. During the last decades an analytical space "aimed at knowing, of the 19th century, typology became the mastering and using" (Foucault 1979: 143). main ordering principle for all statements One of the most notable features of regarding prehistoric material. In the 19th century disciplinary museums were museums every statement about the past the new organization of space, both in was filtered through this epistemological terms of the external enclosure of the sub grid. By being uttered in an enormous ject matter and in terms of the internal number of textual and museological state divisions (cf. Hooper-Greenhill 1992: 168 ments, typology was established as a fact ff). In historiographies of archaeology, and became an archaeological a priori. It however, this basic premise is rarely, if would be naive not to realise that this fact ever, given attention. Although prehistoric in turn reflected back upon the way the artefacts had been collected and put on past was perceived. Thus, exhibited arte- display far earlier, as in the Renaissance CREATING PREHISTORY

Fig. 2. "A vast docu mentary apparatm 13 become an essential part ofthis normalization". From the halls ofthe State Historical Mmeum, Stockholm, in the early years ofthis century (photo: ATA, 1484:11).

cabinets, and to some degree had even rices", happened first and most often as been separated from other objects, as for internal departmental divisons of larger example in the Royal Kunstkammer in museums. Collections of prehistoric Copenhagen (Bencard 1993), the new remams were exhibited and archived in museological institutions made this spatial separate rooms or halls. Later on in the division far more exclusive. Prehistoric century, even separate archaeological objects were no longer to be found among museum buildings came into use. This conches and fossils. These "dividing prac- process, of course, was not restricted to BJ0RNAR OLSEN & A SG EIR SVESTAD

14 archaeology. It took place simultaneously objective codification. In conjunction in other disciplines as well, such as ethno with these new divisions of the perceptual graphy and the natural sciences. field, new groups of statements were to be It is inevitable that this basic separation made (Hooper-Greenhill 1992:179). Classes affected the way the past was perceived of artefacts were singled out, they became and clearly contributed to the objectifica named and together with a growing num tion of the past as a single and unified ber of archaeological concepts such as subject for study. In this process of objec type, find context, stratigraphy, culture, tification and categorization, the past is etc., resulted in an archaeological discour given both a social and a scientific identi se reinforcing itself to an ever increasing ty. Instead of drifting in the dark, the past degree (Brattli 1993:147). By the end of could now be looked at, touched, spoken the century archaeology had reached the about. It was real and visible; it was there. level of a formalised, partly self-sufficient, This external separation, however, repre discourse of prehistory. sents only an initial step in this process. Museums, as a kind of disciplinary tech Even more important for the epistemolo nology, did not cause the development of gisation of prehistory was the internal an archaeological discipline. However, divison of collections and exhibitions they were the prerequisites for its success. according to types and chronological pha ses. This internal division organized and THE AUTHORIZATION OF VOICES arranged space to facilitate the correct observation of the past. It located groups By the end of the 19th century a certain of artefacts in space, in a hierarchical and kind of archeological genre or style had efficiently visible organization. And most appeared. This archaeological style, or important, it made possible a system of what we may term a certain constant "normalization" (Foucault 1979) with manner of utterances, can be characterized finely gradated and measurable intervals in terms of a dominant trope which esta in which objects can be distributed accor blishes the originating relationship betwe ding to a typological norm - a norm en "words" and "objects" and determines which both organizes and is the result of what can be said about things in a "pro this controlled distribution m space per" archaeological discourse. This further (Rabinow 1984:20). determines both what can be seen in A vast documentary apparatus became archaeological material and what can be an essential part of this normalization. known about it. Archaeology, as a discipli Museum exhibitions began to be suppor ne, consisted of a corpus of knowledge ted by a number of detailed illustrated that presupposed the same way of looking catalogues and material publications. at things (Foucault 198%:33). Throughout the 19th century an increa This genre is expressed in monumental singly finer grid of typologies based on works which appeared in the last decade more precise and more statistically accura of this century such as Sveriges Forntid te measurements enabled archaeologists to [The Antiquity of Sweden] (1872) by fix knowledge of the past in a web of Oscar Montelius, Norske Oldsaker [Nor- CREATING PREHISTORY

