![]()
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Archaeology and cultural identity in Europe
SIĂN JONES AND PAUL GRAVES-BROWN
Today, as many of the old political barriers between Western and Eastern Europe are collapsing, and as increased economic and political union within the European community becomes a fact of life, the question of what âEuropeâ means â and could come to mean â to its diverse peoples takes on even greater significance. The events of the 1990s would seem to have the potential for radically reshaping peopleâs identities. But will they? Any attempt to begin to answer questions such as this must address the multiple issues raised by the national, ethnic, regional and local identities within Europe.
(MacDonald 1993: 1)
Questions of identity often come to the fore at times of social and political change; the destruction of existing socio-cultural patterns and shifting power relations lead to the re-evaluation and re-presentation of identities as new communities arise. Such processes are evident in the context of the social and political changes taking place in Europe since 1989. The breakup of the Communist bloc, the reunification of Germany, the ending of the Cold War and moves towards increasing European unification â economic, political and cultural â all provide new contexts in which identities of varying scales and forms are formulated: local, regional, ethnic, national and Europe-wide. Of course, in most, if not all historical contexts, cultural identities are dynamic and contested, but periods of rapid change in Europe, and elsewhere in the world, intensify, and thus highlight, these processes.
Since the past is often central to the construction of identity, periods of radical social and political change are often a time of âinventing traditionsâ (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983), in which histories are re-evaluated and rewritten. Ethno-histories provide the authenticity and legitimation which cultural groups desire and require in their claims for self-determination and/or secession. As Hobsbawm points out with respect to nationalism:
historians are to nationalism what poppy-growers in Pakistan are to heroin-addicts: we supply the essential raw material for the market. Nations without a past are a contradiction in terms.
(Hobsbawm 1992: 3)
The same argument could be made of any representatives of disciplines which deal with the past, including archaeologists. This book is concerned with the specific relationship between archaeology and cultural identity in the European context. Whilst there have been a number of studies of the relationship between history and cultural identity in Europe (e.g., see contributions to Hastrup 1992; MacDonald 1993; Tonkin et al. 1989), very little attention has been paid to archaeology (although see Ucko 1995). Furthermore, although, as this book shows, the attribution of cultural identity to material remains has been one of the most influential elements in the history of the discipline, explicit consideration of theories of cultural identity has been very limited. Recent events in Europe have provided the opportunity and, in some peopleâs view, the necessity, of examining archaeological constructions of European identities, and the assumptions and ideas which underlie them.
Clearly, in order to address issues concerning archaeology and cultural identity in Europe, it is important to consider contemporary and historical socio-political contexts. Thus, a number of chapters in the book are concerned, at least in part, with prevailing discourses1 of identity in Europe today, and the use of the past in construction and legitimation of cultural identity.
CONSTRUCTIONS OF IDENTITY: EUROPEANISM, NATIONALISM, ETHNICITY, RACISM
A strong element in the construction of new identities in Europe has been the emergence of exclusive, ethno-nationalist discourses, and the resurgence of racism and xenophobia (see Bhavnani 1993; Bowman 1994; Brah 1993; Hobsbawm 1992; Mandel 1994; Verdery 1992). Ethno-nationalist arguments are commonly the basis of claims for self-determination, separatism and expansion by groups in eastern Europe, as in the case of Lithuaniaâs drive for independence from the Soviet Union; the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh; the break-up of Czechoslovakia following Slovak demands for independence; and the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
Demands for nationalist independence and expansion typically involve the assertion of the right to national sovereignty on the basis of ethnic-linguistic distinctiveness and historical precedence. National cultures and identities are reified as pure and homogeneous entities, projected back into the past and treated as natural and immutable essences. Such assertions of nationhood are frequently accompanied by xenophobic reactions to those who are perceived to be alien, both within and outside of the imagined space of the nation. For instance, nationalist discourse and xenophobia are central to the logic of âethnic cleansingâ practised in the former Yugoslavia.
Separatist nationalism is by no means restricted to eastern Europe. Such movements are also common in western Europe; from Basque and Breton nationalist attempts to achieve independence, to Scottish and Welsh demands for devolution or independence. Furthermore, racism is resurgent in western Europe, as elsewhere (see Bhavnani 1993; Brah 1993). Thus in Britain, for example, the âNew Rightâ has adopted an explicit racialised discourse underpinned by the perceived threat posed by âimmigrationâ to the âBritish Characterâ and âway of lifeâ (see Barker 1978; Brah 1993).
At first sight, notions of European identity appear to counter the particularistic character of ethno-nationalist and racist discourses. As Shore (see chapter 6) points out, European Community/Union (EC/EU) officials and other supporters of Federalism in Europe espouse images of a harmonious integration of European cultures and identities through a shared history of ideas and values.2 It is claimed that, as a product of this supposedly harmonious process, age-old rivalries, national chauvinism and war will cease. Yet, as Shore demonstrates, the ECâs/EUâs attempts to construct European culture and identity have so far been based on âprecisely the same symbolic terrain as the old nation-statesâ (see p. 103), and elitist and exclusive definitions of Europe versus âthe restâ. Thus there are currently policies aimed at restricting entry into, and movement within, Europe of âimmigrantâ peoples (see Bhavnani 1993), and a series of cultural and historical representations tacitly support such policies (see Shore, chapter 6; Kristiansen, chapter 9; Zvelebil, ; and see below).
