Pondaung and the Power of Origin

Content

1. The Commandment of Origin and the Origin of Commandment in Burma - Introduction

2. The Pondaung Expeditions

3. The Paleoanthropologic Data

4. Naming Fossils

5. Pondaungia and Myanmafication

6. Superiority by Continuity - China and Myanmar in Comparison

7. New “Pagodas” for the Ancestors

8. The Bones of Aung San - a Psychoanalytic Interpretation

9. References

Forgetting history, or even getting history wrong are an essential factor in the formation of a nation

Ernest Renan

1. The Commandment of Origin and the Origin of Commandment in Burma - Introduction

In this work, I will presuppose that the palaeoanthropologic research and teaching with its quest for the origin of man, comparable to archaeology, is useful in terms of developing a narration, which the construction of an cultural or ethnic identity as a basis of a nation promotes - or even substantiates. It can be even assumed that the discourse about the origin always evokes the association of causality. Furthermore the origin, as a causa sui, is in common able to lead to the naturalistic wrong conclusion, that it is the principle of law (see Koerner/Zvelebil 2001). Beside the assumption, “it can be argued that there is an almost unavoidable relationship between archaeology [as well as paleoanthropology; Marco Söte”] and nationalism and that this relationship is not necessarily corrupt or intrinsically suspect “ (Kohl/Fawcett 1995, p. 3), it can be stated that:

„There are all too many examples of research programs which treat specific artefact ‘types’ as evidence for the origins and histories of particular 'ethnic' groups in service of political ideologies making claims about 'ethnic' superiority and inferiority.“ (Koerner/Zvelebil 2001)

In conclusion there is a need to analyse each case with its political and cultural circumstances on its own, to evaluate if there is significant misuse (see Kohl/Fawcett 1995, p.3). So this work does not aim at developing a general theory of paleoanthropology in the context of national identities, it is rather a case-study presuming a hierarchical connection between science and politics.

In 1997, the Burmese regime started to focus on the paleoanthropologic data of - what today is called - Burma. Primarily, this was being done under the impression of some earlier findings of primate relicts made in 1914 and 1978. An expedition under the management of the Office of Strategic Studies (a department of the ministry of defence) was formed in order to search for further evidences „[...] towards the scientific quest for the origins of the human species“ (Than Tun). In the same year, the expedition successfully searched for primate fossils in the Pondaung Area. Since then, several other expeditions, now with participation of foreign scientists, were executed.

In this work will first give a report on the excavations itself and the scientific data. By the praxis of naming these fossils there is further to analyse, what function the Pondaundgia fulfil in the process of “Myanmafication” (Houtman), which the Burmese regime initiated in order to install a common shared understanding of Burma as a homogenous cultural and ethnic entity by the inhabitants of Burma as well as the international community. It is helpful to refer to a comparable current development in China concerning the management of its “own” paleoanthropologic data, which allow to understand the direction of the Myanmar way of constructing identity via paleoanthropologic findings. I will have look on the fossils in context of their exhibition in Burmese museums and finally, as a summary, there is given a interpretation to prove status of the primates as direct replacement of the figure of Aung San.

2. The Pondaung Expeditions

In the year 1978, U Ba Maw and U Thaw Tint and their teams unearthed two as fossils, classified as Pondaungia, in Burma. When they tried to share their discoveries with international researchers, they were arrested and the fossils confiscated by the Burmese Socialist Program Party (see Houtman 1999, p. 146).

Nineteen years later, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt Secretary 1 of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), heard of these findings and initiated several meetings with Burmese scientists, which lead to the decision that a new expedition to the Pondaung Area north west of Mandaly should be arranged.

Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt stated that it was necessary to search for and uncover further incontrovertible evidence that the fossilized remains of higher primates found in Myanmar could be dated as being 40 million years old, in order to advance the studies into man's origins. (Than Thun)

A team of Burmese scientists and military men was composed under the management of Colonel Than Thun from the Office of Strategic Studies (OSS)¹ and Dr. Tin Thein of the Panthein University (Department of Geology). The OSS was ordered to give “full logistic support” and it seemed that the explorations in the Pondaung Area rather conveyed the character of military “mission” (Houtman) than that of a civil scientific research. I give a impression of this military character:

It was also stressed in the reports that it was army officers who had heroically discovered some of the vital human remains in the fossil jigsaw, for “the left lower jaw was discovered by Captain Bo Bo of the Office of Strategic Studies and Lance Corporal Ohn Hlaing of No. 252 Regiment.” (Houtman 2000, p. 12)

The question that arises up to this point is the following: Why did General Khin Nyunt himself promote these studies and which “strategic” interest should they satisfy by them? I will come back to that point later.

The first excavations during the spring 1997 were successful, several fossils were unearthed, including various fragments of primates.

In contrast to the former ruling BSSP, the SLORC-SPDC tried to gain international recognition and invited during 1997 and 1998 - in follow of the first own excavations - foreign scientist to evaluate the fossils and to make further excavations in the Pondaung Area together with Burmese scientists and the OSS. Dr. Russell L. Chiochon, manager of the first (American) team and familiar with the findings of 1978, was ““highly gratified” at the leaders’ keen interest and their interest in facilitating the study of primate fossils” (Houtman 2000, p. 13), probably without questioning for the reasons, why a military government ascribe so much importance studies. A Myanmar-France Pondaung Fossils Expedition team, including Jean Jacques Jaeger, and finally a Japanese team consisting of Prof. Dr. Nobuo Shigehara, Assistant Professor Masanaru Takai and their students followed.

3. The Paleoanthropologic Data

Beside the obvious fact that I’m not able to evaluate the relicts - I am not a biological anthropologist - it is necessary to summarise the data², so that we know with what kind of primates we may are dealing here. Three, maybe four, different ancient species were discovered at the Pondaung Area. These are the Pondaungia cotteri, the Amphipithecus bahinensis, the A mphipithecus mogaungensis and the Myanmarpithecus yarshensi s (see Aung Naing Soe 2001, p. 393). The latter was described for the first time by a Japanese expedition to the Pondaung Area in 1998, a point to which I will come back later. Apart from these primates, several different relicts of life were excavated, fossils of so-called „original species of rhinoceros, mountain goat and pig“ (see Tun) may be of interest for this work.

The discovered fragments of the primates, primarily teeth and jawbones, were all classified as about 40 million years old. Thus, they lived in the late-middle Eocene. Because of the assumed age, an extensive debate started about the evolutionary status and importance, concerning the role of this species for the development of the primates at all. All the primates described were located in the systematic Suborder Anthropoidae ³, and it was argued that they belong to a group of ancient south-east Asian types which as the whole might be the direct ancestors of all Anthropoids (Ducrocq 2001, p.352).

Nowadays, three competing theories of the origin of Anthropoids are being in discusses. The first is the one mentioned above, the second imputes the origin to, what is today, Egypt and the third supposes an interlinked connection between Southeast Asia and North Africa (Ducrocq 2001, p. 353).

At this point, it needs to be indicated that the expression „ Anthro poid“ neither refer directly to the Genus Homo, nor signify „higher“ apes, as it may appear in view of the expression „Anthropo-“. The Burmese ancestors were just monkeys.

4. Naming Fossils

The practice of naming and usage of names by the Burmese regime as well as involved international scientists is very insightful for the examination of the “data”. All four of the designated species carry their provenance, as not to say their nationality, with them. Pondaungia cotteri carries along the region of its habitat within the name, A mphipithecus mogaungensis and the presumed Subspecies Amphipithecus bahinensis the habitat itself which is untzil that point not a unusual practice (compare, for example Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). Of far more interest, however, is the case, if a species, which is never been described before, by the way of naming takes on a symbolic inscription which beyond the mere geographic principle of naming. But exactly such a kind of symbolic “surplus value” can be detected concerning the name of the species „ Myanmar-pithecus yarshensi s“ (see Aung Naing Soe 2001, p. 393). It makes a significant difference, whether this species carry along in its name the expression of the regime-owned concept of Burmese culture and history or whether it connotes other belief by a hypothetical notation “Burma -pithecus yahrshensis”s. The practice of naming by the geographic principle which is sure coming up to meet the regime with its project of “Myanmafication”, is completed by the unmindfully usage of the name of the country “Myanmar” by the international scientific literature. Concerning Japan may it not wonder, but rather if have look on European and American scientists (see for example Ducrocq 2001, p. 352).

