Knowledge is power

The following section explores how Garstang's methods of networking and influence fitted into the context of a knowledge collecting system as a form of British neo-colonisation during the Edwardian period. Neo-colonialism is here defined as the intention of influence over another nation through unofficial ‘colonial’ channels in the hope of an alliance leading to a beneficial position of power for both parties (Stephen Shalom, quoted in Blanchard, 1996, p. 6).

It can be seen that exhibiting the artefacts of industry and culture within museums and collections in Europe essentially represented the comprehensive colonisation of knowledge, industry and science by means of empire-wide systems of appropriation – of culture, object, economy, market or method through means of display and appropriation. Other non-Imperial nations adopted the same strategies of collecting and displaying for similar ends of cultural and political self-ownership. The process involved reinterpretation and redistribution of the knowledge gained with the aim of focussing knowledge ownership and control into the imperial metropole (Richards, 1992, p. 8). It was necessary for empires to be, or at least appear to be, all-seeing, all-knowing and therefore all-powerful. In effect this was a new method of remote colonisation through the proxy of international knowledge collection and management. This generated a need in Europe to project the manifestation of homogeneous empire-wide control during the late 19th century that had led to museum collections being compulsively and competitively amassed, regardless of their derivative context or value. Collections accumulated from abroad were simply a physical symbol of European national ownership of that colonised nation and its culture.

These physical collections led directly to the establishment of institutions such as the British and South Kensington Museums, the Louvre Palace as a museum in France, the Pergamum Museum in Germany, and the Metropolitan and Pennsylvania Museums in the United States. The colonialist foundations of these collections and their influence in Western societies are still present, if indirectly, within public institutions (Chapter Four).

23 The identification of this system of international networking, loyalty and collaboration in Garstang's working methods has been fairly straightforward. Garstang was able to nurture and maintain a strong family and acquaintance network which allowed him the opportunities of access into social, political and cultural circles which he otherwise would not have had. His resourcefulness and attentive loyalty to colleagues and those who supported his interests ensured him reciprocal respect and long-term constancy in friendship which allowed his career to flourish over 47 years.

On the other hand, Garstang might have been excluded from other beneficent ‘knowledge networks’ through the associations he had made already. The rift between Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge and Flinders Petrie has been well documented, as well as with other notable archaeologists working in the Near East such as Hormuzd Rassam (Reade, 1993, pp. 39-62). Wallis Budge was an Egyptologist employed by the British Museum who extended the museum’s Egyptian collections through various trips to Egypt and Sudan contemporaneously with Flinders Petrie, most notably from Tell al-Amarna where Flinders Petrie also worked, supported by Amelia Edwards. Edwards made him first incumbent of the Edwards Professor of Egyptology and Philology at University College London in 1890.

Wallis Budge and Flinders Petrie were known adversaries as they diverged radically in their archaeological methods and interpretations (Drower, 1995 pp. 124, 125, 200-1, 333). Wallis Budge was not beyond the grasp of Garstang’s established networks, as he was a close colleague of Sayce and William Wright and would have been of noteworthy significance to Garstang given Wallis Budge’s position at the British Museum and his excavations in Egypt, Meroë and Iraq. Sayce is thought to have maintained a good relationship with Wallis Budge; however he was based in London while Garstang was looking to develop his archaeological skill abroad. By taking up the position of apprentice with Flinders Petrie Garstang had curtailed the possibility of working in collaboration with the British Museum.

Garstang worked within parameters that mapped perfectly onto the idea of a British imperial method of neo-colonisation through knowledge collection as

24 expounded by Richards (1992). Nevertheless his knowledge of the geopolitical context of the Ottoman Empire and access to influential persons and institutions primarily supported his personal Hittite archaeological research interests.

These networks allowed him official access into Turkish territory but it could be argued that Garstang's most significant success in Anatolia was not the uncovering of Sakçagözü and Mersin but his methods of integration into the local culture, without which he would not have had access to these regions and sites despite his political connections. He was well respected on-site while directing work gangs made up of villagers from a multitude of belligerent groups. He was only able to access this manpower and collaboration through his knowledge of local languages (Arabic and basic Turkish) (University College London, Special Collections Archives, Garstang, IA/A/17, (henceforth UCLCA/IA/A/17), field notes 1903 and 1909; image 1.5), customs and the respect with which he treated local authorities (UoL, GM, Garstang-Pears corrs. 1908-09) (images 1.4, 1.5 and section 2.7).

25

Image 1.5: Garstang’s field notes, 1903, Arabic script exercises (Ref.: UCLCA/IA/A/17)

Image 1.6: Garstang’s photograph of local workmen at Meroë, 1909 (UoL, GM, M-1230)

This knowledge of the local populations of the Ottoman Empire, along with his surveying skills, allowed him access to sites excavated with the cooperation of local people. This is evidence of his skills of diplomacy, which he utilised in Turkey both with central government and regional authorities. One result of his engagement with Turkish authorities was the establishment of the BIAA in 1947, which had the approval of the highly nationalistic Kemâlist Ministry of Antiquities. This ability to adapt local knowledge, personal connections and diplomatic skills to his best advantage are attributes generally attributed to agents of British neo-colonisation (Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, p. 353). Examples of this method can be observed in the

26 charting of Tibet by the British India Survey of 1865 (Das, 1902) and the British presence as depicted by Rudyard Kipling in Kim (1901, cited by Richards, 1993, pp. 5, 12). Within the sphere of archaeology, T. E. Lawrence’s account of his knowledge collection and infiltration for state reconnaissance in the Near East is also familiar from his book Seven Pillars of Wisdom (1926). Officially Garstang was what one might call a minor 'structural node' (Richards, 1992, p. 108) acting as a British agent within a disciplinary network (i.e. archaeology) that was indirectly utilised both within the academic and political realm. Personally Garstang chose to utilise his skills and the opportunities offered through these circumstances in a bid to improve access to this knowledge to native and Commonwealth scholars, as will be demonstrated in Chapter Two.