Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities 0415106761, 9780415106764

Citation preview

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Copyrighted Material

THEORETICAL ARCHAEOLOGY G R O U P (TAG) In th is series: The Archaeology of Human Ancestry Power, Sex and Tradition edited by James Steele and Stephen Shennan Managing Archaeology edited by Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, John Carman and David Wheatley Theory in Archaeology A World Perspective edited by Peter J. Ucko Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology Bridging the 'Great Divide' edited by Nigel Spencer

Copyrighted

Material

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND ARCHAEOLOGY The c o n s t r u c t i o n of E u r o p e a n

communities

Edited by Paul Graves-Brown,

Sian Jones,

Clive

S

S London and New

Copyrighted

York

Material

Gamble

First published 1996 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Selection and editorial matter © 1996 Paul Graves-Brown, Sian Jones, Clive Gamble; individual chapters © 1996 the contributors Typeset in Bembo by Florencetype Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ Press Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this DOOK has been requested ISBN 0 - 4 1 5 - 1 0 6 7 6 - 1

Copyrighted Material

CONTENTS

List of illustrations List of contributors General editor's preface Preface

x xiii xv xix

Introduction: archaeology and cultural identity in Europe Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown Constructions of identity: Europeanism, nationalism, ethnicity, racism Theories of cultural identity The idea of Europe: 'festung Europa' Archaeology and Europe Searching for the first Europeans: the Neolithic, the Bronze Age and the Celtic Iron Age Plurality and multiculturalism in prehistory Archaeology and the politics of identity Acknowledgements Notes Bibliography The genealogy of material culture and cultural identity Shaun Hides Introduction The problem History The late Renaissance: collecting the world The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: the well laid table Nineteenth century: modernity, man, language, life, labour and nation Conclusions: late/post-modernity Notes Bibliography

Copyrighted

Material

1

2 4 9 12 14 17 18 20 20 21 25 25 26 27 28 32 36 41 43 44

vi

Contents Constructing identities through culture: the past in the forging of Europe Margarita Diaz-Andreu Introduction The concepts of natio, gens and populus The emergence of the term 'culture' Nationalism and culture The twentieth century: the triumph of the term 'culture' Conclusions Acknowledgements Notes Bibliography Discourses of identity in the interpretation of the past Sidn Jones Peoples and cultures Ethnicity and culture Towards a practice theory of ethnicity A reconsideration of archaeological approaches to ethnicity Conclusions: discourses of history and place in the construction of ethnicity Acknowledgements Notes Bibliography All things bright and beautiful? Species, ethnicity and cultural dynamics Paul Graves-Brown Some roots Landscape and context Reinforcement and recognition Species and ethnicity: identity in life Ethnicity and material culture Conclusion: safety in numbers? Acknowledgements Notes Bibliography Imagining the new Europe: identity and heritage in European Community discourse Cris Shore EC discourses and the construction of Europe Inventing Europe: EC initiatives in the cultural sector

48 48 49 51 53 54 $7 58 58 59 62 63 66 67 71 74 76 76

77 81 °1 83 84 85 88 91 92 92 93

96 97 100

Contents Representations of 'European culture' in EC iconography Imagining Europe: the role of historiography Political implications of EC discourse Acknowledgements Notes Bibliography 7

8

9

10

One Europe - one past? Liliana Janik and Hanna Zawadzka East meets West? Europe in archaeological publication The influence of the West Conclusion: plus ca change? Acknowledgements Note Bibliography Prehistory and the identity of Europe, or, don't lef s be beastly to the Hungarians Colin Renfrew Of languages and 'nations' On ethnicity Ethnicity among the Celts Social reality and 'the Indo-Europeans' The European background Bibliography European origins - 'civilisation' and 'barbarism' Kristian Kristiansen Myths of origin Origins redefined Conclusion Bibliography Farmers our ancestors and the identity of Europe Marek Zvelebil Introduction Farmers our ancestors A contemporary case in point: agricultural transition and the Indo-European origins Conclusion Notes Bibliography