5. Pondaungia and Myanmafication

Coming back to the expeditions as matter of national defence, there are two issues that deserve special attention: first, the way how the military government describes and interprets the Pondaung fossils, and, second, the functions these interpretations fulfil.

In order to respond the first issue and, thereby, explaining the Myanmar way of understanding history, I quote myanmar.com, a governmental internet resource:

Myanmar’s existence dated back to many centuries where under the rule of Myanmar kings and its own culture and traditions, civilisation flourished. [...] These magnificent structures [“palaces of Myanmar kings”, Marco Söte] clearly depict the once rich and affluent civilisation of Myanmar people.

Moreover, in the Pon-Taung-Pon-Nyar region of central Myanmar, recent discoveries of some primate fossils dating back to some 40 million years may qualify Myanmar as the region where mankind originated. The findings [...] however, clearly indicate the existence of Myanmar culture and traditions since time immemorial. (www.myanmar.com; quoted by Houtman 1999, p. 142)

The statement suggests two presuppositions. If the Pondaung fossils indicate “the existence of Myanmar culture since time immemorial.”, the species must have been some sort of human - what is, as I pointed out above, false. Furthermore, the quotation suggests a continuous line of descent located at what is today Burma, and indeed: “the Myanmar people are no visitors who came from faraway land and settled here. Life began here in this Myanmar environment of land, air and water. Their roots are here” (Khin Nyunt, quoted by Houtman 1999, p. 143- 144)

If we take a closer look at the statements, there is one dominant word that comes up time and again: is “Myanmar” itself. Various entities are attributed to “Myanmar”, and “Myanmar” itself attributes various entities. These entities are mainly terms of culture, civilisation, high age and ancestry. In both cases of attributions - also by the last one in a reverse form - “Myanmar” is loaded up with certain denotations. Another example: “Amphipithecus is found alongside Pondaungia in the Eocene of Myanmar” (Tin Thein). Concluding, that what we in common call “Myanmar”, that is a nation, which is supposed to have existed 40 Million years ago in the age of Eocene, which, by the way, can be translated as “dawn of recent”.⁴ But if we understand in common “Myanmar” as nation, this nation gains certain type of identity, that based on the linked attributes. Thus, the renaming off Burma to Myanmar constructs a new type of identity, and it can be assumed to be sure, that this is an intended process.

As Houtman pointed out: “[...] the regime needs something more substantive to tie their Myanmar mandala to” (Houtman 1999, p. 142) and the function of the “Myanmar primates” (Than Tun) is exactly to fulfil this gap. To specify this function it can of course stated, that the Pondaung fossil should legitimate the dominion of the SLORC-SPDC towards outside and inside as well.⁵

6. Superiority by Continuity - China and Myanmar in Comparison

Since the late ‘80s of the last century, the government of China declares the genetic independence of a „yellow“ or „mongoloid race“. A racial form of nationalism is promoted in order to hide and negate the ethnic diversity at the territory of the Popular [or People’s??] Republic of China (see Sautman 2001, p. 96). For example, genetic researches were published which putative prove the genetic identity of the Tibetans as Chinese (see Sautman 2001, p. 107). Concerning the scientific theory of descent of man which mainly means the development of the genus Homo, Chinese researchers favour a extremely polygenic approach which tries to construct a continuous lineage, completely separately from other “races”. The line goes from the first - located, of course, in what is today called China - Anthropoids (Eosimias sinensi) through various forms of the H omo erectus (including the famous Peking- Man) and his predecessors to the modern Chinese. This approach differs hardly from the widely accepted monogenic “Out of Africa”-hypothesis, which assumes that Homo sapiens has first developed in East-Africa and in consequence spread out all over the world. This theory is provided by current data of genetic research on the constant mutation rate of ancient mitrochondial DNA material (see Sautman 2001, p. 98-99).

