Brexit, boundaries and imperial identities: A comparative view

Abstract

The year 2016 will be marked as a year in which identity politics reached new levels of significance. Among numerous dramatic events, the UK referendum on membership of the European Union has brought many issues of interest to archaeologists to the fore. These range from entirely contemporary concerns, such as the future of research funding in Britain, to topics of more longitudinal significance, including the interactions between different identity groups in particular economic and political circumstances. In this paper, I wish to explore aspects of the distinctive position of Britain as an illustration of identity dynamics in the long term, focussing on the relationship between imperialism and identities and viewed through the lens of recent work in Border Studies. Brexit can be seen as the culmination of the collapse of the British empire, and transformation of British identity, in the post-Second World War era and the particular dynamics of this process invite comparison with Britain’s earlier position as one of the frontier provinces of the Roman empire, especially in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. This comparison reveals two paradoxical dimensions of imperial identities, the first being that so-called ‘peripheries’ can be more important than ‘cores’ in the creation of imperial identities and the second that such identities can be simultaneously ideologically powerful yet practically fragile in the circumstances which follow imperial collapse. Such insights are important because, at a time of apparently resurgent nationalism in many countries, archaeologists need to work harder than ever to understand identity dynamics with the benefit of time depth.

The Responsibility of European Archaeologists

“…It is only with the Brexit discussion, in which heritage issues have featured extensively (Bonacchi et al, 2018), that we have started seeing some European archaeologists responding (e.g. Gardner, 2017; Brophy, 2018; González-Ruibal et al, 2018; Hingley, 2018), along with scholars from other disciplines (e.g. Delanty, 2018).…”

Alienation and Redemption: The Praxis of (Roman) Archaeology in Britain

“…In the UK context, the polarising of social attitudes that Brexit has revealed is rooted in a range of factors, certainly including economic situation but also education and attitudes to the past. Rome has been cited in both pro-and anti-European contexts, which shows both the malleability of the past but also -doubly so -the need for expert engagement with these debates (Bonacchi et al 2018;Brophy 2018, with comments;Gardner 2017). (And yes, I think that means we should still think of ourselves as ' experts'; why else have we participated in higher education?).…”

Frontiers and Mobilities: The Frontiers of the Roman Empire and Europe

“…Recent writings in the cross-disciplinary field of border studies have focused on migration and bordering in the contemporary world (for archaeological responses, see Hingley & Hartis, 2011; Gardner, in press). This prolific body of research has developed in response to changing international strategies for controlling migration (see Kolossov, 2005; Rumford, 2006).…”