Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
NATIONALISMAND
ARCHAEOLOGY:On the
Constructionsof Nations and the
Reconstructionsof the Remote Past
Philip L. Kohl
Departmentof Anthropology,Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts02181;
e-mail: pkohl@wellesley.edu
KEYWORDS:historyof archaeology,
ethnicandnationalidentities,archaeological
cultures,
nationalism
andstateformation
ethnogenesis,
ABSTRACT
Nationalism requiresthe elaborationof a real or invented remote past. This
review considers how archaeological data are manipulatedfor nationalist
purposes, and it discusses the development of archaeology duringthe nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the relationshipof archaeology to
nation-building,particularlyin Europe.Contrastiveconceptions of nationality and ethnicity are presented,and it is arguedthat adoptionof modem constructivistperspectives is incompatiblewith attemptingto identify ethnic/national groups solely on the basis of archaeological evidence. The political
uses of archaeologyare also reviewed for the constructionof nationalidentities in immigrantandpostcolonial states. The problematicnatureof nationalistic interpretationsof the archaeological record is discussed, and the essay
concludes with a considerationof the professional and ethical responsibilities of archaeologistsconfrontedwith such interpretations.
L'oubli, et je dirai meme l'erreurhistorique, sont un facteur essentiel de la
crdationd'une nation, et c'est ainsi que le progres des dtudeshistoriquesest
souvent pour la nationaliteun danger.... Peut-etre,apres bien des tatonnements infructueux,reviendra-t-ona nos modestes solutions empiriques.Le
moyen d'avoir raison dans l'avenir est, a certaines heures, de savoir se
resigner a etre demode...
Renan 1947-1961:891, 906
223
0084-6570/98/1015-0223$08.00
224 KOHL
INTRODUCTION
Numerousrecentpublicationsattestto considerableinterestin the relationship
between archaeologyand nationalism(e.g. Atkinson et al 1996, Diaz-Andreu
& Champion1996, Kohl & Fawcett 1995). The currentpopularityof this topic
seems relatively easy to explain for reasons relatedboth to the recent upsurge
in nationalistmovements and conflicts throughoutthe world and to the practice of archaeology.The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the concomitant
restructuringsof states in easternEuropehave led to the outbreakof numerous
ethnic/nationalconflicts, many of which, as in the Balkans and in the Caucasus, involve contentiousterritorialand proprietaryclaims based on the ancient
past and the archaeologicalrecord.Archaeologicalremainsfrequentlyare the
sites of violent demonstrationsor targetsof attacks,as recently demonstrated
by the Palestinian response to the opening of a new entrance to a tunnel
throughthe old center of Jerusalem.Even more violent consequences ensued
from the destructionof the BabriMasjid at the site of Ayodhya in northernIndia in December 1992, an event in which fabricatedarchaeologicalevidence
(Mandal 1993, Bernbeck & Pollock 1996) played a critical role. In short, archaeology figures prominentlyin currentnational events, and this visibility
naturallyraises questions as to the political uses of and significance accorded
to archaeologicalremains.The innocence of the discipline, sometimes cloaked
behind a facade of empirical objectivity, cannot be maintainedin the light of
such graphic,well-covered currentevents.
The presentinterestin exploringthe relationshipbetween archaeologyand
nationalism, however, is not exclusively explained by reference to these
events. Equally importanthave been developments internalto the practice of
archaeology and advances in the broaderhistorical study of nationalism.Recent historiesof archaeology(e.g. Trigger 1989, Patterson1995) have stressed
the social andpolitical settings in which the discipline functions-its social dimension. This concerninevitablyleads to a considerationof archaeology'srelationshipto the political unit or statein which it functions.Similarly,therehas
been an increasingawarenessof the differencesamongvarious"regionaltraditions"of conductingarchaeologicalresearch(e.g. Trigger& Glover 1981; Politis 1992, 1995), and these traditionscharacteristicallycoincide with specific
nation-states.That is, there are distinctive Russian (Shnirelman1995; Dolukhanov 1995, 1996; Guliaev 1995), French(Audouze & Leroi-Gourhan1981,
Dietler 1994, Schnapp1996), German(Harke 1995, Arnold& Hassman 1995,
Marchand1996a,b),and Spanish(Diaz-Andreu1995, 1996a,b)archaeological
traditions,for example, and these can be profitablycomparedand contrasted
(e.g. the comparision of Spanish and Russian archaeological traditions in
Martinez-Navarrete1993). Certaininternationalarchaeologicalorganizations,
such as the World Archaeological Congress (Ucko 1987, Rao 1995) and the
NATIONALISM
ANDARCHAEOLOGY225
EuropeanAssociation of Archaeology (Kristiansen 1993, 1996; Shore 1996)
have been establishedin the wake of political controversyand/orwith explicit
political agendas;such organizationshighlight the political dimensions of the
discipline, including inevitably the ways in which archaeologicalresearchis
structuredby the policies of specific nation-states.Finally, a central tenet of
the entire postmodern critique of science, which in the most visible Anglophone archaeologicalliteraturetakes the form of postprocessualarchaeology
(e.g. Hodder 1986, 1991; Shanks& Tilley 1992), is its rejectionof total objectivity and of the possibility of conductingneutral,value-free research.Rather,
this critique emphasizes the subjective interests/perpectivesof scholars and
the political contexts in which archaeologicalresearchis conducted.
