| ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER FIRE. NATIONALISM,
POLITICS AND HERITAGE IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN
AND MIDDLE EAST. Lynn Meskell (ed.)
1998. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-19655-8
(pb.). Pp.x + 251. US$25.99
Pedro Paulo Funari (Campinas State University,
Brazil).
pedrofunari@sti.com.br
Lynn Meskell has edited a fine volume on
a most sensitive subject: the political
foundations of academic disciplines. Meskell
acknowledges in the introduction that “perhaps
academic disciplines, like archaeology,
still remain the stepchildren of imperialism”
(p.3). For all those practising archaeology
in the periphery of the Western World, this
is crystal clear, and the book is a very
adequate introduction to some of the issues
relating to the invention of some archaeologies,
Egyptology, Assyriology, biblical archaeology,
to name some of them. The familiar postmodern
project of deconstructing master narratives
is the main thrust of the volume, even if
not the only one, as the editor tried to
enact what she calls real pluralism,
with conflicting chapters.
Some chapters are concerned with the deconstruction
of the academic discourse and with a critique
of the mainstream, imperial approach to
the study of this area of the world. Bernard
Knapp and Sophia Antoniadou (Chapter 1)
deal with Cyprus from such a view point.
They consider that archaeology can only
develop its social and political stance
within a theoretical milieu which encourages
diverse stands. The Cyprus situation and
the ongoing destruction of its cultural
property by the Turkish authorities is interpreted
as a political way of destroying the visible
evidence of one culture’s presence in another
culture’s land. The whole enterprise of
heritage in the island is very much an unacknowledged
political process in which certain places
(for example, classical Greek temples) are
incorporated into the prescribed, nationalist
frame, whilst other (for example, Moslem
cemeteries) are denied or ignored just because
they are seen as a threat to nationalist
images of the past.
Kostas Kotsakis (Chapter 2) deconstructs
the images of Greek Macedonia, turning back
to the origins of archaeology in the early
nineteenth century and its use of the philological
model. The formation mechanisms of a homogenising
Greek national identity, mainly education,
is considered a very effective tool in the
construction of the normative discourse
of nationalism, directly linked to the appropriation
of some archaeological remains. The perception
of any culture, and Greek culture in this
case, as a discrete, bounded and homogeneous
unit which retains its unalienable character
so that it can be recognised in time and
space, is a culture historical approach
which has been widely criticised.
K.S. Brown deals with the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia (Chapter 3) taking
an original ethnographic approach, engaging
directly with local communities, in a actual
public archaeology. In contrast to Greek
Macedonian nationalism which had the ancient
past remains as a primary source of symbolic
capital, Yugoslav nationalism was grounded
in its own novelty and in its own volition.
Douglass W. Bailey’s analysis of Bulgarian
archaeology (Chapter 4) emphasises its deeply
descriptive and culture historical approach.
As in culture history archaeology elsewhere,
explanation is pre-determined, as archaeological
research entails little more than recovering
more and more data which can be assigned
to pre-determined chronological and social
stages (which reminds me so much of the
infamous “traditions” in Brazilian archaeology).
Albert Farid Henry Naccache (Chapter 7)
produces a beautiful analysis of what he
calls a memorycide. The author shows how
two homogeneous and opposing peoples were
invented, the Phoenicians (later considered
as Maronite Christians) and the Arabs (later
considered as the Muslims), whose archaeological
remains were to be appropriated by the supposedly
irreconcilable modern communities. Naccache
then indicts post-academic, so-called pragmatic,
contract archaeology and its acceptance
of the destruction of downtown Beirut for
the sake of private development of the city
(“The archaeologists versus Beirut’s archaeological
site” is how he titles one his items).
Zainab Bahrani (Chapter 8) writes a most
acute study of the imperialist invention
of Assyriology. From its inception in the
nineteenth century, Middle Eastern history,
Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian cultures
have absolutely no connection to the culture
of Iraq after the seventh century AD under
the Muslim. The Mesopotamian past is the
place of world culture’s first infantile
steps, like the invention of writing, and
civilisation in general. These firsts of
culture are then passed as a torch of civilisation
to the Greeks and Romans and then to Modern
Imperial powers. The structure of this colonialist
discipline continues virtually unchanged
today, and remains all but unquestioned.
Fekri A. Hassan (Chapter 11) shows how
Pharaonic Egyptian archaeological materiality
has contributed to shape modern national
identity in Egypt. Hassan concludes pledging
the Egyptian government to sponsor projects
that encourage the inspiration in the rich
and varied past of Egypt, as postmodernism
has a penchant for cultural pastiche, offering
a grammar for integrating Egypt’s elements
in striking forms.
The other chapters adopt a variety of approaches.
Mehmet Özdogan (Chapter 5) considers that
all Turkish states were highly pluralistic
and that modern Turkey treats equally sites
of Hellenistic, Byzantine or Turkish periods,
what “would be unthinkable in Greece” (p.117).
The author also stresses the importance
of women in archaeology and criticises “cultural
cleansing” of Ottoman heritage in other
countries. Hodder (Chapter 6) deals with
Catalhöyük and the challenges for the archaeologist
funded by a large capitalist credit card
company interested in relating obsidian
and credit cards. The support by local authorities
from Islamic fundamentalist and nationalist
parties compounds the picture.
Neil Asher Silberman (Chapter 9) describes
“an ecumenical coalition of American Protestant,
Catholic, and Jewish scholars in a shared
project of largely non-denominational biblical
archaeology”. Silberman supports the diversity
of approaches encouraged by the American
Schools of Oriental Research but is not
particularly concerned with the locals.
D. T. Potts (Chapter 10) describes the archaeology
by foreigners in the Gulf Arab states and
finishes the chapter by stating his hope
that “research in the area in the years
ahead remains something which will not come
to be determined by the colour of one’s
passport”. It is interesting though to note
that this is a traditional concern of scholars
from former imperial powers and today’s
economic powers, eager to have free access
to peripheral countries, whilst the economic
frailties of third world countries preclude
their access to rich countries research
areas.
Ann Macy Roth (Chapter 12) closes the book
with a critical appraisal of mystical and
Afrocentric claims to ancient Egypt, pledging
for finding out “what ancient Egyptians
really believed” (emphasis added).
In a way, Roth and her defence of objectivity
in science sums up the epistemological stand
of several authors who see the Orient as
a proper field of study for Western archaeologists,
unconcerned by the interests of locals,
or of different audiences even in the Western
world. Several other authors, however, do
stress the subjective character of the discipline
and the invention of such concepts as Near
East and Orient. Some authors challenge
nationalism as narrow minded and opposed
to diversity, whilst others defend one’s
own nationalism as pluralist (in opposition
to other, supposedly non-pluralist ones).
Pluralism for some is the inclusion of different
social strata or ethnic groups in the concerns
of archaeologists, whilst others see pluralism
in the mix of Western liberalism with international
capital and local fundamentalists. These
apparent paralogical and contradictory viewpoints
do however reveal the contradictions within
archaeology itself. Archaeology is a political
discourse about the past aiming at present
day interests. In the case of the Eastern
Mediterranean and the Middle East, there
is a clear divide between those who are
willing to challenge the use of the past
for the benefit of the few and who are concerned
with the interests of the many (locals,
ethnic groups, women, exploited, natives)
and those who are looking for apolitical
objectivity. Even if contradictory, the
chapters offer a comprehensive picture of
the standpoints regarding some of the most
distinguished fields in archaeology (Egyptology,
Assyriology, biblical archaeology) and is
thus a most recommended volume.
|
World
Archaeological Bulletin