Nation states

The ‘nation state’ may be understood in the traditional sense as a co-occurrence of a sovereign state in an area dominated by an ethnic and/or language group (like the Nordic states). However, for theoretical and empirical reasons this understanding is problematically narrow, and the concept can profitably be expanded to states where people more or less have a shared perception of community (like the United States), which again entails shared perceptions of history. Thus the concept encompasses most modern states. Nation states are, of course, not a homogeneous category in terms of relationships with their own populations, and their long-term institutional histories vary. Some arose within borders imposed by force and arbitrary occurrences in history. Some are or have been at war with segments of their own population, or are oppressive, abusive, chauvinist, expansionist, corrupt and unable to provide basic services. Fundamental distrust, indeed animosity, between the state and the population is not uncommon. Some states are characterized by a dominant population subjugating other groups or engaging in violent ethnic conflict. Other states supply extensive services, justice and security, and are viewed by their populations as legitimate and benign. The historical narratives employed to generate community, and thus the relationship between archaeology and the state, will arguably vary in regard to the nature, context and history of the state and region in question.

The relationship between the modern nation state and archaeology affects a number of academic arenas: goals, perceptions, narratives, management, legislation and labour market sociology. Questions and answers concerning archaeology's relationship with the nation and the state will also vary depending on whether focus is directed inward towards the academic, disciplinary discourse or outward towards society (Díaz-Andreu Reference Díaz-Andreu2001).

The point of departure for this article is a region of ‘benign states’, Scandinavia, and particularly the nation state of Norway. Today's Scandinavia is host to some of the world's most successful states. They are politically and socially stable, prosperous, adaptive and competitive. Though internationally oriented, they are still strong national entities. In these (at least until recently) homogeneous states, the majority populations, and the languages they speak, are Germanic, and histories of common heritage are readily shared. Norway has a long history and robust national identity, but the independent Norwegian state was formed as late as 1905.

A resilient narrative structure

Cultural-historical disciplines like comparative linguistics, archaeology and ethnology entered a partnership with the evolving Scandinavian states of the 1800s – and their fates are intertwined with each other. A goal was to create identity and cohesion, the perception of a common ethnic identity (Baudou Reference Baudou2004, 112 ff., Klindt-Jensen Reference Klindt-Jensen1975, Prescott Reference Prescott, Begerbrant and Sabatini2013b, ref. Díaz-Andreu Reference Díaz-Andreu2001). Examples can be seen in the general interest in Indo-European studies (at least up to the Second World War), arguments of deep historical continuity and appeals to prehistory in the definition of demographic and cultural genesis and traits. In Scandinavia, the convergence of state agendas, heritage and popular ethnic perceptions was a success all-round: archaeology gained access to relatively plentiful resources and political patronage and comprehensive heritage legislation was adopted (Baudou Reference Baudou2004; Hagen Reference Hagen1997; Klindt-Jensen Reference Klindt-Jensen1975) – creating world-leading research communities (Trigger Reference Trigger1989, 80 ff.). These nation states were involved in territorial disputes with neighbours or independence struggles, or evolved from traditional monarchies to modern governments. Lacking written sources with sufficient depth and detail to create mythical histories of genesis, cultural-historical disciplines supplied the ‘deep histories’ and myths to promote cohesion and legitimacy. The public was supplied with relevant and interesting stories of the past (e.g. narratives of the initial post-glacial colonization, evolution of agrarian communities, Bronze Age chiefs, the Vikings, and romantic perceptions of the Middle Ages).

The cultural-historical disciplines were important in the 19th and 20th centuries for the evolving Norwegian nation and its state. They also answered a demand in the population for storylines to assist in understanding itself and its place in Europe. Seen as necessary institutions of an independent Norwegian state, ‘national disciplines’ provided narratives that distinguished the Germanic tribes of Norway from those of the other Scandinavian countries and created interpretative contexts that positioned the majority Germanic population, and its state, in regard to the minority Saami groups. Already at this stage two premises of archaeological discourse were adapted from broader contemporary conceptions of identity:

• • Norway is geographically peripheral and presents uniquely challenging environments, and this has been the case throughout history;

• • the population has been stable throughout time and it has accumulated distinctive adaptive qualities.