For similar external and internal reasons, historians and social theorists
have increasinglyaddressedthe phenomenonof nationalism,and it can be argued that they are doing so with increasing sophistication and insight (see
Hobsbawm 1992:2-5). There is considerable debate in this literatureon the
following issues: the degree to which nationalismrepresentsa radicallymodem form of consciousness, a novel collective identity linked to processes of
modernizationand tied exclusively to the basic unit of contemporarypolitical
organization, i.e. the nation-state (e.g. contrast Gellner 1983 and Anderson
1991 with Duara 1995); the extent to which the nineteenth-centuryEuropean
experience of nation-buildingis emulatedthroughoutthe postcolonial world;
whetherthe new nations thathave emerged in Asia and Africa in this century
have followed a fundamentallydifferent,less secular, and more spiritualpath
to join the recognized league of nations (e.g. van der Veer 1994, Chatterjee
1993); and whether in the process of nation-makingthe past is "invented"or
"rediscovered"throughthe selective use of inheritedsymbols, myths, and material remains (contrastHobsbawm& Ranger 1983 with Smith 1986). Nevertheless, these theoristsconcur in emphasizingthe socially constructedcharacter of nationalism and in rejecting "essentialist"or "primordialist"accounts
that view nations as objective, durablephenomena,the origins of which typically can be tracedback to remote antiquity(for an intelligent anthropological
review of this literatureand the distinctionbetween essentialist/primordialist
and instrumentalist/constructivist
accounts, see Eriksen 1993).
The relationship of archaeology to nationalism is changing. Historically,
archaeologistshave helped underwritemany nationalistprograms,according
historical significance to visible materialremains within a national territory
(Anderson 1991:163-85). They are still playing this role throughoutmany areas of the world (Kohl & Tsetskhladze 1995; Kaiser 1995; Cherykh 1995;
Ligi 1993, 1994). Today, however, some are critically examining how archaeological data are manipulatedfor nationalistpurposes (Kohl & Fawcett
1995, Ben-Yehuda 1995, Diaz-Andreu & Champion 1996, Silberman 1989,
Gathercole& Lowenthal 1990), while othersare celebratingthe inevitablepo-
226 KOHL
litical nature of the discipline and promoting alternative indigenous reconstructionsof the remote past (Ucko 1995a,b;Graves-Brownet al 1996).
This article reviews the historical relationshipbetween the emergence of
modem nation-statesand the developmentof archaeology.It briefly examines
examples of nationalistarchaeologythatemergedthroughoutthe world in both
the nineteenthandtwentiethcenturies,and it analyzesthe evolutionaryarchaeology that developed particularlyin imperial and colonial settings (Trigger
1984). This paper also considers why archaeologicaldata are peculiarly susceptible to political manipulationsand why this evidence is often accorded
great significance in nationalistconstructions.Finally, the essay addressesthe
professional and ethical responsibilitiesof archaeologistswhen they confront
problematicnationalistinterpretationsof the materialculturerecord.
NATIONALISM
ANDARCHAEOLOGY227
A great unscrupulous scramble for Egyptian antiquities followed in the
wake of Napoleon's invasion of Egypt at the end of the eighteenth century.
Monumentalworks of ancient artwere hauled home and redefinedthe changing Parisianlandscape-most famously with the placementof an obelisk from
Luxor in the Place de la Concorde in 1836, an event attendedby the French
king and over 200,000 spectators (Fagan 1975:261). Colossal artifacts from
ancient civilizations now became peculiarly transformedinto national symbols, and the subsequentFrench and British competition for such loot served
the useful national function of filling up both the Louvre and the British Museum. Archaeologists, employed as colonial officers in imperialist settings,
were engaged in a form of nationalistarchaeologyin the sense that their work
was used to puff up the glory and sense of selfoftheir employer;Layard,wanting to dig at Nimrod in northernMesopotamiain 1846, provided a classic example of this form of nationalistarchaeologywhen he wrote the British Ambassadorto Constantinople,Sir StratfordCanning:"Thenationalhonouris also
concernedin competingwith the Frenchin decipheringthe cuneiforminscriptions. To accomplish this task materials are necessary. ...