The past has played a crucial role in the construction of identity and its political legitimation, whether ethnic, national or supra-national. A distinct history is crucial in the establishment of group âauthenticityâ in the eyes of many of its members and the international community, bolstering declarations of political autonomy, self-determination and territorial sovereignty (e.g., see Danforth 1993; Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983; Hutchinson and Smith 1994: 4). Furthermore, although many historical narratives conflict with one another, they are based on a common logic â an unbroken, linear, historical account, with a unitary origin, and frequently a âGolden Ageâ (Smith 1986: 191). For example, in disputes over the sovereignty of Macedonia, and even the right to use the term âMacedonianâ, claims about history have played a central role. For Greek nationalists, Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians are linked in an unbroken line of continuity to modern Greece. Hence, only Greeks have a right to the name and associated territory (Danforth 1993: 4). Meanwhile, both extreme and moderate Macedonian nationalists assert that the ancient Macedonians were a non-Greek people, and hence that they have a prior claim to the name and the right to self-determination. Whatever the particularities, these competing histories have a common form which is shared by many groups throughout Europe, whether they be ethnic, national or pan-European.
There is a tension between pluralism and anti-pluralism, multiculturalism and monoculturalism, heterogeneity and homogeneity in discourses of identity, which cross-cuts ethnic, national and European forms of identification. Whilst European unification may serve to âcreate a new awareness of commonalities that potentially hold the promise of interrogating parochial and xenophobic tendenciesâ it may also take the form of âan unstable complex of competing interest groupsâ which âprovide fertile ground for the growth of racisms and xenophobia, and their articulation with nationalist imaginationsâ (Brah 1993: 27). The idea of Europe is internally and externally contested by individuals and institutions, resulting in a multiplicity of inclusions and exclusions. It is in this broader context that archaeological representations of the past and their appropriation by various identity groups must be considered. But, it is also necessary to consider the processes involved in the construction of cultural identity, and their conceptualisation in the human sciences, in order to critically address archaeological constructions of European identity.
THEORIES OF CULTURAL IDENTITY
During the first half of the twentieth century, ethnic and national groups were generally assumed to be internally homogeneous, historically continuous entities, objectively defined by their cultural, linguistic and racial distinctiveness. This perspective resulted in a particular view of the world made up of a mosaic of peoples and cultures, which has been aptly described by Eric Wolf (1982: 6):
By turning names into things we create false models of reality. By endowing nations, societies or cultures, with the qualities of internally homogeneous and externally distinctive bounded objects, we create a model of the world as a global pool hall in which the entities spin off each other like so many hard and round billiard balls.
As a number of the chapters in this volume point out, culture historical archaeology3 has contributed to this picture. The assumption that distinct archaeological cultures correlate with peoples has provided the basis for the construction of the past in terms of monolithic, individuated entities; the prehistorianâs counterpart for the peoples and nations of âhistoricalâ periods. Using this approach, archaeologists have claimed to trace the origins, movements and distinctive histories of specific named groups of people (see Collis, chapter 11; DĂaz-Andreu, chapter 3; Jones, chapter 4; Renfrew, chapter 8). In many instances, culture history has facilitated the construction of long genealogies for contemporary ethnic and national groups which reinforce their consciousness of identity and provide political legitimation in the present (for examples see Collis, chapter 11; Fleury-Ilett, chapter 13; Ruiz Zapatero, chapter 12). Such representations of the past are actively constructed from the point of view of the present. For instance, during the Franco rĂŠgime, as Ruiz Zapatero (chapter 12) illustrates, the Celts were presented as the only genuine Spanish racial group, whose antiquity sanctioned a united Spain and connections with Aryan, Germanic forefathers. Following Francoâs death and the transition to democracy, there was a growing interest in the Iberians, in the context of attempts by the Autonomous Communities to âdiscoverâ their own historical roots.
Yet, beyond particular political contexts, a critical reflection on the very concepts of culture, ethnic group and nation used in the human sciences is essential because:
Shared historical currents within Europe have ⌠shaped anthropology and the social sciences in general (including archaeology). In other words, they have also shaped the ways in which we look at questions of identity âŚ
(MacDonald 1993: 4)
The extent to which these historical currents are shared equally throughout Europe is open to question (and see below), but as Hides (chapter 2) illustrates, the pre-conceptual frameworks through which the material and social worlds are ordered have undergone a number of significant transformations in the last 400 years in Western Europe at least. This has moulded the very fabric of our understanding of the relationship between material culture and identity. Furthermore, as DĂaz-Andreu (chapter 3) and Jones (chapter 4) both argue, the emergence of the social sciences alongside the nation-state and nationalist ideology in the nineteenth century has shaped our concepts of identity. Such interweaving of academic and folk concepts of identity is a continuous process taking place at both macro-theoretical levels, as in the formulation of EC discourses on cultural integr...
