A Cultural Broker's Forged Bones

Shalom Staub begins his article with a discussion of the role of a public sector folklorists” (166) in a particular society. He continues by further defining these individuals as:

- “cultural brokers,”

-  “agents of cultural legitimacy,”

- “translating the values and practices of the folk into forms and events understandable to a general population.” (166)

These concepts of the public sector folklorist as well as understandings of authenticity provide a unique insight into a book I have just read for another of my courses. 

Paul Gillingham’s Cuauhtemoc’s Bones: Forging National Identity in Modern Mexico is the story of a rancher who tried to increase his personal prestige, and that of his town, by entering into discussions of national identity within Mexico. He forged a tomb for the Mexica emperor (who’s body was lost after death) Cuauhtemoc under his local church and created fake documents and planted ceremonies and oral histories in his pueblo that backed up his claims. While the illegitimate nature of the bones were quickly discovered (they were in fact a compilation of 5 different skeletons), the authenticity of the bones themselves seemed to mean very little to many of the village’s people, as well as those in the nation who continued the cult of personality that followed the image of the emperor.
I may be taking a bit of an leap here, but it seems to be that if we take Staub’s outline of a public sector folklorist to heart, this small town rancher is indeed creating his own folklore and cares not about its assumed (or real) authenticity. The legitimization of the bones is second to the more important invention of an imagined community. After all - is a nation not one of the largest groups of folk? The rancher attempted to grant legitimacy to his story by constructing a back story and planting the bones and documents throughout the village, but most importantly he has created a representation of national identity that can be “hung on the wall” so to speak.

While it is uncontested that the bones are not those of Cuauhtemoc does not immediately mean that they are not folklore. The fact that the rancher would take the time to create a forged tomb gives the artifact cultural value. In addition, the fame of this very small town is interconnected with this 15-minutes of fame. The folk within the small town have internalized the story as a part of their shared community identity. Furthermore, the rancher’s grandson (the man who exposed the bones) maintained a alter in his homes featuring his grandfather’s forged diaries and papers claiming authenticity of the bones. This became not only a point of pride for the family but also a tourist and press stop in the village.

I guess the point I am getting at is that authenticity is not as important to the development of folklore as legitimacy and these are not the same things. It takes a consensus of the folk to legitimize a story, item, or individual in the local or national narrative. Much like the myth of Cuauhtemoc itself, the tomb is a part of a manufactured identity and manufactured folklore.

Can there be such a think as fake folklore? inauthentic folklore? For me the faked tomb is no different than artists' renderings of the Mexica leader, material culture embodiments, and stories of the emperor.

- Sarah Howard