If the excavation
keeps its promise to the end there is much reasonto hope that MontaguHouse
[the British Museum] will beat the Louvre hollow" (Larsen 1996:95-96).
Britainhad to outpace France in the quest to exhume and send home texts
and colossal works of ancient art. The British Museum was then and remains
now an eminently nationalistinstitution,even thoughmany of its finest acquisitions were pilfered from abroad,having been excavatedby archaeologistsin
its employ. The study of the past promotedby Napoleon or the archaeology
practicedby Layardcan be describedas simultaneouslyimperialist,colonialist, and nationalist.
228 KOHL
and Germany'spronounced"culturalobsession" with philhellenism, the glories of ancient Greece, and their subsequent establishmentof exacting standards of scholarship in allied disciplines, such as comparativephilology and
Altertumskunde.Wilhelm von Humboldt'spromotionand institutionalization
of a neohumanistBildung, based on a rigorous Classical education, also, of
course, servedmany eminentlypracticalpurposes,such as the trainingof dedicated, apolitical civil servants (cf Marchand1996a:27-31; BG Trigger, personal communication).As in France, Germannationalist archaeology found
its purest expression in the excavation of Classical sites (e.g. at Olympia in
Greece and Pergamumin Anatolia) and in the establishmentof Germaninstitutes throughoutthe Mediterraneanand laterthe Near East. The InstitutftirArchaologische Korrespondenzwas established in 1829 by private individuals
interestedin Classical antiquities,though it received occasional state support
throughoutthe middle decades of the nineteenthcentury;in 1872 this institute
was transformedinto a Reichsinstitut and became the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut,a heavily state-subsidizedorganizationmeantto showcase the
achievementsof Germanscholarship.Kulturpolitikwas a statepolicy intended
to enhance German national prestige through the support of "disinterested"
German philanthropy and scholarship abroad, particularly throughout the
lands of the OttomanEmpire;in reality,it disguised imperialistaspirationsthat
occasionally were made explicit. Baron von Wangenheim, the second-incommand at the German embassy in Constantinople,stated the policy unequivocally: "The interim intellectual goals alreadypursued,or to be pursued
by our schools, our doctors,and our archaeologistscould very well become, in
the course of time, the crystallizationpoint onto which Germaneconomic and
colonizing undertakingsare grafted.The economic will follow the intellectual
conquest ... and then these two .. . will naturallybe followed by political exploitation"(cited in Marchand1996b:318).
Kulturpolitik engaged the energies of German archaeologists working
throughoutClassical lands and the ancientNear East. Nationalist archaeology
in Germanythus developed largely beyond the bordersof Germany,resulting
in a correspondinglack of attentionto Germanprehistory,a neglect first addressedby G Kossinnaat the turnof the century.This situationwas later"rectified" by the Nazis, particularlyunderthe programsextolling the Germanpast
thatwere headed by H Himmlerand A Rosenberg.The state attentionthat the
Nazis lavished on Germanprehistoryproved, of course, catastrophic,leaving
behind a "Faustianlegacy" from which the discipline has yet to recover fully
(Arnold 1990, Arnold & Hassman 1995).
The ways in which nationalismand archaeology intersectedin Greece and
Italy have to be explained internallyin terms of the specific making of those
modem nation-states and the constructing of modem Greek and Italian national identities as well as in terms of the internationalprestige accorded to
230 KOHL
their Classical antiquities and to their consequent plunder (cf McConnell
1989). Archaeology in Spain, on the other hand, representsa different case.
Spanisharchaeologydid not develop duringa time of imperialexpansion,as in
France and Britain, or imperial aspiration,as in Germany;rather,it emerged
and its national identity was refashionedin the wake of the losses of its Latin
Americanempire in the early nineteenthcenturyand most of its otherpossessions at the end of the century(cfDiaz-Andreu 1995:43). Focus on the medieval origin of the Spanishnation involved the partialdenial or begrudgingrecognition of its Islamic heritage(Diaz-Andreu1996b), a factorthatwas specific
to the Iberianpeninsula. An overtly nationalist Spanish archaeology, associatedwith sites such as Numantia-also a scene of defeat-was relativelyweak
and developed late. The florescence or curtailmentof regional nationalisttraditions in Spanish archaeology (among the Galicians, Catalans,and Basques,
in particular)reflects restructuringsof the Spanishstate duringthis century;in
post-Francotimes, however, Spanisharchaeologyhas been decentralized,encouragingthe developmentof regional archaeologieswithin the country's 17
autonomousprovinces (Ruiz Zapatero1993).
