Nationalism and Archaeology

This article discusses the current medieval and modern archaeological studies of Bosnia-Herzegovina and places them in te context of political influence, group identities and their social significance. Also, the need for a global and non-nationalistic historical science, and especially archaeology, is emphasised.

Der Beitrag stellt die Frage, wie wir mit Geschichte im Larp (Liverollenspiel) umgehen. Grundsätzlich ist es ein großer Unterschied, ob historisch angelehntes Larp im Freizeitbereich gespielt wird, oder ob Spiele geschrieben werden, die konkret einen historischen Bildungsanspruch haben. Um sich aus diesem Spannungsfeld zu lösen, wurde die Entscheidung getroffen, einen Beitrag zu leisten, der sich gezielt an Akteure richtet, die sich mit politisch-historischer Bildung, Dramagames und Edularp beschäftigen und historische Themen in ihren Spielen aufgreifen. Überdies wird sich der Frage genähert, welche übergeordneten Themen des historischen Lernens im Rahmen eines Rollenspiels aufgegriffen werden können und welche Risiken in der Anwendung der Methode liegen können.

This paper will examine the concept of nationalism, define its attributes and possible indicators. During the examination process, we will benefit from the article of Matthias vom Hau “How to Identify Nationalism?” as the base of our discussion. From this perspective, it should be efficient if we start our examination with the short summary of Matthias’s article.

Díaz-Andreu, M.2012. Africa (1: 38-40), ; Binford (1: 202-203); Europe, Archaeology in (1: 537-539); France (1: 579-583); History of Archaeological Institutions (1: 677-679); History of Archaeology (1: 679-680); Imperialism (2: 72-75); Nationalism: Nationalism and Archaeological Practice (2: 450-452); Political and Ideological Influences (2: 641-642); Regional Developments (3: 5-7); Spain and Portugal (3: 200-203); ; Archaeology in. In Silberman, Neil (senior editor), Alexander A. Bauer, Margarita Díaz-Andreu, Cornelius Holtorf, and Emma Waterton (eds.), The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Vols. 1-3.NY: OUP

■ This article considers the relationship between identity politics and archaeological interpretations of ethnicity in postwar Japan. Although race and ethnicity were important concepts in early Japanese archaeology, from the 1930s a new interpretive paradigm based on archaeological cultures began to dominate the discipline. After the end of the Second World War, Japanese archaeologists became increasingly concerned with sociopolitical issues relating to democracy and peace, but the continued absence of explicit discussion of prehistoric ethnicity has tended to reinforce the primordialist view of ethnic identity that became common in postwar Japanese society. This article discusses the use of ethnicity in Japanese archaeology, citing examples from Hokkaido, Okinawa, and the Jômon-Yayoi transition. It is argued that the lack of emphasis afforded to ethnicity in postwar archaeology in Japan reflects interest in other sociopolitical issues rather than theoretical naivety with respect to identity politics.

Archaeology in National-Communism.
The Dacians and “Commemorative History”

We are all influenced by the contexts in which we find ourselves and write. Every context, from social to political or even ideological, leave their marks to a lesser or greater extent on our writing. Here we can also add the academic tradition, personal or professional ideas, which can all be influential factors in the written discourse as well. Undoubtedly, we are all the “prisoners” of our times and ideas. But what happens
when part of the historians and archaeologists enrol in the State Party propaganda? Some of the answers are to be found in this paper that proposes to analyse the “Dacian” archaeology and its “Commemorative History” (istoria de parastas), events that occurred in a period labelled as the national phase of the Romanian Communism, corresponding to the 80s. The term “Commemorative History” (istoria de parastas) was
coined by the Romanian dissident historian Vlad Georgescu at the end of the 70s. He saw a “memory boom” in the public commemorations of historical events, historical figures, towns or even important battles.
However, these events were in close connection with the history of Romanian Communism. Traditionally, the history of Romanian Communism has been divided in two or three periods. The first period, overlaps with the Soviet military occupation and with the first Communist governments. The second one marked a short episode of
relative economic prosperity and ideological openness. Derived from this, it can be observed a return of the political regime to the national ideology in the last two decades of the Romanian Communism.
The “Dacian” archaeology benefited of three of these anniversaries/
celebrations/commemorations: 1980 equated with “2050 years from the creation of the first Dacian centralized and independent state” (Pl. I/3, II); 1986 marked “2500 years from the first mention of the «Geto-Dacians» in the ancient written text”; while 1987 summed “1900 years from Decebal's access to power”. Very often, these anniversaries/celebrations/commemorations were held outside an academic context, and to a very large extent beyond its influence. Nevertheless, I will structure my paper on how these public events appeared in three of the archaeological journals published by
the Romanian Academy: Dacia: Recherches et Découvertes Archéologiques en Roumanie, Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie, and respectively Thraco-Dacica.

Since the emergence of the debate on the relationship between nationalism and archaeology, mainly in the 1990s, most discussions have focused on the place that material culture dating from the prehistoric to the medieval period occupied, and still does, in nationalist narratives. In contrast, this volume goes beyond the chronological span usually dealt with by archaeologists to focus on the modern period. In its pages it is possible to find a range of examples of how material culture has been used (or prevented from being used) to reinforce nationalist narratives, from the fourteenth century until today. The way in which these narratives were and still are being developed is also a matter for discussion. An important focus of the book is to show how historical archaeologists potentially are exceptionally well-placed to analyse how the development of modern nationalism and national identity is reproduced in the post-medieval archaeological record, as it was during this period that political nationalism evolved. Moreover, this volume challenges the state of the art, because―by studying the failed nation, the aspiring nation, the nation-tobe, and the region as an intricate part of the nation―the authors have taken a starting point that is hard to find in other studies (which usually start with the idea of the successful nation). Geographically, this book demonstrates an emphasis on Europe, debating a few nationalist movements in northern and north-western Europe— Scotland, Manx, Ireland, Denmark—and Central Europe, as illustrated by Bavaria, Slovenia, and Carinthia. However, it also moves beyond that part of the world to include examples from Turkey, New Sweden, and New Mexico in the United States of America (US) and, finally, Easter Island.