Fig. 3. "Within archae ological institutions 15 judgements and diagno ses began to be made concerning proper and and inproper ways of conceiving the past. New subject positions emerged, and it became increasingly more important to separate amateurs and dilettants from professionals". Oscar Almgren studying a potsherd in the Stone Age collection, State Historical Museum, Stockholm, in 1903 (photo: ATA, 2027:24)

wegian Antiquities] (1885) by Oluf Rygh surements. Another striking feature of this and Ordning av Danmarks Oldsager [Ar genre is the way methodological issues are rangment of the Antiquities of Denmark] highlighted, exemplified in the famous (1888-1895) by Sophus Muller. In these, as debates between Oscar Monteli us and well as numerous other works, the presen Sofus Muller. This reveals a self-confident tation of prehistoric material culture is and formalized discourse based on qualita formalised by means of figures, schemes tive description, reasoning by analogy, and objective descriptions based on mea- induction and deduction, statistical calcu- BJ0RNAR OLSEN & AsGEIR SvESTAD

16 lation, and many other forms of statement the dilettante is just a little more cursory than the (Brattli 1993:146-149, Svestad 1993:207- scientist and the latter a bit more painstaking than 209). the former. Between them there is a great difference, Another sign of this formalization is a they work in different ways, on different levels and growing riumber of critical statements towards different goals (Hildebrand 1873: 13, our regarding earlier approaches. Thus, in translation). 1898 Julius Petersen makes the following characterization of antiquarian practice in This relates of course to the creation of a the 17th and 18th century: social and scientific identity for the archa eologist. Archaeological statements can no Such was the naive-fantastical time ... historical cri longer just come from anyone; their value, tique ... was almost non-existent, scientific possibli efficacy, importance, in short their status ties were put forward with much force as if they as serious speech acts about the past, were proved facts, and one feather easily became depend upon who is speaking. Whom five fowls .. . especially in the areas of prehistory, among the totality of speaking individuals archaeology and antiquity, it was the case that you is accorded the right to use this sort of could put the pieces wherever you liked (Petersen language (Foucault 198%:50)? In the 1898:22-23, our translation). 19th century, discourses of knowledge were to an ever increasing degree forced Petersen's statement leaves no doubt that into institutional locations. The institu this was definetly not the case anymore. tional sites grant the discourses their aut In this sense it is impossible to discuss hority and give them a supportive ground. the role of the museum without also con An archaeological discourse became sidering the relationship between know authorized by being uttered from the ledge and power. Within archaeological museum. It is the proper institutional institutions and organizations judgements location for an archaeological discourse, and diagnoses began to be made concer the site from which this discourse derives ning proper and inproper ways of concei its legitimate source and point of applica ving the past. New subject positions emer tion. Thus, in the same manner that a ged, and it became increasingly more serious medical speech act is uttered from important to separate amateurs and dilet the hospital, a serious speech act about the tantes from professionals (Brattli 1993: past has to come from the museum. 147-148). As Hans Hildebrand wrote in 1873: CONCLUSION

In this way the scientific study of the past has In 1962 the Danish archaeologist Johan advanced beyond its earlier state. The viewpoints nes Brnndsted wrote that if one looks have become higher, the field wider, and one has back to the beginning of the 19th century, learnt in one's work to penetrate more deeply. there is one condition to be noticed: Archaeology in this state demands the undivided attention of a whole life, it is much more than a What then strikes us with astonishment is that pastime for the leisure hours. It is no longer so that enormous difference in their knowledge about the CREATING PREHISTORY

past compared to ours. Let us look only at the arranged in columns, frames and schemes (in: 17 knowledge of dating and time determination. Brnndsted 1969: 14-15, our translation). Then: nothing. Now: It is all served, the whole development of the culture is illuminated and Brnndsted's statement illustrates very well