Archaeology's relationshipto the state varied from country to country. It
could take the relatively innocuous and necessary form of the detailed compilation of the prehistoricand early historicsequence for a region or an entirenation. Nationalist archaeology in this sense can be equated with the culturalhistorical approachand evaluatedpositively in the sense of the more systematic and complete tracingof temporaland spatialvariationsin the archaeological record than was often achieved, for example, by the more schematic unilinear evolutionaryapproachesof the late nineteenthand early twentieth centuries. Trigger(1995:277) even suggests thatarchaeologistsestablishingtheir
regional or national prehistoricsequences could provide a justifiable collective pride in the past and help resist colonial and imperialdomination.
ANDARCHAEOLOGY231
NATIONALISM
(Shennan 1989, Graves-Brownet al 1996, Diaz-Andreu 1996a). It also paved
the way for nationalistinterpretations,where specific archaeologicalcultures
were unproblematicallyseen as ancestralto contemporaryethnic or national
groups. This procedure,which implied a a static, durable,or essentialist conception of ethnicity/nationality,could even be promulgatedby explicit state
policies. The case of Soviet archaeology and its use of ethnogenesis, the formation of ethnoi, is instructive.
The officially sanctionedSoviet conception of an ethnos, long championed
by Yu V. Bromlei (1973, 1983) among others,can be characterizedas primordialist or essentialist; i.e, attachmentto an ethnic group was based on objective, relatively durable, and fixed criteria, such as language, racial group,
dress, house forms, cuisine, and otherculturaltraditionsor time-honoredways
of doing things (cf also Gellner 1980, Shnirelman 1996:8-9, and Tishkov
1997:1-12). This view contrasts sharply with the more situational and relational conception of ethnic identity favored by most Western anthropologists
(Eriksen 1993:10-12). Fromthis latterperspective, a groupis a distinctethnos
thatconsiders itself such and is consideredsuch by othergroups.This attribute
of categorizationis most important,a featurefor which there is no necessary
materialculturecorrelate.
The Soviet ethnos and the classic concept of an archaeologicalcultureresemble each other, and both contrastsharplywith more modem views of ethnicity. These modem views insist that ethnic groups are malleable and constantly changing as the historical situationin which they exist unfolds; ethnicity, like culture, is never made but is always "in the making" or, perhaps, if
times are tough, "in the unmaking"or "disappearing."Ethnicityand nationality are conceived similarly in that they are socially constructedphenomenain
which traditionsare invented and consciously manipulatedfor political, economic, and social reasons. Ethnicityis a more universalform of groupidentity
with a past thatmay extend back to earlierhistorictimes, indeed, perhaps,into
the mists of prehistory,but it can never be securely traced.An archaeologyof
ethnicity, in short,is an impossible undertakingif one accepts this constructivist perspectiveon ethnic and nationalidentity(contra Jones 1997; cf also Trigger 1994:103), while it is a relatively straightforwardexercise if one adoptsthe
Soviet concept of ethnos or if one uncriticallyequates archaeologicalcultures
with living or past ethnic groups.
A related concept that became centralto the practice of Soviet ethnology,
archaeology, and physical anthropologyfrom the mid-1930s on is ethnogenesis, or the formation, of peoples (cf the seminal studies of VA Shnirelman
1993, 1995). The determinationof ethnogenesis became one of the central
tasks of Soviet archaeology when the discipline switched from a Marxistinspired internationalism(or, perhaps,politically motivated universalism) to
one concernedprincipallywith the ethnogenetichistory of the early Slavs, i.e.
232 KOHL
when GreatRussian chauvinismand the buildupto the GreatPatrioticWarreplaced internationalism.Ironically, the effect of this transformationwas to
have every ethnicity/nationalityalike, Russian and non-Russian, engaged in
this ethnogenetic mandateor search for its origins. Competitionover the remote past was intimately tied to the very structureof the Soviet multiethnic
federal state (Suny 1993, Zaslavsky 1993, Tishkov 1997). Administrative
units (republics and autonomous republics, provinces, and regions) were
named for specific ethnic groups, althoughthey always containedmore than a
single ethnos and in many there was no ethnic majority. It was an easy and
logical step to transformthe precisely defined bordersof these units into the
nationalterritoryor homelandof the eponymous ethnos. This process, in turn,
could be legitimized throughthe selective ethnic interpretationof the archaeological record(for an example, see Lordkipanidze1989), reifying the political
unit by according it great antiquity. In Ronald Suny's striking phrase
(1993:87), the Soviet Union became the great "incubatorof new nations," a
source for many of the conflicts thathave arisensince the stateself-destructed.
The concept of ethnogenesis is linked directly to the concept of the ethnos:
durable and well-nigh permanent in the Soviet perspective or constantly
changingin the opinion of most Westernscholars.Forthe former,the determinationof origins is the criticalquestion.When did the ethnic group,conceived
as a little, preformedhomunculusalreadypossessing all the essentially defined
characteristicsof the given ethnos, come into being: duringthe Bronze Age,
duringthe Iron Age, with the collapse of Classical Antiquityand the ensuing
GreatMigrations,or after the conquests of Timuror Genghis Khan?It is perceived as a straightforwardhistoricalquestionwith an ascertainableanswerto
be provided by the archaeologist's spade or by some long-overlooked or recently discovered historical document.