Thus the perception was created that natural conditions, people and culture had shaped each other through history – creating the strong and unique regional identities that in sum are the Nation (Prescott Reference Prescott, Biehl and Prescott2013a).

Cultural-historical archaeology was critiqued in the 1970s, and with the spread of processual approaches ethnic primordialism and nationalism in general were criticized and ostensibly abandoned. The ensuing years were characterized by anti-migrationism, local radiocarbon chronologies, ecology and social explanations. Ironically, the fundamentals of the narrative of genesis and identity were reinvigorated, and continued to emphasize how environment, people and culture shaped each other to create contemporary traits and institutions. History continued to be portrayed along lines of developmental continuity. The interpretative focus resonated with general trends of radicalization and ecological movements in Norwegian society as of the 1970s. An important issue from the early 1970s (and later) was Norway's relation to the EEC/EC/EU – the staunchest political opposition from the far right, the rural center and the urban left. The environmental, anti-big-business and decentralization agenda cast Norway in a David-versus-Goliath storyline, leading to a peculiar brand of liberal leftist nationalism – and protectionism.

The ensuing years of postmodernism in archaeology, the Saami rights movement and growing international academic entanglement might have challenged the above narrative. Though explicit explorations of Norwegian (as opposed to Saami) national history and identities were not on the agenda, the underlying storyline was still implicitly there.

Nationalist and essentialist ethnic narratives are clearly on an empirical and theoretical collision course with good science. The list of problems is long: prehistoric entities and cultural traits do not match contemporary borders. There is little reason to maintain the popular myth of deep co-evolution of ‘Land–Culture–People’. People have been moving in and out of Scandinavia since deglaciation, and newcomers have readily developed adaptations. Today's urban population has little in common with the hunter-gatherers, fishermen and farmers (or even recent industry workers) of bygone eras, and so on. On the other hand, in Scandinavia there is a Germanic cultural history and there are identity issues to be explored, but these are contentious, indeed even taboo, within academic archaeology.

Still, in terms of recognition, resources and employment, Norwegian (and Scandinavian) archaeology was and is a success. Saami archaeology became a success, by also adopting an identity strategy. Today the public continues to respond to narratives of ethnic, regional and national identity (whether Norwegian or Saami), and identity continues to justify robust heritage legislation (Holme Reference Holme2005, 10, 25–26) that helps to ensure a remarkable resource flow to heritage management and archaeology. So, though popular narratives and political rationales aren't academically accurate, perhaps the symbiosis has been innocuous, and for pragmatic reasons justifiable?

Is migration changing perceptions?

Though there have been academic challenges to the underlying narrative of the Norwegian nation (and its regions), the most potent challenge – the rupturing force – comes from developments in contemporary society in the wake of globalization and especially the advent of global mass migration. Immigration has created a political and conceptual situation where national and ethnic narratives are under pressure and old practices are increasingly untenable.

Large-scale, non-European migration into Norway started with labour migrants from Pakistani Punjab in the 1970s and has escalated since, with growing numbers of immigrants from all over the world. A significant and growing part of the contemporary population of Norway is immigrant or has two immigrant parents (approx. 20 per cent). Statistics Norway, usually conservative in its estimates, predicts that in 2040 some 24 per cent of the nation's population will comprise immigrants.Footnote ¹

According to Oslo City's statistics agency,Footnote ² nearly 31 per cent of the capital's population had an immigrant background in 2014 (up from 22 per cent in 2004). Some 41 per cent of the immigrant population is of Asian origin, 17 per cent is of African descent, while Europeans constitute 37 per cent. A quarter of those registered as immigrants are born in Norway to two immigrant parents, whilst the rest are immigrants themselves. Major source regions are found in Pakistan (22,585), Poland (14,765), Sweden (13,858) and Somalia (13,424), as well as Eritrea, Turkey, the Philippines, Iraq and Vietnam. In 2040, Statistics Norway predicts, between 40 and 56 per cent of Oslo's population will be immigrants. According to an article from 2011 in the newspaper Aftenposten (Slettholm Reference Slettholm2011) the ratio of immigrant pupils in Oslo's schools has increased from 29 per cent in 1999 to 40 per cent in 2011. Of 139 primary schools, 58 had a majority of pupils registered as ‘non-Norwegian-speakers’ and 7 per cent of the schools had more than 90 per cent non-Norwegian-speakers in 2011.

