Yesterday's New York Times writes about a collection of mummies discovered from the Chinese region of Xinyang that have become the centerpieces of an ethnic standoff. Uighur Nationalists in the Autonomous Region of Uighuria are using a collection of mummies with distinctly non-chinese features as proof that they settled in Xinyang first, and thus can lay claim to the area.

If you think about it, you can't but be impressed at how silly this dispute is. There are many conflicting claims as to who settled the region first: The Chinese claim that it was a military expedition of the Han dynasty at around 2nd century B.C. The Uighurs, according to scholarly accounts didn't come around until 10th century AD. And Uighurs themselves, inspired by the 6000-year-old mummies, cite them as proof that there was settlement in the area well before the Chinese and that somehow automatically gives the Uighurs legitimacy over the region.

As actual pieces of historical evidence, the ancient mummies are almost useless. Even if they did say something about the Uighur precedence of the Chinese (which they don't), as the article points out, the region is a melting pot. There has been an incredible variety of different nationalities inhabiting the region through many centuries, most of whom did probably not even conceive of themselves as "laying claim" to this areas, so any notion of right of ownership can only be retrospective.

However, as insight into the workings of cultural heritage in relation with political power, this is a superb example. The Chinese government, is keeping researchers away from the mummies, because it wants to keep the dominant narrative which asserts the long-term chinese dominance in the area. It is interesting that the Chinese, though they have physical control over the area, feel the need to look for evidence in support of their political dominance and/or keep evidence for the contrary out of the public's eyes. After all, their goal, which is to keep the area pacified and under the control of Chinese People's Republic, is as achievable through sheer military might, which they undoubtedly have over the Uighurians, as it is through a questionable historical narrative.

This reminds one of Foucault, and his idea that power is better asserted subversively, through means of "discipline" not through means of physical power - in his terms "punish". The Chinese might not worry about losing military control over the people now, but this way of governing is ultimately temporary, inefficient and dangerous. Instead, if one can create a framework, in which the Uighurians accept the Chinese presence in the Xianying as a historical fact, they will themselves feel less compelled to rebel against the Chinese and the need for military assertion of power will grow smaller. In effect, the Chinese are trying to control the area by assuring the Uighurians, that the Chinese are supposed to be there.

As Orwell once wrote: "He who controls the past, controls the future."