For the Westernscholar,the problemis much more complex, indeed essentially unsolvable. Ethnogenesis is only a relatively minor matter associated
with the beginnings or initial formationof a given ethnic group;more significant and more complex are the changes that group will experience over
time-its ethnomorphosis (Kohl 1992:172, Wolf 1984). These changes
may-though not necessarily will-lead to the appearance of new ethnic
groupsthroughprocesses of assimilationand/orfundamentalchange or disappearancethroughvarious naturalor human-inducedprocesses, such as ethnocide. Even an ethnic group that exhibits considerablecontinuity and stability
over long periods of historical time will nevertheless change in fundamental
ways; thus, for example, pre-ChristianArmenia of the Iron Age differs from
ChristianArmeniaof the Middle Ages and from the newly formedRepublicof
Armeniatoday (cf Kohl 1996).
Obviously, both perspectives have some degree of merit: Continuities,as
well as changes, can be documentedfor the Armenianexperience or for many
ANDARCHAEOLOGY233
NATIONALISM
relatively long-lived ethnic groups.Culturaltraditionscannotbe fabricatedout
of whole cloth; there are real limits to the inventions of tradition.As Hobsbawm (1992) argues, states or nationalist politicians may, in fact, make nations, but they cannottotally make themup. It shouldbe obvious thatone could
not have constructedmid- to late nineteenth-centuryItaliansout of the Chinese
or New Guinean culturaltraditions.Here it is useful to distinguish between
strictand contextualconstructionism(Ben-Yehuda 1995:20-22 and personalcommunication).The formerdenies any constraintsimposedby past or current
realities and quickly devolves into the hopelessly relativist morass of some
postmoderncriticisms. Contextualconstructivism,the theory advocatedhere,
on the otherhand,accepts that social phenomenaare continuouslyconstructed
and manipulatedfor historically ascertainablereasons, but it does not deny an
external world, a partiallyapprehensibleobjective reality, that cannot totally
be reducedto invention or social construction.Representationsor constructed
culturalperceptions are real, but reality encompasses more than representations and exists independentlyfrom them.
234
KOHL
NATIONALISM
ANDARCHAEOLOGY235
those of northwestMexico most plausibly interpretingthe archaeologicalrecord or are they effectively naturalizingthe borderdefined by the 1848 Treaty
of Guadalupethat ended La Guerrade Agresion Norte Americana(Weigand
1991)? Nationalism and archaeology are intricatelyinterwoven into the very
fabric of the Mexican state for internaland externalreasons. An externalreason is its relations with its very large, powerful, and expansionarynorthern
neighbor.
Second, the process of national identity formationis continuousand ongoing; what it means to be Mexican, Argentinian,Native American,and so on today differs from what it did during the last century or earlier this century.
Many changes may be consideredprogressive in that more peoples' pasts are
incorporatedinto increasingly inclusive national identities, although it is unclearwhethersuch processes reflect anythingmorethana specific state's security and stability. Legislation has been passed by differentcountriesto protect
the culturalheritage of indigenous peoples, including the repatriationof culturally significant objects. Even long-extinct peoples lacking obvious heirs
can be resurrectedthrougharchaeologicalresearchand incorporatedinto the
nationalidentity.Thus, for example, 10,000- to 12,000-year-oldPalaeo-Indian
remains from southernPatagoniaare seen today as the first Argentinians,los
primeros Argentinos, who initiated the national adventure(see the cover to
Wroclavsky 1997), and their excavations are appropriatelycelebratedby the
state (L Miotti, personal communication).
The culturalpatrimoniesof immigrantandnewly independentstates arebeing redefinedand extended in partas a result of ongoing archaeologicalinvestigations. This too can be viewed as progressive and desirable,althoughother,
fundamentallyeconomic, factors undoubtedlyalso are at work, including the
growth in tourismand the remarkablyhigh prices currentlybeing paid for antiquities on the art market.Thus, for example, the governmentof Guatemala
recentlyprotestedthe opening of an exhibit ofpre-Columbianantiquitiesat the
Boston Museum of Fine Arts, claiming thatthe materialson display were illegally excavatedand stolen fromthe country.The GuatemalanVice Ministerof
Culturebitterly complainedthatthe objects were "pagesrippedout of the history book of the nation"-a strikingmetaphorof nationalidentity (Yemma &
Robinson 1997:A28). Regardlessof the sincerity andjustice of the complaint,
it is not irrevelantor irreverentto note that looted Mayan artifactsare fetching
astronomicalprices at auction houses, such as Sotheby's, where a gold object
recently sold for more than half a million dollars, and that tourism, which in
Guatemalaoften includes visiting famous pre-Hispanicsites, currentlyranks
as the country'ssecond most importantindustry-after coffee (Delle & Smith
1997).