For children growing up in contemporary Oslo, whether of Norwegian or immigrant descent, the traditional ‘blood–land–culture’ genesis of the nation story will readily be seen as irrelevant. It simply does not reflect their experiences. To involve immigrants in heritage, pitches playing on ‘their’ ethnic or immigrant identities have been made – but some surveys indicate that youth born in present-day Oslo identify with the city and country, and don't appreciate being pigeonholed into a static ethnic or social identity with roots in a country and a bygone era; nor do they identify with eternally being identified as immigrant (Prescott Reference Prescott, Biehl and Prescott2013a). This situation represents a strong challenge to archaeology's traditionalist appeal to identity.

In terms of employment, studies and activities, organizations within archaeology, heritage, museums and so on do not engage immigrant youth. In Oslo, the sector (i.e. students, faculty, CRM employees and so on) is overwhelmingly Scandinavian. Despite tuition-free universities and liberal schemes for financing living costs, as well some equal-opportunity initiatives, Oslo students with parents from Africa and Western Asia (as opposed to exchange students from these regions) seldom chose to study the humanities. There are complicated reasons for this, conceivably related to strategies and cultural preferences in immigrant communities, as well as intra-disciplinary structures and narratives in archaeology, cultural heritage, the CRM sector and so on. Still, no matter the cause, for ethical and pragmatic reasons this is unfortunate.

Addressing disciplinary goals and narratives is something archaeology can engage with, and is a starting point for creating broader public involvement. The typical strategy practised in response to, e.g., gender critique, age groups or Saami awareness is to generate multiple identity narratives, such as appealing to separated histories in reference to place of origin, migrant experiences and minority histories. Some surveys indicate that youth growing up in contemporary Oslo experience such strategies as being cemented into stereotyped ethnic categories that do not reflect how they experience a dynamic reality (Prescott Reference Prescott, Biehl and Prescott2013a). Another route could be to actively abandon narratives of identity of the nation state or nation spaces, and instead emphasize generalized themes of human history and anthropology. In my experience, the appeal of abstracted narratives not tied to time and place quickly fades and fails to engage the non-academic audience.

A third strategy is to accept that modern political entities – nation states – are largely the point of reference for contemporary people (though often contested). They are rapidly being transformed – as they have been in the past. So although the traditional ‘Land–People–Culture’ narrative should be abandoned, the above situation entails not the dismantling of nation state narratives, so much as new narratives of the nation state that are more accurate and to a degree focused in relation to contemporary concerns. Such a narrative would critically incorporate elements like the numerous migrations in and out of Scandinavia; histories of cultural, ethnic and religious encounters (peaceful and conflicted); and the general unintentional processes and outcomes that are human history. This is an intermediate position entailing that historical narratives do have a basis in what transpired in the past, at the same recognizing that history is also about the present, and is a potent social force when it is a materialized social structure and unconscious physical dispositions (e.g. Durkheim Reference Durkheim2005, 13 f.). Of course, this is not unproblematic for parts of the population that identify as ‘indigenous’ and appeal to inclusive rights based on heritage, or those who wish to maintain ethnic boundaries to uphold diaspora communities.

National narratives and atrocities

In the ethnically homogeneous, socially stable and peaceful post-war Norway the inaccuracies of the autochthonous ‘national genesis’ storyline – whether overtly or implicitly expressed – mainly mattered to a few dissident academics. With the demographic influx from the Middle East and Africa, and reactions to globalization and immigration, has this narrative become an excuse or rationale for atrocities?

In the trial against Anders Behring Breivik, perpetrator of the 11 July 2011 massacres, Breivik defended his action as indigenous self-defence: ‘Our forefathers have lived in this country for 12,000 years, and we who are Norway's indigenous people do not accept the colonization of our country against our will’ (quoted in Johansen Reference Johansen2012). The ideological rationale lifts its arguments from, or at least echoes, familiar archaeology and heritage narratives. Thus we move from theoretical and academic issues concerned with a mistaken primordial ethno-genesis, an untenable anti-migrationist view applied from deglaciation to the historical epoch and concepts of ‘indigenous groups’ used in policy construction, to the use of these concepts not only for dubious political purposes, but also for a grotesque defence of atrocities.