Apart from the aim of constructing a homogeneous popular as a nation, it is thereby obvious that PRC officials try to oppose China to the rest of the world in a mytho-historic form of an “political antiquariansim” (Sautman 2001, p. 103), while they, by the way, connect nature history and Chinese as well as Pre-Chinese history of culture in a theory of coherent descent In order to explain the motivation for such an instrumentalist use of paleoanthropology in China it can be argued, that in general this use is ““probably strongest amongst peoples who feel political threatened, insecure or deprived of their collective rights by more powerful nations or in countries where appeals for national unity are being made to counteract serious divisions along class lines [or ethnic differences? Marco Söte]”” (Trigger 1984, p. 360; quoted by Sautman 2001, p. 104). Or, to say it in psychological terms, the demarcation from other “races” can be seen as reaction on an inferiority complex. Keeping that in mind, it is not surprising why the PRC claims the superiority of the Chinese as ““the earth’s most [italics by Marco Söte] ancient original inhabitants”” (Dikötter 1997, p. 20; quoted by Sautman 2001, p. 97) and the Chinese culture as the ““most extensively radiating culture in the world”” (Li Jijun 1997, p. 10; quoted by Sautman 2001, p. 109).

Now, where are the differences between the Burmese and the Chinese attempt of constructing a direct lineage from the first Anthropoids to its contemporary inhabitants? The first point worth discussing is the distinction between racial and ethnic nationalism. Sautman wrote that the racial nationalism “is distinct from ethnic nationalism only in that it biologizes and extend group identity further by adding a racial component to distinguish the nation more sharply from its neighbours” (Sautman 2001, p. 96) If we presuppose that this difference is only a distinction by the use of a certain type of discourse, here: a biologic one, the Burmese case also deals with a racial nationalism. Of cause the SLORC-SLPD applies biological terms in order to create a continuous line of ancestors for the population of Myanmar. I don’t think, however, that the definition made by Sautman apprehend the whole phenomena because racial nationalism claims not only the ancestry oft its own race but also its superiority itself in physiological terms. Houtman, in reference to probably the only racial conception in Burma pointed out, “[...] the four ariya attain its status as product of mental culture alone, not physique [...]” (Houtman 1999, p. 142). Also the relicts from Pondaung are mainly associated with the cultural history of Myanmar as the following quotation shows: “The findings [...] however, clearly indicate the existence of Myanmar culture and tradition [marked by Marco Söte] since time immemorial” (myanmar.com). Due to the fact that the superiority, which is constructed by using prehistoric descent, is still a superiority of culture and mental state in the context of the “wise man” (Homo sapiens) as a whole, the Myanmar nationalism remains to be ethnic nationalism.

Another point which shows the preference of ethnic nationalism by the Burmese regime, is the sharp contrast between China and Burma concerning the used approaches of the general descent of man. While the PRC officials prefer the mentioned polygenic approach to support their concept of race, Burmese scientists and generals seem to connect in tendency their view of Pondaung to the common monogenic approach. The early Anthropoids show as they underline Myanmar as the of origin of man (see www.myanmar.com/Union/preamble.html), but as I mentioned competing with the possible North-African provenance of the Suborder. The difference between these two approaches on a political level can be seen as the difference between a concept of a closed and a open state. Surprisingly or not, tries Burma - the “hermit state” (Houtman) - in his view to increase his image within the international community by its paleoanthropological research. It’s even their declared interest:

The joint expedition team of the Ministry of Defence and the geologists of the Ministry of Education, he [General Khin Nyunt] said, were being dispatched to search, explore and find such evidence; and that the mission of this team which was about to embark on this venture was of vital importance since it would greatly enhance the stature of the country in the world. He therefore urged the scholars to make every endeavour for the success of the mission. (Than Tun)

But the concepts of a closed and an open paleoanthropologically-founded nationalism are rather a two poles on a scale than excluding opposites. On the one hand, the SLORC-SLPD locates the origin of mankind in Myanmar - as well, by the way, the PRC does so for its own territory - but on the other hand. they - like the PRC officials - construct a continuous line from the Pondaung species to the recent population of Burma as a closed nation. Again, this continuity is formulated by the SLORC only in cultural terms. “Moreover, other discoveries show that ancestors of Myanmar have lived continuously in this land through the Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age and so on” (Union Spirit. Preamble.). The expressions Stone, Bronze and Iron Age refer not to natural history but cultural. This history continues “For thousands of years [while] Myanmars had lived under their own monarchs in accord with their own tradition and culture” (Tekkatho Myat Thu; quoted by Houtman 2000, p. 9).