The thirdand final considerationconcernsthe political uses of evolutionary
theory.While it is undoubtedlytruethatthe universalevolutionary/naturalhis-
236 KOHL
tory perspective initially adopted by most immigrantstates served the thenuseful functionof relegatingthe indigenes to a lower rungon the evolutionary
ladder,it must be emphasizedthattherewas no reasoninherentin the theoryof
culturalevolution that it function in this manner.The same point can be made
for diffusionism, a perspectivecontrastedto the doctrineof evolution from the
late nineteenthcentury onward and which easily devolved into emphasizing
the unique contributionsof a gifted people/masterrace. That is, both explanatory approacheswere and still can be used for racistpurposes,but such use has
to be explainedhistoricallyandnot seen as intrinsicto the doctinesthemselves.
Indeed, both can have the opposite result:evolution stressing the unity of humankindanddiffusion documentinghow all peoples contributeto a sharedhistory.
Nation-statesthat have arisen out of the ruins of empire face their own peculiar problems of constructingtheir national identities. One common difficulty is thatthe bordersthey inheritfrequentlycorrespondto colonial administrativeunits and containmultiple ethnic groups,none of which could function
unproblematicallyas the new nationality. Archaeology can be implicated in
these processes (Schmidt& Patterson1995). Zimbabwe,of course, is not only
a nation named after an archaeologicalsite, it is also a site that became an exceptionallypowerfulsymbol of colonial misrepresentationsandnative accomplishments (Hall 1990, 1995). It maintainsthat function today, but it also has
become a site of ethnic tensions within the new state. Are the ruins to be identifed exclusively with the majorityShona people or interpretedmore broadly
as also ancestral to the Ndebele (cf Schmidt 1995:126-27)? As elsewhere,
control of the past provides a source of legitimization for control of the present. Archaeology can be an expensive undertaking,and many new nationstates in Africa and elsewhere simply cannot afford to supportadequately a
state archaeologicalservice or nationalmuseum;this problemis compounded
when foreign archaeologistsstill dominatethe ongoing researchconductedin
the country and when the discipline is perceived by state officials-fairly or
unfairly-as a relic of colonial rule (Schmidt 1995). The future relationship
between archaeologyandnationalismin such cases is unclear,thougha type of
developmentmay be envisaged that is associatedwith the seemingly ineluctable growthof tourism.Archaeologistscan expect to receive state supportwhen
officials recognize the profits to be made from affluent tourists eager to visit
archaeological sites. Whether such development is a blessing or a curse remains to be seen.
Another difficulty faced by many postcolonial nation-statesconcerns the
inheritanceof the ethnic/nationalidentities that were formed or refashioned
duringcolonial rule. For example, castes in India-their functions and degree
of segregation/separation-were transformedduringthe time of British rule.
Similarly, recognition that there was an Indo-Europeanfamily of languages
238 KOHL
migrationto Palestine has been perceived by most as a returnto an ancestral
homeland, a view that is tangibly reinforcedthroughthe continuous excavation of antiquitesdated to biblical times. Certainly,it is impossible to characterize Israeli archaeologyas dominatedby a universalevolutionaryor natural
historyperspective in the sense of Americanarchaeology.Is its practice,then,
better considered a specific form of colonialist archaeology, as defined by
Trigger (1984)? The question itself is charged with political significance.
Three featuresof Israeli archaeologyare particularlydistinctive:(a) The state
significance accordedto andpopularinterestin certainarchaeologicalremains
are extraordinary,as perhapsbest exemplified by the formerswearing-inceremony of the Israeliarmy(IDF) at Masada(Ben-Yehuda 1995:147-62); (b) the
excavation and presentationof past remainsis highly selective and directedto
the reconstructionof Iron Age throughearly Roman times or to the First and
Second Temple periods (cfAbu el-Haj 1998); and (c) the form of nationalism
thatboth inspiresand sometimes impedes the practiceof Israeliarchaeologyis
explicitly religous, not secular,which means thatarchaeologyfulfills a certain
sacred or, for some, sacrilegious function. The combination of archaeology
and religious nationalismcan prove extremely volatile, as the recent destruction of the Babri Masjid in India so poignantly demonstrated.
ANDARCHAEOLOGY239
NATIONALISM
troversies;scholarly disagreements,indeed, may reflect a healthy, robust discipline trying to advance itself.