Since the 1980s, Barcelona’s local institutions have been pioneers in creating a close relationship between culture, urban regeneration, and the social and economic development of the city, and subsequently in implementing a new paradigm in cultural policy for entrepreneurial, cultural, and creative cities. As a consequence, the city has also become a model for place branding and cultural tourism. In this context, Born, an archaeological site of the early eighteenth century which offers detailed testimony to both the cultural and economic lifestyle of the city at that time and the defeat of the Catalans during the War of the Spanish Succession, has been preserved and opened to the public in line with the city’s varying cultural policies and attitudes to national identity over the last two decades. This article discusses Born from 2000 to 2017 and the political and cultural management context in relation to the Barcelona model that has defined its current form as a cultural centre. In this context, this article also discusses the role of archaeology in Barcelona’s cultural governance, as a case study through which to consider the role of urban archaeological heritage management today.

The paper approaches the topic of nationalism in relation to the Late Iron Age archaeology of Romania. It is argued that nationalist agendas have played a significant role in the development of Late Iron Age scholarly work since the beginnings of the discipline in the 19th century and particularly after the start of the 20th century. This phenomenon took extreme forms during Nicolae Ceauşescu’ national-communist regime and continues today, albeit, with reduced intensity. For illustrative purposes, four main ideas are discussed in connection to Late Iron Age Romanian archaeology: the assumed unity of the Late Iron Age inhabitants, referred to as Dacians; the Dacians as ancestors of modern Romanians; the issue of ethnic labelling in Late Iron Age archaeology; and finally the implicit superiority of the Dacians. Although the relationship between nationalism and archaeology should not be condemned intrinsically, in the case of Romania such a link is problematic because of three factors: the belief in the scientific character of the discipline; the lack of theoretical discussions on ethnicity; and the archaeologists’ denial of political
responsibility for their research. This strategy has led most Late Iron Age scholars to retreat to the “ivory tower”of positivist research, allowing for a large number of non-academic publications about the Dacians to flood the internet and bookshops.

For two decades, archaeology is committed to a resolute critique of its (past!) connivance with nationalism and the construction of the identity discourse. This critical approach, which is a priori an encouraging development, is however often based on scientist disciplinary premises, which do not meet the requirements of reflexivity. In other words, historical criticism merely leads to the absolution of the archaeological discipline in its present state.
While this convenient historiography obviously satisfies many archaeologists, it also fuels unfortunate misunderstandings among our colleagues in the social sciences. It reinforces some tenacious prejudices as to the allegedly "natural" ideological malleability of the examination of archaeological data.
Considering the crucial importance of interdisciplinary dialogue in this field, we ought therefore to foster truly reflexive analyses of the relation between archaeology and identity construction. In our eyes, such analyses should go beyond the mere challenging of past interpretations, and embrace, more fundamentally, the epistemological and methodological specificities of the archaeological discipline.
Such is the aim of this contribution, which provocatively bases upon the case-study of the history of research on Neolithic and Bronze age lakeshore settlements around the Alps and the rise of the "lake-dwelling myth" during the second half of the 19th century. Paradoxically, this paradigmatic example of ideological instrumentalization of archaeology actually allows us to highlight the limits imposed upon the possible manipulation of archaeological facts. For even in such a blatant case, the instrumentalization remains subjected to the tangible material constraints of archaeological sources.

Se cumplen 50 años de la Guerra de los Seis Días y mucho se ha hablado sobre el conflicto que cambió completamente el balance de poder político-militar en el Medio Oriente. Poco se habla, sin embargo, sobre la importancia que tuvo la guerra en el desarrollo de la arqueología local y en su intensa imbricación con el conflicto árabe-israelí.

The manipulation of the past and its material remains in the service of states has been a common issue since the late 19th century in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas. In the Middle East, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and changing borders in the aftermath of World War I, allowed ancient history an important role in processes of modernization and identity formation throughout the region.
This paper explores how history, archaeology and museums have been called to action in different periods of Turkish history, starting with the 19th century when interest in the ancient past and its remains was seen as a necessary item on the checklist of modernity and civilization. In this period, Hellenistic and Byzantine antiquities from all over the empire, which emphasized the Ottomans’ connections with European civilization, flooded to the Imperial Museum in Istanbul. Similarly, in an attempt to break away from its immediate past and to establish itself as an independent nation, the modern Turkish Republic undertook the task of creating a new and modern identity based on the remains of Hittite civilization, resulting in extensive research, excavations and the foundation of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara. Finally, within the last decade the Turkish government under Ak Parti has been seeking to fashion yet another collective identity for the Turkish state, emphasizing a return to Central Asian and Ottoman roots, and pursuing an aggressive policy of repatriation of cultural property from European and American museums.
By exploring these periods of political change in the history of Turkey, this paper shows how political ideology and state policies create a perilous position for the past as a pawn in the assertion of national and cultural identities, and put the past and its material remains in peril through claims of ownership.