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.
It is, of course, the case that the relationship between nationalism and archaeology continues to have a profound impact, not only on the day-to-day practices and bureaucratic processes we must engage in as professionals, but also on public perceptions of origins and identity. Funding bodies in many countries support only excavations inside the nation's borders, while others (particularly former imperial powers) may be equally interested in their continued contribution on the world stage; this has a significant effect not only on the research questions we pursue, but also on the sorts of story we recount about ourselves and others. Today, as the integrity of national borders and normative concepts of national identity are repeatedly called into question, for example by the arrival in northern European countries of refugees and economic migrants from the Near East, North Africa and elsewhere, it is inevitable that new formulations of ‘nationhood’ will have an impact on the discipline. The extraordinary level of interest among European archaeologists in recent years in using stable isotopes to identify ‘immigrants’ in the past can be read as reflecting current debates around immigration, diversity and multiculturalism; surprisingly, however, public and media interest in questions of origins and belonging has not translated into increased state investment in the discipline. It is becoming clear that if archaeology is to find a place within the new dynamic nation states that continue to morph with migration and globalization, it needs to find new ways of articulating with their citizens. Elsewhere, pseudoarchaeology continues to be used to bolster nationalist rhetoric, as in the case of the Bosnian ‘pyramids’. How can academic and professional archaeology meet these claims while continuing to foster participation and multi-vocality?
Just as the status and meaning of ‘nation’ and ‘nationhood’ continue to be a focus of debate, so too the way in which individuals and communities articulate with the wider world is changing. In an increasingly globalized world, people may identify as members of transnational communities based on interest, religion, ethnicity or profession (the World Archaeological Congress, or the European Association of Archaeologists, for example), while local and regional identities are often foregrounded in day-to-day experience. Although ongoing mass migration across the Mediterranean creates particular challenges for individual nations, amidst debates and recriminations about border control and financial responsibility, it also calls into question the collaborative transnational values of the European Union – an agenda inscribed into the kinds of archaeological projects that have been successful in attracting EU funding. Alternative formulations of identity at a local and global scale are often in tension with national interests, although they may equally act as fluid layers into which individuals tap according to context. Sometimes, of course, they work hand in hand, as for example when the ease of long-distance travel and the demands of capitalism combine so that archaeology is employed to sell particular visions of national identity via the tourist industry. The ethics around which of these levels of identity – local, national or international – should take precedence are complex, as ongoing debates around the repatriation of cultural heritage such as the Parthenon marbles – national icon or global heritage – so effectively highlight. A similar and more urgent movement to salvage what is perceived as universally ‘ours’ can be seen in the rush to give refugee status to cultural heritage threatened by Daesh in Iraq and Syria, a gesture not as generously extended to the people crossing the borders of European nation states fleeing for their lives. Likewise, albeit less dramatically, although involvement with the international archaeological community is surely a positive, there are structural inequalities in the extent to which non-anglophone archaeologists may be able to engage with key international organizations.
Our topic, then, is not a dusty issue belonging to the nineteenth century but a live topic with particular relevance today: the meaning, status and value of ‘nationhood’ in the contemporary world continues to be a crucial question, and the role of archaeology in underpinning or challenging essentialist concepts of national identity is as important as ever. We hope that the following collection of papers will provoke further discussion on this subject, for its impact and relevance to archaeologists today is inescapable wherever they may work in the world.