To counter this sort of argument, the reaction of parts of the liberal to left wing has created an equally mistaken myth that in short maintains that everything is imported, and there is therefore no unique content to Norwegian national identity. It is also held that there has been migration before, and in retrospect this has been positive. The concept of national identity should be scrapped (e.g. Jøssang Reference Jøssang2011). Apart from the blunt inaccuracies of positions like this, they are as theoretically mistaken as the primordialist positions in their approach to histories as accurate portrayals of the past, confusing historically inaccurate national myths with the reality of a nation. In practical terms they serve to alienate large groups of people who are genuinely concerned about what is happening around them. Though generated with the best of intentions, this sort of rhetoric probably fuels a confrontational atmosphere detrimental to reflexive communication.

Reproducing cultural-historical myths of the nation state and on the other hand negation of the nation state are both mistaken and are both increasingly perilous. The challenge, academically, is to understand contemporary nation states and place them in a valid and relevant historical and contemporary context. Archaeology can provide deep history, comparative context and multidimensional narratives of contemporary relevance that can influence policies largely generated by nation states. By adopting dynamic perspectives, also exploring the history of migration and cultural encounters, archaeology can be seen as relevant by all inhabitants within a state's boundaries. In the future, narratives will continue to involve strong references to nation states – but reformed narratives, not futile negations of the nation state.

From narratives to ethics: is heritage the property of the nation state or of humanity?

The national agenda in Scandinavia leads to relatively comprehensive and firm heritage legislation. In Norway the initial passing of this legislation in 1905, the same year Norway became independent of Sweden, was hastened by the need to stop the export of antiquities and protect research contexts. The relation to the excavation and threat of private sales of the nationally iconic Oseberg Viking ship in 1904 is complicated (e.g. Guribye and Holme Reference Guribye, Holme and Holme2001, 33; Hagen Reference Hagen1997, 83 ff.), although the Oseberg issue was probably a symbolic catalyst in creating support for the new legislation. The legislation was thus geared towards protecting national heritage and national research contexts. Objects from and research contexts in other countries were not a priority at this time or later.

The Nordic countries were not particularly quick to ratify international agreements like the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Thus when the Norwegian collector Martin Schøyen and his group of collaborating academics and public institutions became dubiously involved with materials from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Israel and Iraq in the late 1990s there was little legislation to deter them. Norwegian (and British) authorities had no inclination to help the affected countries enforce their national legislations, and largely ignored pleas for assistance (Brodie Reference Brodie, Mackenzie and Green2009; Prescott and Omland Reference Prescott and Omland2003; Omland Reference Omland and van Krieken-Pieters2006; Rasmussen Reference Rasmussen2009).

One nationalist argument in defense of Schøyen's activities was that bringing the objects to Norway was a potential source of national prestige. Another, more pertinent, argument was an appeal to the prevalent attitude of internationalism in academia and cultural heritage, maintaining that culture does not belong to a people, area, state or nation – it belongs to humanity. In Schøyen's case this rhetoric is probably an attempt to divert attention from looting and cover-up stories, and to create a defence for the exploitation of misfortune in poor and war-torn regions. Still, there is an unresolved tension between, on the one hand, the fact that most archaeology is bound to places ideally controlled by a nation state and is disseminated, if not created, in a contemporary ethnic, cultural or national context and, on the other, the goal that culture should be experienced internationally and that archaeology belongs to humanity – not a nation or ethnic group.

Philosophical rhetoric aside, in practical terms material heritage entails the appropriation of resources and the generation of income, legislation, law enforcement and management. Here there is no practical alternative to the central role of the state.

Looting, smuggling and trade in archaeological materials

The Schøyen case raised awareness of the problems tied to looting, theft and the international trade in antiquities. This accelerated Norwegian ratification of the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property in 2007. There can be little doubt that this international agreement had positive local impact on inhibiting the end-line market.

