Benedict Anderson. Imagined communities : reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. 1991 (1993 printing). xv+224 pages. London: Verso; 0-86091-546-8 paperback £12.
Philip L. Kohl & Clare Fawcett (ed.). Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. 1995. xi+329 pages, 4 b&w maps. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; 0-521-55839-5 paperback £30.99.
Hwajung Kim
Nowadays, on the contrary to globalism which has swept politics and economics for the past few decades, nationalism is cropping up all around the world. Since the early 20th century inflicted with two world wars, the world has tried to unite all countries to prevent possible disastrous violence by building up solidarities through such intergovernmental organizations as United Nations or European Union. After decades, however, it seems that most countries turn their eyes away from a status as a member of global organizations to their own domestic interests as proved in the referendum for Brexit and in a growing popularity of right-wing parties in Europe and the USA.
In some areas, nationalist movement is closely related with a field of archaeology. Recently, there is a controversy over the naming of Jerusalem holy sites where UNESCO only acknowledged the use of Arabic terms, ignoring Jewish ties to the sites (Beaumont, 2016). Although modern archaeological research started in the mid-19th century there, proper research was rarely done because of the religious complex (Avni & Seligman, 2006, p.262). Archaeologists were allowed for limited excavations only when renovations or repairs were required (ibid). As archaeological practice is embedded within a nationalist project, it sometimes leads to a neglect of some historical records (El-Haj, 1998, p.167). As a result, some objects are distorted and classified as someone else’s heritage to be accorded with one’s glory in the past (ibid).
It has been regarded difficult to define nationalism concisely as “it takes kaleidoscopic forms and requires interdisciplinary study; history, politics, linguistics, and so on” (Hutchinson & Smith, 1994, p.3-4; Norman, 2006, p.4). However, nationalism has been a popular topic in the discussion among scholars who have tried to capture its essence. According to Gellner (1983, p.1), “nationalism is primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent”. He also adds cultural homogeneity as one of the important components of nationalism and insists that pre-existing cultures can be used to create nations through the process of inventing and obliterating cultures (Gellner, 1983, p.39,49). For Smith (2001, p.9), “nationalism is an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute an actual or potential ‘nation’ ”. Hobsbawm follows the definition of nationalism by Gellner and puts an emphasis on language and ethnicity (cultural community) as constituents of a nation (Hobsbawm, 1990, p.9,51).
Nationalism, in my definition, is a political and cultural sentiment of belongingness, based on shared ethnicity, language, culture, and political values, with sovereignty (self-determination) given to its members. Both political and cultural sentiments are necessary for the rise of nationalism. For example, the concept of nationalism cannot be applied to empire system in the 19th and the 20th century. Despite its political annexation with colonies, there was no shared cultural belongingness between ruling groups and indigenous people who, of course, rarely had political sovereignty.
Anderson’s Imagined communities and Kohl and Fawcett’s Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology share the topic of nationalism. However, what aspect they are talking about and how they approach to the topic are slightly different. While Imagined communities traces back to the origins and the causes of nationalism in the modern period, Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology explores how the imagined nationalism has been used for the legitimacy of certain types of ideologies or government agenda, i.e., Nazism, communism, or dictatorship, with mostly abusing archaeological works. It shows that archaeology is under the pressure of being interpreted in the frame of officially authorized national narrative regardless of what is the truth.
Then what is archaeology? According to Kohl (1998), archaeology is rooted in the Renaissance and began to be recognized as an academic discipline under the fever of nation-building in Europe during the 19th century. Renfrew (Renfrew & Bahn, 2008, p.12) states that “archaeology is the past tense of cultural anthropology and archaeologists study past humans and societies primarily through their material remains”. By further focusing on the relationship between anthropology and archaeology, Gosden (1999, p.3) tries to understand their inevitable interrelation “within the broader field of anthropology” while acknowledging that they “have overlapping subject matter” (1999, p.9). Considering these definitions, it can be proposed that archaeology is an activity of exploration and interpretation of the past through excavations and material evidence. In addition, it contributes to the understanding of human development within temporal and spatial context, which is a part of anthropological research.
As proved in the case of Jerusalem, nationalism and archaeology is interrelated. The relation can be positive or negative, but the two fields have enjoyed a special relation throughout history. In line with this argument, the two books will be examined in the perspective of a reciprocal relationship between them. The discussion will focus on how the books contribute to the theme and, if any, in what aspect they fail to do. After that, it will be concluded with how they can support each other in relation to the theme.