But this conceptualisation in a mere cultural form must not reflect a intended strategy of the SLORC-SLPD. There are no evidences that, if for example the given palaeoanthopological data of what is today Burma is extended by further findings of other younger species (like the Homo erectus in China), the regime won’t promote a “really” racial nationalism.

7. New “Pagodas” for the Ancestors

While the attempt of the regime to implement a “Myanmafication” of the Buddhist sphere of ideas by proclaiming a superior way of interpretation for the political level more or less failed, “it has build exceedingly large museums to compete with pagodas” (Houtman 2000, p. 25). Besides the tendency of “occupying and overshadowing [the pagodas] in the name of heritage conversation” (Houtman 2000, p. 25) in order to gain control over religious structures in Burma, “the museum [...] is a new political instrument in Burma introduced by the regime to enhance its national and international prestige [...]” (Houtman 2000, p. 25). Keeping in mind that the process of “Myanmafication” is literally mainly expressed in terms of rebuilding a house (see Houtman 2000, p. 5), the symbolic value of the museums can hardly be overstated. Their function - by the words of General Kihn occasional to a exhibition in 1998 - is to “promote dynamism of patriotism and national pride for the youth to posses the conviction to safeguard independence and sovereignty with correct knowledge and view and thoughts in their hearts” (quoted by Houtman 1999, p. 145).

It is this context; in which the decision of the regime, to present the Pondaung findings at the new representative National Museum, shows that these fossils should be a mere instrument of propaganda (see Win Thein; quoted by Houtman 1999, p. 144). In this new house of Myanmar the relicts of the new ancestors should obtain a new home in a central position, to fulfil their service, bringing Myanmar as a concept of nation to power.

8. The Bones of Aung San - a Psychoanalytic Interpretation

As Houtman pointed out, the process of “Myanmafication” was invented to replace Aung San as “mental farther” of state ideology, because a unsolvable conflict between the SLORC and Aung San Su Kyi - Aung San’s daughter - was arising about the “true” interpretation of his teachings.

As I pointed out above, the Pondaung fossils and other physical evidences are the objects which are used in the context of the new national ideology to embody the superior cultural history of Myanmar. To summarise and to bring up the work to a more theoretical level, I will to take a closer look at the relation between the personification of former ideologies by Aung San and the new ancestors, which is in fact a relation of direct replacement. The text Totem und Tabu by Siegmund Freud as a part of psychoanalytic theory, seems to me a good instrument to explain this replacement.

Totem und Tabu was primarily intended as psychoanalytic contribution to cultural anthropology in order to explain the origin of totem cult and the taboo of incest. In a recent view, i.e. because of the evolutionary paradigm which was used, the approach seems to be simply false (see also Kroeber 1920). Nevertheless, it is possible to read certain passages as metaphoric description which reflect common processes taking place when the personification of law and order is replaced (see Erdheim1991, p. 23).

Freud assumed like Charles Darwin the existence of a “Urhorde” which consists of an utterly dominant male individual, the “father”, his male descendants and group of females. The sexual contact to these females is exclusively the right of the father (see Freud 1956, p. 158). The relationship between brothers and father can be characterised as ambivalent state of emotions: on the one hand, the father gains much of honour for his power, on the other hand, he is hated, because he has monopolised access to the desired object. If we transfer this structure in a abstract way on the social order in Burma before 1988, the brotherhood of military forces and inhabitants of Burma in general revered the figure of Aung San⁶ as their founder. But at the same time he was - more or less unconsciously - hated, because the figure of Aung San personified the order which give the structure beyond the personification, that is the BSSP, the monopolised access to the desired object of political values.