Fig. 4. The recovered past as exemplified by the Stone Age exhibition at the State Historical Museum, Stockholm, in 1903. (photo: ATA, B 108:113). BJ0RNAR OLSEN & A SGE IR SVESTAD

18 the "self confidence" of modern archaeo logy appears as a science, and it was by logy. And he is right to stress the enor turning back upon its own material that mous contrast with the early 19th centu this practice became formalized (Svestad ry's knowledge of the past. This period 1993:213). ' was "suffering" from the void which the We have argued that the archaeology advent of modernity had left in history. museum was far more than a reflection of The past was no longer a fixed scheme an increase in archaeological knowledge or laid out by Genesis but appeared as an a result of a successful politics of collec empty space covered in darkness. We have ting. The museum played a creative role argued that it was by acknowledging this both as a representational device and as a loss that a historical consciousness was type of disciplinary technology. However, created. This directed a totally new inte this should not take us to the other extre rest towards past material culture. The me of making the museum the prime for material traces appear as a manifestation ce in this development. Discussing these of the lost past and become the promises issues, we have deliberately decided not to of its return. talk only about museums. Museum collec At the end of the 19th century the situa tions and exhibitions were probably tion changed dramatically. The past was among the most important fields for no longer floating in complete darkness; establishing and formalizing an archaeo the void which modernity had created was logical discourse. However, to understand filled. Pictures of archaeological collec the specific importance attached to this tions and exhibitions from the turn of the institution we have to analyse its relations century illustrate in a very literal sense hip to textual production, educational sys this recovery. They show us cabinets and tems, new subject positions, systems of showcases totally overcrowded with flint publication, fieldwork methodology, etc. axes, daggers, chisels and iron swords. In other words, the role of collections, There was definitely no longer a void (Sve exhibitions, in short of museums, can stad 1993:210-211,213). never be understood in isolation from These crammed showcases with little other statements and practices. They have empty space are more than a metaphorical attained importance due to their "vibra expression of a newly recovered past. They tions" with associated fields, with other were part of a vast formation which con statements and practices which in turn structed and objectified the past for were themselves supported by the new archaeological perception. The various technologies of the museum. textual and museological techniques of representation made the past visible and real. It was given a scientific and public identity which was previously lacking. Moreover, it shows archaeology as a "self confident" discipline which refers to itself by focusing on its own material. It is by establishing its own practice that archaeo- CREATING PREHISTORY

