Is archaeology still the project of nation states? An editorial comment

Abstract

The European Association of Archaeologists has long fostered critical analysis of the relationship between archaeology and politics, particularly the politics of national, regional and supra-regional identities. Although the role of nationalism in the birth of archaeology as a discipline is well recognized, the events of the past few years – from the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, to the movement for secession in eastern Ukraine, and the rise of explicitly nationalist political movements across the continent – suggest that the (re)formulation of national identities is likely to continue to have major implications both for our interpretation of the past and for the practice of archaeology in the present. In light of this, the Archaeological dialogues editorial board organized a round table at the EAA meeting in Glasgow in September 2015 to explore the extent to which institutional, legislative and funding structures as well as political and cultural imperatives continue to bind our discipline into the construction of nationalist narratives, and this more or less in spite of long-standing critical debates within the discipline itself that for decades have problematized the relationship. Are we caught in a ‘can't-live-with-and-can't-live-without’ situation? While explicitly nationalist archaeologies have become almost obsolete in the European academies, we rarely contemplate the impact of nationalism on funding or the definition and protection of cultural heritage, for example. Several of the following papers suggest that without the nation state's involvement, the vicissitudes of global capitalism would result in a situation where it would be extremely difficult to adequately protect our ‘heritage’, however that is defined.

Deep Pasts – Deep Futures A Palaeoenvironmental Humanities Perspective from the Stone Age to the Human Age

“…In this context, archaeology needs to be aware of its own position: the linkage of European and with it also Scandi navian archae ology with the emergence of the modern nation state and the ideologies of capitalism and consumption (Kristiansen 1993) must be taken account of. Although environmental archaeological approaches have played an important role in the development of Scandinavian archaeology per se (Kristiansen 2002;Gron & RowleyConwy 2018), this is rarely linked to its nationstate mandate and the contemporary heritage management and rep resentation issues that arise from it (Prescott 2016;Högberg 2016;Brück & Stutz 2016). Studies that challenge cherished parts of the Scandinavian past where prehistoric cultures that strongly overlap with contemporary or recent historical borders conveniently reinforce essentialist notions of deep ancestry (e.g.…”

On the object of archaeology

“…Indeed, some of the field's most nagging problems can be traced back to compromises of this sort; and the recurrent concern that archaeological accounts are ultimately projections of the present into the past is probably the most troubling of all. It has long been acknowledged that the field's practice is closely tied up with economic and political power (Brück and Stutz 2016), nationalist, colonialist, imperialist (Trigger 1984), and that ‘all archaeological stories – be they classical, biblical, nationalist, or evolutionary – can be read as narratives of the inevitability of certain lands to be conquered and the right of certain people to rule’ (Silberman 1995, 256). Much of this, I suspect, results from the obscurity of the archaeological object, from the discipline's failure to constitute it as the principal question and the principal resource upon which proposed answers must build.…”

Archaeology is process

“…Indeed, some of the field's most nagging problems can be traced back to compromises of this sort; and the recurrent concern that archaeological accounts are ultimately projections of the present into the past is probably the most troubling of all. It has long been acknowledged that the field's practice is closely tied up with economic and political power (Brück and Stutz 2016), nationalist, colonialist, imperialist (Trigger 1984), and that 'all archaeological stories -be they classical, biblical, nationalist, or evolutionary -can be read as narratives of the inevitability of certain lands to be conquered and the right of certain people to rule' (Silberman 1995, 256). Much of this, I suspect, results from the obscurity of the archaeological object, from the discipline's failure to constitute it as the principal question and the principal resource upon which proposed answers must build.…”