Fifteen years ago I was of the opinion that international agreements and cooperation are key to controlling the trade in antiquities, and hopefully halt large-scale local looting, theft and destruction. However, my experience since, e.g., the escalating scale of the looting and trade of antiquities in the wake of state collapses in Syria and Iraq, indicates that the international cooperation does not provide sufficient tools to stop these activities. Though international policing and customs checks, international surveillance and information exchange, and international political and professional involvement are important, they can only work in conjunction with strong national agencies in functioning states. The most important entities are effective local, regional and national heritage protection services at the source end of the supply chain. Only such agencies can stem looting, theft and smuggling at the source, and thereby directly inhibit the destruction of research contexts. The next step is policing and professional bodies with judicial and ethical mandate to interfere with the activities of dealers, collectors and academics at the market and collector end. This approach indirectly curtails the market, but does not effectively stop destructive looting. In today's world, the actual enforcement will still be a national state.

Internationalism or globalization?

Archaeology is an academic discipline that in its nature should be international in outlook and practice – and it is increasingly so. However, in Scandinavia (and most of Europe) there are strong national traditions and institutions that translate into national (and non-English) publishing, a national labor market, national funding and an obligation to disseminate to a national audience. The problem with these structures and institutions is that they tend to generate ethnic and national narratives, to create insulated academic schools, to practise internal hiring and to restrict academic outlooks. Fortunately, in northern Europe internationalization drives are increasingly dismantling such structures and practices in favour of international publishing (usually equated with English-language texts in international journals and books), funding from EU sources and international recruitment of students and faculty.

These policies of internationalization and moving academic archaeology out of national contexts have unequivocally served to improve quality, academic relevance and academic impact. However, there are concerns. ‘International publishing’, supported by impact reviews, point systems and financial incentives, is increasingly controlled by a few academic publishing conglomerates. These media receive material free of charge from national sources, but charge exorbitant subscription and open-access fees. Concurrent with understandable demands that publishing is in English, national languages are increasingly irrelevant (and impoverished) in academic contexts, and non-professional audiences are neglected. This tilts the balance of power further in the direction of the Anglo-American world.

Competition for financing in international arenas is increasingly forcing all research in northern Europe into a mould of EU-type bureaucracy, ‘big-is-better’ thinking and professional application writing. Though impressive in terms of measurable parameters like overheads, external financing and project size, and sometimes providing impressive breakthroughs, it does not necessarily translate into relevant and efficient knowledge production and dissemination. It also inhibits certain types of research that are all needed in archaeology and the humanities.

In short, academic internationalism has overtones of economic and political globalization. However, national-level regulation, funding and institutions will for the foreseeable future mediate between various goals, and at their best counter the unfortunate sides of globalization for the benefit of a freer international academia.

Pragmatics and principles

Boundaries in prehistory do not match those of nation states. Within a state various cultural histories have played out. The interpretative binds between the nation state and archaeology have often been theoretically and empirically misguided – though profitable for all parties. Today global migration and communication are creating (to paraphrase Wylie) a rupture that makes it impossible to go on as before, and it just is not clear what we should do; the traditional national–ethnic narratives are no longer tenable options. Driven by the international nature of academic archaeology, and various programmes to support international scholarship, the national arena is increasingly irrelevant to the ambitious scholar. The contemporary political and economic forces of globalization pull and push in the same direction. The destructive trafficking in archaeological objects demands international collaboration.

These are all important factors that mandate both international collaboration and regional responses. There is no lack of dysfunctional, violent and chauvinist states. However, the nation states are today the highest level of efficient organization that can potentially meet an audience, and combat violent fanaticism, crime, social exploitation and the hegemony of the few large nations on the world scene that is confused with internationalism. The nation states mandate regions, employment and legislation. So, though archaeology academically, discursively, socially and professionally increasingly transcends the bounds of the nation state, or is practised in regions within states, such states are probably still majority stakeholders in the endeavours of archaeology. Balkanazition is not a viable long-term alternative and there are as yet no effective international bodies to take the place of national bodies. In a world where most people still relate to the national state, but live in an increasingly diverse and globalized world, there is need for transformed national narratives. In short, though international, archaeology also will remain the project of the nation state, and can make a valuable contribution to contemporary and future nation states.

‘History is an unintentional project, and all intentional activity takes place in the context of institutions sedimented over long-term periods of time’ (Giddens Reference Giddens1982, 32). Both societal context and internal agendas form the path along which archaeology proceeds to evolve, and here, as elsewhere, history leads to unpredictable results (Kristiansen Reference Kristiansen1990). What the future holds is, of course, uncertain, but for the time being the nation state will continue to be important for archaeology.