In Imagined communities, Anderson gives a brief definition of nationalism on his own terms as a part of introduction. He rejects the idea of describing nationalism as one of ideologies and insists that it rather has a concern with ‘kinship’ and ‘religion’ (Anderson, 1991, p.5). Most of the book is dedicated to exploring the causes of this unprecedented movement in drastically changing socio-economic phenomenon; capitalism and print-technology. In addition, language is considered important for the development of nationalism. However, the author is oblivious of new political power of people, i.e., sovereignty.
As for the relation between nationalism and archaeology, Anderson rarely mentions. Vernacular languages could be seen as heritage of diverse ethnic groups, but they are more connected with anthropological development. He has little attention to the role of archaeology in relation to nationalism as well as the building of nation-state. Rather, he seeks to find the origin of nationalism in social environment and emphasizes how it spread within a country and later to colonial states in the imperial period. In the book, socio-economic analysis is given more emphasis when Anderson explains nationalism.
Although, in Chapter 10, the author suggests a museum as one of three influential institutions shaping the way of how colonial states imagined their communities, the impact a museum had is only confined to the context of colonies. The archaeological works in colonial states were supported to be used as a part of moderate educational program for indigenous people and to reinforce inferior feelings among them in the presence of reconstructed monuments (Anderson, 1991, p.181). In addition, reconstruction works were transformed into monumental archaeology to promote tourism by indicating the old sacred sites on the map (ibid). The use of archaeology in this context did not aim to promote national cohesion of who were culturally descendants. Instead, by placing the emphasis on less civilized aspects of indigenous people, ruling groups strived to put themselves in a superior position and justify their rule. In this sense, the chapter just proves that how the imperial powers exploited and abused archaeological works of colonial states for their own interests, rather than how archaeology was used for nationalist movement in their homeland.
However, it is an irony that the legacy left behind by the colonials was used for the legitimacy of new states after the colonial period. The best example is the 15th anniversary of Cambodia’s independence. For the ceremony, a replica of the sacred Bayon temple of Angkor was displayed and soon became a national symbol (Anderson, 1991, p.183). Although it was a replica which lost its original sense of authenticity, this case shows how a new independent country used the museological legacy for its own benefit. In this case, the tradition was rediscovered in accordance with a government agenda, especially to boost the mood of nationalism in a weak and unstable political situation.
As seen above, archaeology was politicized for different purposes in two contrasting contexts. While the aim of new independent countries was to increase a national pride and cohesion by emphasizing on the continuity of their traditions despite a dark period, that of the imperial powers was to resist radical progressive movements and to degrade indigenous groups. The political use of archaeology during the imperial period served to reinforce the inequality between the imperial powers and colonial states, but the same phenomenon in new independent countries created cohesion among people.
The book, Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, is more clear than the first one about how these fields have been closely connected and influenced each other in history. It is compiled with relevant cases of different countries in recent times. The fact that most either occurred in the recent past or have been still going on testifies to their validity, practicality and reliability. It explains in great detail how nationalism is intertwined with archaeology and the relation is manifested at different levels depending on situations. The chapters consist of representative examples in Europe and Asia, starting from the west (Spain) to the east (Japan) in a geographical sense. Each example has more or less contribution to the theme, but three of them will be discussed; southeast Europe, Soviet Union, and Japan.
In southeast Europe, ethnicity is a key for understanding the relation between nationalism and archaeology. Most archaeological research in the Balkans has been interpreted to secure the legitimacy and superiority of lineage. In the book, the significance of archaeology is well expressed as follows: “archaeology is one of the means of uncovering and presenting the symbolic resource of the past and, as such, it is used in the quest for political legitimacy” (Kaiser, 1995, p.113). After the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990s, new independent countries were desperate to strengthen their own political power and found a way by arguing their ethnic superiority from alleged ancestors. Based on shared political system and shared view of ethnicity, archaeological materials were interpreted, whether in a right or wrong way, to promote a feeling of belongingness and compete with neighboring countries. It is true that “archaeology in southeast Europe has emerged from historical/socio-political contexts quite different from those of western Europe or North America” (ibid., p.119).
