Nationalism and Archaeology

Populist nationalism divides an inside 'us' from an outside 'them', both vertically, separating 'the people' from 'the elite', and horizontally, marking a dichotomy between a perceived ‘native’ in-group and ‘foreign’ others. People, ideas, objects, practices and places from prehistoric and historic times are mobilised as part of simple myths that are aimed at legitimising narratives of national ancestry, development, or destiny (Coakley 2004). Concurrently, archaeological knowledge can be – and has been – deployed to deconstruct projected otherness, sometimes utilising similar schemes of narrative construction.

This session invites papers that examine processes of appropriation of the past to generate, express or oppose populist nationalist ideologies. It will highlight the underlying dynamics through which archaeological knowledge enters political discourse, and will particularly reflect on the kinds of past that are drawn upon, and the myths they are moulded into. It is hoped that, by developing a better understanding of how the past, interpreted through archaeological approaches, is utilised politically, we can reflect on how archaeologists contribute or respond to situations where the past is weaponized. The session aims to encourage comparative and interdisciplinary discussion, drawing on case studies that focus on different periods and a range of geographical contexts. Papers concentrating on tangible and intangible heritage, and those addressing how representations of archaeology in pop-culture may contribute to the development of specific political discourses are particularly encouraged.

Coakley, J. (2004) Mobilizing the past: nationalist images of history. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 10(4), 531-560.


Please submit abstracts (250 words max) to Barbora Žiačková ([email protected]), Chiara Bonacchi ([email protected]), and Ole F. Nordland ([email protected]) by 2 September 2019

Resumen: El nacimiento de la Arqueología tiene una estrecha relación con el auge de los nacionalismos en toda Europa. En el estado español, tanto el nacionalismo centralista como los nacionalismos o regionalismos periféricos han utilizado referentes del pasado –a veces coincidentes– como sustento simbólico de sus narrativas. Es el caso de los celtas, pueblo mítico que ha servido tanto para afianzar la idea unitaria de España, como para refrendar la singularidad nacional/regional de territorios como Asturias y León. El papel de los arqueólogos en estos dos casos es analizado en este trabajo, pues supone una vía crucial para la reflexión historiográfica. Así, las narrativas académicas generadas en este ámbito adolecían habitualmente de una falta de crítica, que subordinaba el pasado prerromano a determinadas agendas políticas contemporáneas. La predominancia de la Historia Antigua o de visiones esencialistas, androcéntricas y socialmente conservadoras en los discursos arqueológicos caracterizan los estudios tradicionales sobre los grupos prerromanos de Asturias y León. Tras la consolidación del Estado de las Autonomías, el nacionalismo y el regionalismo se extendieron a amplias capas de la sociedad acompañados de discursos históricos que prescindieron de la legitimación de la Academia. Paradójicamente, estas narrativas reproducen discursos conservadores que tradicionalmente dominaban el discurso arqueológico. Ante esta situación, ¿nos corresponde a los arqueólogos asumir una posición multivocal liberal o deberíamos, en cambio, emprender acciones sociopolíticas críticas que inicien una autocrítica disciplinar y persigan transformar los marcos teórico-interpretativos dominantes?

Abstract: The origins of archaeology are intrinsically connected with the emergence of nationalism in Europe. Both Spanish centralist nationalism and peripheral nationalism and regionalist movements in the country are engaged in a political dispute but, paradoxically, have drawn upon similar symbolic resources in some cases. This is true regarding historic construct of the Celts in Asturias and León, where different political movements, either peripheral or centralist, have differently interpreted and used the Celts in their agendas depending on the historic context. This paper analyzes the role archaeologists have played in this process. Acritical discourses have prevailed in Iron Age Archaeology, which has always made the past subservient to contemporary political needs. In addition, Iron Age Archaeology has strongly relied on the disciplinary bias of Ancient History, and has been dominated by essentialist, androcentric and largely reactionary interpretations of society. With the advent of the Autonomous Communities in Spain, nationalism and regionalism permeated vast sectors of Spanish society, leading to the emergence of many popular discourses about the past that disregard Academic discourse. Paradoxically, these narratives reproduce conservative discourses that prevailed in archaeological research. Facing this situation, it is time for archaeologists to ask whether they should adopt a multivocal liberal stance tolerating different interpretations about the past, or a critical socio-political position seeking a deconstruction of the discipline and a transformation of the dominant interpretative frameworks that predate Spanish Archaeology.