How then does one evaluate patently nationalist interpretationsof the archaeological record? Are legitimate, long-neglected, and overlooked voices
on the past now finally being articulated?Is such a developmentsomething to
welcome or to query, and, if the latter, why and on what basis: scientific or
ethical?Are nationalistinterpretationsinherentlydifferentand more problematic than other readings of archaeological evidence? A common nationalist
readingof the past is to identify the entities archaeologistsdefine, particularly
archaeologicalcultures,in termsof an ethnic groupancestralto the nationality
or aspirantnationalityof interest. Such identificationsprovide the nationality
in question with a respectablepedigree extending back into the remote past,
firmly rooted in the nationalterritory;land and people are united. Once made,
such identificationsthen can be extendedto interpretprogressivechanges, culturaldevelopments in the archaeologicalrecord,as due to the activities of this
ancestralethnic group. If other evidence, such as that providedby linguistics
and historical comparativephilology, contradictsthe model of autochthonous
development,it typically can be accommodated.Now the gifted groupin question moves into the nationalterritory-it migrates,finding either empty space
or benightedindigenes whom it civilizes or eradicates(for examples, see Shnirelman 1996 and Ligi 1993, 1994). Such nationalistinterpretationsseem able
to accommodateflatly contradictoryevidence. For example, today's Macedonians, the dominantethnic groupin the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, are linguistically and culturallyrelated to other southern Slavic peoples
who migratedinto the Balkans roughly duringthe middle of the first millennium AD; like the Serbs,they profess a formof ChristianOrthodoxy.Nevertheless, they consider themselves heirs of the ancient Macedoniansof Classical
times and claim Alexanderthe Greatas an ancestor,a view that is patentlyuntenable.
Even when such reconstructions seem perfectly consistent with the archaeological record, the consistency is deceptive. The principalproblem lies
in the purportedethnic identification;as discussed above, archaeologicalcultures and ethnic groups are not synonymous, and modem constructivistperspectives on ethnicity and nationalityprecludethe possibility of a perfect correlation between material remains and ethnicity. Peoples' sense of themselves-who they are and what they have done-continuously changes and
cannotbe held constantover centuries,much less millennia. Ethnicitiesarenot
little perfectly formed homunculi or crystallized essences containing within
them all the characteristicsof their futuredevelopment;rather,they are caught
up in, even buffeted by, largerhistoricalprocesses capable of alteringand destroying them. The identificationof some archaeological culture as ancestral
to a given ethnic grouprepresentsa hopeless will-o'-the-wisp, a chimerainca-
240 KOHL
pable of satisfactorydetermination.Moreover, the quest for such identifications is not only misleading, it is also dangerous,as a considerationof both the
past and currentpractice of archaeology abundantlymakes clear. Changes in
the archaeologicalrecord cannot be explained exclusively by the activities of
efficient causal agents, the gifted ethnic actors;numerousother factors, such
as environmentaland climatic changes, must also always be considered.If prehistory teaches us anything, it is that cultures borrow from one another,that
technological developments are shared and diffuse rapidly, and that specific
cultures and areas have not only advanced and developed but have also declined, often catastropically.In short, for many reasons, nationalistinterpretations of the past are, at best, problematicand should be so recognized.
Archaeological evidence may be peculiarlysusceptibleto manipulationfor
nationalist purposes because it is physical and visible to a nation's citizens
who interactwith it, consciously or not, on a daily basis. Archaeological sites
become national monuments, which are increasingly being transformedinto
lucrativetouristattractions.Theirartifactsare storedand displayed in national
museums and constitute an invaluablepart of the nationalpatrimony,a heritage thatbecomes more and more broadlydefined;both sites and artifactsfrequently are incorporatedinto state regalia as symbols appearingon national
flags, currency,and stampsor memorializedin patrioticsongs andnationalanthems. Maps are compiled showing the distributionof sites identifed ethnically and considered to be part of the state's cultural patrimony;not infrequently, such sites are located beyond the state borders, their represenation
then constitutingan implicit ancestralclaim on a neighboring state's territories. Even objects of mass consumption, such as postcards and cigarette
brands,may depict or be named after ancient sites. All such uses demonstrate
forcefully how nationalidentity is continuouslyconstructedthroughthe commemorationof the remote, archaeologicallyascertainablepast.
Nationalism and archaeology are also inextricably related at the level of
state supportfor researchand employment.Archaeologistsoften work directly
for state institutions, such as museums, research institutes, and antiquities
services; even in the unusuallydecentralizedcontext of the United States,most
US archaeologists,whetheremployedby privateor state institutions,must still
solicit federallyfinancedfoundationsfor funds to supporttheirresearch.Is archaeology then peculiarly vulnerableto state pressuresand manipulationfor
currentpolitical purposes? Should archaeologists function as agents of the
state, and is it inevitable that the discipline in some critical respects, such as
funding,is necessarily at the service of the state?Most of the time the connection between the state and archaeologymay be mutuallybeneficial-a source
of strength,not difficulty. A state needs an educatedelite citizenry, and the instillment of national pride in past accomplishmentsmay be appropriateand
laudatory.But what happens when the state's agenda or the popular move-
ANDARCHAEOLOGY241
NATIONALISM
ments drivingthatagendaappearmore questionableon moralgroundsor when
the archaeologist is asked to verify some implausible, nationalist-inspired
readingof the past?Whatarethe professionaland ethicalresponsibilitiesof archaeologists who function in the shadow of such states?This essay concludes
by considering these issues.
PROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITIESAND ETHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS:ATTEMPTINGTO MANAGE
NATIONALISTINTERPRETATIONSOF THE PAST
During the past two centuries, modem nation-stateshave become the basic
unit of political organization recognized throughoutthe world; during that
same period, our knowledge of the remote past has continuously advanced
largelybecause of the ever-increasingcorpusof evidence unearthedby archaeologists. Many questions remainunanswered;some indeed may be unanswerable. It is also true that alternativeinterpretationsof archaeologicalevidence
are not only possible but also common and characteristic.Mute material remains are inherentlyambiguous-at least to some extent. Nevertheless, certain facts of prehistoryand early history can be considered established;many
other reconstructionsof archaeologicalevidence constituteplausible working
hypotheses that can be confirmed by additional research. Archaeology has
developed-and this also is an ongoing continuousprocess-standards of recording and interpretingmaterial culture remains. Thus, fantastic sciencefiction interpretationsof archaeologicalmaterialscan be dismissedfor violating
the principleof uniformitarianism,which remainsa basic tenet of archaeology,
geology, and other natural sciences despite the recognition of past unique
events and catastrophes.
Archaeologists, thus, can distinguish between what is well established,
plausibly known, a matterof problematicconjecture,or sheer fantasy.Nationalist interpretationsfall within this rangeof certaintyto impossibility, depending on the argumentsbeing made and the evidence used to supportthem. Ethnic identificationsextendingback over millennia, which are a favoriteform of
nationalist interpretation,are problematicand hazardousfor reasons already
discussed. The professional responsibility of the archaeologist confronted
with such interpretationsis straightforward:Emphasizethat the identification
is uncertainand tenuous and stress the real epistemological limits that circumscribe our ability to people the remote prehistoricpast.
Archaeology benefits from the critically reflexive recognition that its data
are inherentlypolitical: They are excavated and interpretedin a political context and are capable of being used for a variety of political purposes,including
legitimizing nationalist programs.Nevertheless, archaeologists' recognition
may come at the high price of superficial analyses and facile generalizations.
242
KOHL
ANDARCHAEOLOGY243
NATIONALISM
sonable interpretationof the dataand still condemnthe political uses to which
it may be put (Kohl & Tsetskhladze 1995:161). For example, even if the foundation of a Hindu temple had been uncovered by archaeologistsbeneath the
Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, India (which it had not; cfMandal 1993), responsible archaeologists still could and should have decried the destructionof the
mosque; similarly, whethertoday's Slavic-speakingMacedoniansdeserve an
internationallyrecognized nation-state is a different question from whether
they can trace their ancestryback to Alexander. The archaeologicalevidence
can be decoupled from the political movement or state policy.
Ethical standardsfor accepting or rejectingnationalistuses of archaeology
may vary in specific cases, but they should ideally satisfy the following three
criteria:(a) the constructionof one group'snationalpast shouldnot be made at
the expense of others'; (b) all culturaltraditionsshould be recognized as worthy of study and respect;and (c) the constructionof a nationalpast should not
be made at the expense of abandoningthe universal anthropologicalperspective of our common humanityand sharedpast and future,the positive lessons
to be learntfrom evolutionaryand diffusionaryprehistory.It may be unfashionable to suggest that some views of the past are problematicand dangerous
andthatcertainuniversalstandardsbe met. Althoughmanypeople today question such views and impositions, it is useful to recall Renan's (1947-1961)
sage counsel: To be rightin the long runat times requiresacceptingthe burden
of knowing how to resign oneself to being demode.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This essay benefittedfromthe close readingsof many individuals.Among others, I would like to thankN Ben-Yehuda, A Karakasidou,and B Trigger for
their helpful suggestions and criticisms. I remain,of course, fully responsible
for this final version and for any problematicfacts or interpretationsthatit contains.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at
http://www.AnnualReviews.org.
Literature Cited
Abu el-Haj N. 1998. Translating truths: nationalism, the practice of archaeology,
and the remakingof pastandpresentin contemporaryJerusalem.Am.Ethnol. In press
Anderson B. 1991. Imagined Communities.
London: Verso. Revised ed.
Arnold B. 1990. The past as propaganda:to-
244
KOHL
245
246
KOHL