What happened in the Balkans shows how the relation between nationalism and archaeology can engender violence and destruction of heritage. During the nationalist-ethnic war in Croatia in 1991, many cultural heritage and monuments were destroyed or damaged as they were considered to be conflicting with counterpart’s narrative (ibid., p.116). As nationalist movements were burgeoning in new countries in the Balkans at the same time, there were strong tensions among them. Shared past became the standard to discriminate us from others (ibid) and excavated materials were considered important to be added to the argument. Often, it led to stealing or inventing a past.
When nationalism requires both political and cultural sentiment of belongingness, the problem arose from the latter in this case. It is thought that cultures and ethnic groups have been mixed actively as they have been close to share and interact with neighbors. However, this caused violent acts in the region when each new country emphasized on ethnic homogeneity and cultural continuity, which directly supports its own unique and distinctive cultural sentiment of belongingness. In this sense, the process of legitimization of cultural identity was getting competitive and sometimes resulted in the destruction of archaeological evidence. It demonstrates a potential violence underlying the use or abuse of archaeology in politics especially when neighboring countries try to prove their cultural legitimacy at the same time. As Kohl (1998, p.228) states, “each emergent nation-state had to construct its own national identity, which required the rediscovery or inventing of one’s past”.
Meanwhile, the relation between nationalism and archaeology in Soviet Union was hugely influenced by its times. After implementing internationalism in the country during 1920s, there was an upside-down change in 1934. To promote a new spirit, nationalism, archaeological works was actively used. Against German “ethnogenetic expansion”, research in Soviet Union much focused on the superiority of the Slavs particularly over Germanic tribes (Shnirelman, 1995, p.135). Unlike other countries started nationalistic movements with domestic demands, nationalism in Soviet Union was more encouraged by external factor, Nazism. The country raised the awareness of the concept of nation after watching growing national movement in Germany. As a result, archaeology was directed to demonstrate the superiority of the Slavs and claim over the lands which were thought to have been occupied by their ancestors. However, the research on these was a kind of strategy to boost morale in wartime and to justify the cause of why the country was battling with Germany. Therefore, the focus was not to create cohesion necessary for nation-building or overcoming internal crisis, but to defeat Germany in the war.
In Japan, the relation between nationalism and archaeology after 1960s took on a different aspect from that in the early 20th century. Although the relation was not as obvious as before, the research by archaeologists was actually controlled by government funding. As said in the book, “the decisions about which sites should be preserved or excavated came to be more tightly controlled by administrators” (Fawcett, 1995, p.240). It was another way of control different from how previous cases were influenced by politics. While most countries were not shy about using archaeological works for their political purposes, Japanese government was quite covert. However, what was funded can be a clue to see what narrative the government wanted to tell.
Archaeology was not only affected by nationalism which emphasized homogeneity among Japanese people, but also by capitalism. It is worth mentioning that the government showed a big interest in developing Asuka Mura, with the theme “hometown of the Japanese people”, to promote new national identity, coinciding with “the creation of the administrative rescue archaeology” (ibid., p.242). With this new tactic, Japanese government did not need to force archaeologists to follow its political agenda with authoritative power. Instead, it was able to control their research through a financial support. This is a new trend of relation between nationalism and archaeology in the 21st century.
The two books discussed above have different approaches to the theme. Imagined communities has its significance in that it elaborates the concept of nation-state and nationalism which people today accept naturally. His research is also meaningful as it seeks to find answers in socio-economic context and tries to embrace Southeast Asia which has not been dealt with properly in terms of nationalism. Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology explores the relations between different fields smoothly and gives a reader an insight how archaeology has been applied depending on different socio-political contexts. For this purpose, the book covers a wide range of regions, but it misses out America and Africa where nationalist movements actively occurred after being freed from a colonial rule. However, this deficiency is made up in his later article under the section of ‘national identity in immigrant and postcolonial nation-states’ (Kohl, 1998, p.233).
To the theme, the books are complementary each other. Anderson’s Imagined communities gives an overview of the origin of nationalism based on socio-economic changes, but lacks of understanding on the relation between nationalism and archaeology. On the other hand, Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology examines how different fields are connected, assuming that readers already understand what the concept of each field is. In this sense, if the two volumes are read together, it will help a reader to have a full understanding of the concept and the relation of nationalism and archaeology. Additionally, the discussed periods in the books are linear, which makes it easy to see the changes as time passed.