Der Aufsatz nimmt die von Gunnar Brands und Martin Maischberger herausgegebene Gruppenbiographie »Lebensbilder« als Anstoß und Ausgangspunkt für eine Auseinandersetzung mit der jüngeren Forschung zur Geschichte der Klassischen Archäologie im Nationalsozialismus. Der Autor skizziert die zunächst auf die Rolle des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts konzentrierte Forschung, um anschließend die Aussagekraft des biographischen Ansatzes auf diesem Feld zu untersuchen. ein wesentliches Anliegen der Studie ist es, die Fachgeschichte
der Klassischen Archäologie in den Kontext der ungleich intensiveren Diskussion zur jüngeren Geschichte einiger verwandter Disziplinen zu stellen, insbesondere der Geschichtswissenschaft und der Vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Zielpunkt der Überlegungen ist die Frage, inwieweit die Beschäftigung mit der Klassischen Archäologie in der NS-Zeit einen Beitrag zur Selbstrelexion der Forschungstätigkeit in der Gegenwart leistet.

L'archéologie a été l'une des catégories socio-professionnelles les plus engagées dans l'idéologie nazie au cours de la période du IIIe Reich. Cet article montre comment la profession archéologique, majoritairement proche de la SS, s'est réorganisée après 1945 dans les universités allemandes, continuant ainsi à transmettre son héritage méthodologique aux générations d'étudiants formés en Allemagne jusque dans les années 1980.

It is now widely acknowledged that Bulgarian academic discourses of the country’s so-called communist era (1945-1989) were heavily politicized with the aim of nationalizing and ethnicizing the history of the Bulgarian people. This communist era phenomenon subscribes to a chronologically vaster process of nationalist continuum recognized to have spanned from the middle-end of the nineteenth century to at least the early 1990s. Despite this trend, Bulgarian academics, especially in the field of archaeology, have more recently presented their post-communist, transition period disciplines as ideology-free, objective, scientific research.

In this paper, we provide examples of recent theoretical developments and interpretations in the sub-field of thracology – studies of ancient Thracian culture – that indicate that this claim to objectivity is unfounded. Based on the examples provided we argue that not only have Bulgarian academic discourses in the fields in question not severed with the ethnicizing practices of the so-called nationalist continuum of the pre-communist and communist eras, but they are now flourishing on the nationalist foundation of the preceding century and a half. As such discourses are reproduced unquestioningly in specialized publications, their influence on right wing populism is incontestable as they provide the latter, wittingly or not, with the scientific authority it needs to justify its ethnicizing of “historical” tenets of racial and social discrimination.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, it aims to reveal and present some interpretative issues in different Balkan Iron Age archaeologies that result from long-lasting use of culture-historical approach, and on the other to suggest that future interpretations of the past need to be more reflexive. Culture-historical archaeology is based upon a premise that individuals who are linked by production and consumption of stylistically homogeneous material culture form a group with a feeling of collective identity, whereas recent identity studies vigorously question this approach. Today, the idea about archaeological cultures as relatively stable and homogeneous systems of values characterizing certain group of people is recognized as ethnocentric projections that reflect modern national/ethnic identities and social concepts into the constructed image of the past. A following case study of the "Illyrian argument" -a well known dispute between Yugoslav and Albanian archaeologists and historians on "ethnogenesis" of the ancient Illyrians -shows how culture-historical archaeologies in different sociopolitical contexts, sometimes, beside the same methodology, reach very different conclusions. As a way forward, we suggest a reflexive approach that will be well aware of constitutive interrelations between the past as an object of the study and the present as a context of the research.