Archaeolog

Robert Collins, University of Newcastle

An Archaeology of Identity: Soldiers & Society in Late Roman Britain by Andrew Gardner (2007) is a work that strives to push forward the current understanding of the Roman Empire, accepting the challenge of incorporating social theory into Roman army studies (James 2002) and contextualizing the milites (soldiers) as social agents, continuing the trend over the past decade of perceiving the Roman army as a social group and not faceless cogs of an imperial military machine (eg Goldsworthy and Haynes 1998; James 2001).

The origins of the book are in AG’s (2001) PhD thesis in Archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology, University College of London, but incorporates further developments post-dating the submission of the PhD. The book is separated into six chapters. Chapter 1 (Introduction: the Roman Empire in the 21st century) sets the agenda for the volume, indicating that the soldiers of late Roman Britain serve as a case study for an exploration of much broader issues in archaeology, namely the exploration of the concept of identity and advancing its study in a more theoretically informed fashion. Chapter 2 (The practice of identity) explores the theory behind identity and argues that Gidden’s (1979; 1984; 1993) theory of structuration transcends the duality of (individual) agency and the larger structure(s of society). From this theory, AG distills three themes by which to assess changing identity in late Roman Britain: materiality, temporality, and sociality. The following three chapters explore each of these themes in turn (Chapter 3: The material dimensions of 4th century life: objects and spaces; Chapter 4: The temporal dimensions of 4th century life: traditions and change; and Chapter 5: The social dimensions of 4th century life: interactions and identities). The final chapter, Chapter 6 (Conclusion: Roman Britain in the 4th century) brings the thematic case studies of the previous chapters together to provide an interpretive overview of change through 4th century Britain, drawing on the detailed assessments of military sites and assemblages discussed throughout the work.

Science and Technology Studies of Archaeology, University of Oxford

In 1922 the Mexican scholar Arreola published a study of maps and images which he had recovered from archives in Mexico City. Much of the material that he presented had not been studied before. Much of it was quite old, some of it dating to the initial conquest and consolidation of Mexico by the Spanish. One of these images was very old, even for being a copy of a lost original. It was called the ‘Mazapan Map’ and the original was estimated to have been rendered around 1560. It was part of 16th century records of farmlands and land ownership. The use of Nahuatl glyphs, the pictographic-ideographic language of the Aztecs, designating holdings and landowners, suggests it was most likely commissioned by the Spanish as part of reconnoitering their newly expanded empire.

'Mazapan Map'

The ruins of Teotihuacan cover the bottom portion of the ‘map’. The Pyramid of the Moon is at bottom left and the Pyramid of the Sun is at the bottom center. To the bottom right, the large, open rectangular shape of the ciudadela (1).

A ‘map’ complementary to the Mazapan was published two decades later in 1580. It was part of the relación geográfica de San Juan Teotihuacán. This map, rather than landholdings, emphasizes imperial infrastructure: the Spanish grafted over the Aztec. The road network emanates from the Aztec (and later Spanish) administrative center (Tenochtítlan) to the regions on the north of the Valley of Mexico. Like the Mazapan map, it also orients north to the left for the map-reader. Tenochtítlan can be seen at the crossroads (center right). The ruins of Teotihuacan are shown (highlighted in box) near the center, approximating the correct geographical relationship to the administrative capital, with the distinctive layout of the Pyramids of the Sun and Moon and the avenida de los muertos (avenue of the dead) outlined by smaller structures.

'Map' from the relación geográfica de San Juan Teotihuacán

Rather than Nahuatl glyphs, the map’s labels are presented entirely in Spanish. A testament to the rapid changes in the intervening twenty years of Spanish domination of the region. The ruins of Teotihuacan are labeled Moctezuma’s oracle, which the accompanying text of the relación explains is a place of pilgrimage for the Aztec ruler and his priests. A place to offer sacrifices. The Aztec oracle is mentioned in other post-Conquest texts, and this map suggests that Teotihuacan was the place of the imperial prognosticator (2).

Now, fascinating as both of these maps may be, contemporary archaeologists at the site do not unfurl them when they lay out new excavation trenches. Nor would they use them for navigating the complex and monumental ruins. Indeed, art historians show more interest in them than site archaeologists. Simply put, they are not good maps.

In this short paper I want to pursue why they are not considered proper maps. This could take us down the road of theories of correspondence, art historical analyses of single-point perspective, the development of the astrolabe and other instruments or even information design - all great pursuits. I want to lodge their consideration, however, with why quotation marks bookend these maps: epistemology. To do this I am going to unpack several closely related propositions.

PROPOSITIONS

1) Epistemology has been wrongly scapegoated.
2) An archaeological commitment to things, to ontology, resuscitates its alter ego as ‘epistemography’.
3) Knowing the past is assembling past.
4) Epistemography is the past made durable.

To unpack this series of propositions I will come back to these proto-historic, historic and contemporary maps of Teotihuacan. These media cascades aid in manifesting the practice of archaeological assembling and the principle of ‘epistemography’.

Michael Shanks has intervened in the proceedings of the Tara 2009 Symposium at UCD via iChat from Stanford University.

You can read his paper here: http://documents.stanford.edu/MichaelShanks/400

-------------------------

Ian Russell - www.iarchitectures.com