LITERATURE CITED Archaeology. Thames and Hudson, London. 19 Kristiansen, K. 1981. A social history of Danish Bencard, M. 1993. Museerne og Verdensordenen, archaeology (1805-1975). In G. Daniel (ed.), Kunstkammerets opscaen og grundide. Nordisk Towards a History ofArchaeology, pp. 72-100. Museologi- l, pp.3-16. Magnusen, F., Thomsen, C.J. & Rafn, C.C. 1833. Brattli, T. 1993. Evolusjonismen og det moderne. Ein Kortfattet Udsigt over nordiske Steen-Oldsager analyse av tilkomsten av arkeologien som vitskapleg fra den hedenske Tid, med kobberstukne disiplin. Unpublished magister thesis, University Afbildninger. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndighed, ofTroms0. vol. 1.2., pp.421-39. Brngger, A.W. 1926. Veid og V£r. Unpublished Montelius, 0. 1872. Sveriges Forntid. Forsok till manuscript. Oslo. framstiillning afden svemka fornforskningens resul Brnndsted, J. 1969. Danmarks Historie. Volume I. tat. Atlas. Svenska fornsaker ordnade och forkla De addste Tider indtil ar 600, pp.11-44. rade, I. P.A. Nordstedt & Saner, Stockholm. Daniel, G. 1971. The Idea ofPrehistory. Penguin Miiller, S. 1888-95. Ordning afDanmarks Oldsager. Books Ltd., Harmondsworth. K0benhavn. Daniel, G. 1978. 150 Years ofArchaeology . Nyerup, R. 1806. Oversyn over Fa:dernelandets Duckworth, London. Mindesma:rker fra Oldtiden, saaledes som samme Det Kgl. Nordiske Oldskrift-Selskab 1837. Preface kan ta:nkes opstillede i et tilkommende National in Anna/er for nordisk Oldkyndighed 1836-37. Museum. Et Fors0g. Historisk-statistisk Ski/4ring Fabian, J. 1990. Presence and Representation: The af Tilstanden i Danmark og Norge i £ldre og nyere Other and Anthropological Writing. Critical Tider. Vol. 4. Inquiry, vol. 16 (4), pp. 753-772. Olsen, B. 1991. Kjelm0yftmnenes (virknings) histo Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The rie og arkeologi. Viking, vol. LLIV, pp.65-87. Birth ofthe Prison. Vintage Books, New York. Patterson, T.C. 1986. The Last Sixty Years: Foucault, M. 1989a. The Order of Things: An Towards a Social History of Americanise Archaeology ofthe Human Sciences. Archaeology in the United States. American Tavistock/Routledge, London. Anthropologist, 88 (1):7-26. Foucault, M. 1989b. The Archaeology ofKnowledge. Petersen, J. 1898. Bartholinerne og kredsen om dem. Routledge, London and New York. K0benhavn. Grayson, D.K. 1983. The Establishment ofHuman Rabinow, P. 1984. Introduction. In P. Rabinow Antiquity. Academic Press, New York. (ed.), The Foucault Reader. Penguin Books, Herbst, C.F. 1865. Varplev Funder. Anna/er for Harmondsworth, pp. 3-29. nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1861, pp.305- Rorty, R. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of 22. Nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Hildebrand, H. 1873. Den vetenskapliga fornfor Rygh, 0. 1885. Norske Oldsager. Kristiania. skingen, hennes uppgift, behof och riitt. Stockholm. Said, E.W. 1978. Orienta/ism. Routledge & Kegan, Hooper-Greenhill, E.1992. Museums and the London. Shaping ofKnowledge . Routledge, London. Sjiiborg, N.H. 1797. Inledning Ti! Kiinnedomen af Jensen, J. 1988. Christian Jurgensen Thomsen: An Fiiderneslandets Antiquiteter. Lund. Appreciation in the Bicentennial of his Birth. Suhm, P.F. 1769. Forsog ti! et Udkast afen Historie ActaArchaeologica, 1987, vol. 58, pp.1-15. over Folkens Oprindelse i Almindelighed som en Klindt-Jensen, 0 . 1975. A History ofScandinavian Indledning ti! de Nordiske Folkes i S£rdeleshed. BJ0RNAR OLSEN & ASGEIR SVESTAD

20 K0benhavn. Suhm, P .F. 1773. Historie om de fra Norden Udvandrede Folk. Vol. II. K0benhavn. Suhm, P.F. 1782. Historie afDanmark fra de addste Tider ti! Aar 803. l Tome. K0benhavn. Svestad, A. 1993. Oldsakenes orden. Ein analyse av forskarar og "forhistorisk" kunnskap i tida 1600- 1900. Unpublished magister thesis, University of Troms0. Thomsen, C.J. eta!. (unspecified members ofThe Royal Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities) 1836. Kortfattet Udsigt over Mindesma:rker og Oldsager fra Nordens Fortid. Ledetraad ti! nordisk Oldkyndighed og Histo rie, pp.37-91. Published by Det Kg!. Nordiske Oldskrifr-Selskab. Trigger, B. 1989. A History ofArchaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Werlauff, E.C. 1808. Bemttrkninger i Anledning af den, ti! de nordiske Oldsagers Samling og Opbevaring nedsatte Commission. K0benhavn.

BjOrnar Olsen iir fran 1994 professor i arkeologi vid Tromso universitet. Asgeir Svestad iir mag.art.i arkeo logi, fran hasten 1994 fJlkesarkeolog i Finmark. Adr: Institutt for Samfunnsvitenskap, Universitetet i Tromse, N-9037 Tromse, fax +47-77644905