Talking about the process of replacement: according to Freud, a former social order is changed by the murder of the father, if the hate gets the upper hand. Burma reached that point in 1988. With the attempt of the SLORC to build an new ideology without Aung San, the process of killing the father just comes more or less to an end. But with the killing of the father it raises the situation of a chaotic struggle concerning the desired object. A new kind of “law and order” needs to be restored in order to manage the access to the desired objects, that are political values. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (sic!) can be seen - until now - as the winner in a conflict about the favoured new order. After the murder, as Freud thinks, the brothers develop a unconscious feeling of guilt, resulting from still existing admiration of the farther. As a consequence, they replace in follow the killed farther, that is Aung San, by an object which Freud called Totem to cover this feeling of guilt. There is an important aspect concerning the totem:

“Der Stammestotem ist Gegenstand der Verehrung einer Gruppe [...], die sich nach dem Totem benennen, sich für blutsverwandte Abkömmlinge eines gemeinsamen Ahnen halten und [...] durch den Glauben an ihren Totem fest miteinander verbunden sind.” (Freud 1956, p. 117)

The bones of Pondaung may not be the bones of Aung San, but in sure they replace them.

9. References

- Aung Naing Soe, Aye Ko Aung, Maseanru Takai, Nobuo Shigehara, and others: A new anthropoid from the latest middle Eocene of Pondaung, central Myanmar. In: Journal of Human Evolution 2001. 40. p. 393-409.

- Erdheim, Mario: Einleitung. Zur Lektüre von Freuds Totem und Tabu. In: Sigmund Freud: Totem und Tabu. Frankfurt a.M. 1991.

- Ducrocq, Stéphane: Palaeogene anthropid primates from Africa and Asia: new phylogenetical evidences. In: Comptes Rendus de L’Academie des Siences 2001.(Ser IIa)332(5). p. 351-356.

- Fawcett, Clare and Kohl, Philip L.: Archaeology in the Service of the State: Theoretical Considerations. In: Fawcett, C. and Kohl, P. (eds.): Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge 1995. p. 3-18.

- Freud, Sigmund: Totem und Tabu. Frankfurt a.M./Hamburg 1956.

- Houtman, Gustaaf: Mental Culture in Burmese Crisis Politics: Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. Tokio 1999.

- Houtman, Gustaaf: Human origins, Myanmafication and “disciplined” Burmese. Pekhon 2000.

- Koerner, Stephanie and Zvelebil, Marek: Archaeology, Nationalism and Ethnicity. (http://eaa2001.esslingen.de/guest/Idba03e2a6aa10ed/StaticPage?par=koerner, 11.12.2001)

- Kroeber, A.L.: Totem and Taboo: An Ethnologic Psychoanalysis. In: American Anthropologist 1920. 23. p.48-55.

- Sautman, Barry: Peking Man and the politics of paleoanthropological nationalism in China. In: Journal of Asian Studies 2001. 60(1). p. 95-124.

- Tin Thein: The primates of Pondaung - probably the earliest anthropoid Primates. (www.myanmar.com/primates/primate2.html; 11.12.2001)

- Col. Than Tun: Formation of the Pondaung Fossils Expedition Team and Report on the work accomplished. (www.myanmar.com/primates/primate1.html; 11.12.2001)

- Union Spirit. Preamble. (http://www.myanmar.com/Union/preamble.html, 11.12.2001)

[...]

¹ The OSS is a Burmese secret service.

² The expression „data“ is in this work not used to indicate its objectivity, but to summarise the interpretations which are made by professional palaeanthropologists and geologists.

³ All Primates (including man) belong to the Suborder Anthropoidae, except the more „simple“ ones like Mouse Lemurs, Indris, Loris and others (in German: „Halbaffen“).

⁴ Compare this sentence: „Der Neandertaler lebte in der Eiszeit Deutschlands.“

⁵ Some new fossils of ancient elephant species may gain the same function too, because the (white) elephant as a Burmese symbol of kingship legitimises power (see also Houtman 1999, p. 143).

⁶ It doesn‘t matter, if the farther is a living person or not, he is mainly a figure.