vii

102 105 108 112 112 113 116 117 119 121 123 123 124 124

125 127 129 131 133 133 136 138 138 140 143 143 145 145 145 151 159 160 161

Contents Celts and politics John Collis A brief history of the Irish question - a study of ethnicity in action Archaeology and politics The historical Celts The Celts and archaeology Acknowledgements Bibliography Celts and Iberians: ideological manipulations in Spanish archaeology Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero From ancient written sources to archaeological identification of Celts and Iberians Franco's dictatorship and the manipulation of the past Celts and Iberians: current approaches Conclusion Acknowledgements Notes Bibliography The identity of France: archetypes in Iron Age studies Beatrice Fleury-llett Introduction Collective memory and the dating of the Gallic period The power of symbols Hero, archetype and repetitive acts Conclusion Acknowledgements Bibliography Narratives of Veoy: on the poetics and scientifics of archaeology Brit Solli The problems Geographical, historical and archaeological setting of Veoy The other histories of Veoy The other storytellers and their histories On dialogue, questionnaires and emotions Archaeology, community and cultural identity Bibliography

167

167 170 172 173 177 177

179

180 185 189 190 192 192 192 196 196 197 203 205 207 207 207

209 209 213 214 216 220 224 226

Contents 15

16

17

Archaeological sources as ethnical evidence: the case of the Eastern Vistula mouth Aleksander Bursche The Vistula mouth: archaeolocileal context Archaeology and written sources Conclusion Notes Bibliography 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe: the theoretical basis Andrew P. Fitzpatrick Introduction The Iron Age in Europe The Iron Age Celtic Europe Celts and classicism Constructing Celticity Language Celtic art Classical texts 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe: time less and traditional? Contemporary Celts Acknowledgements Bibliography Britain after Rome: between multiculturalism and monoculturalism John Hines Introduction Britain under Rome: imperialism and cultural diversity 'The land of the English' Conclusion Bibliography Index

ix

228 229 231 232 233 234 238 238 239 239 240 241 242 242 243 244 244 250 251 251

256 256 257 260 267 269 271

ILLUSTRATIONS

7.1 10.1 10.2 10.3

10.4 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 13.1 13.2 13.3 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 16.1 16.2

Principal sites mentioned in Prehistoric Europe The Homeland, by J. Manes, 1856 Average a m o u n t of printed pages devoted to each chronological period over the last forty years Cumulative graph showing the variation in the a m o u n t of printed pages devoted to each chronological period over the last forty years T h e spread of agro-pastoral farming and the spread of Indo-European language groups in Europe The Last Day of Numantia, after A. Vera T h e ethnic distribution of Celts, Celtiberians and Iberians Diagram of the political history of Spain in the twentieth century Detail of an Iberian pot, c. second century UG, and pro-Franco soldiers performing the Fascist salute 'Eljabato' 'I'm a Celtiberian, not an E E C citizen!' General view of the Soissons m o n u m e n t Detail of the Soissons m o n u m e n t T h e archetype and the historic character Location of Veoy in Romsdal, Norway M a p of Veoy and H a n g h o l m e n , Norway William Coucheron-Aamot, by Gosta Hammarlund, 1948 M a p of the area enclosed by the walls in the vicinity of the stone church, Veoy T h e lower Vistula in the second/third century An T h e spread of Almgren type 72 brooches T h e spread of bronze vessels found east of the Vistula river Solidi found in the territory of Poland Multicultural map of Europe The 'Dying Gaul', ?first century AO

Copyrighted Material

120 148 150

151 157 181 183 184 186 188 191 198 199 206 213 214 217 219 230 231 232 233 240 245

Illustrations 16.3a Sword and scabbard from Carinthia, third century BC 16.3b Distribution map of sword scabbards decorated with 'dragon pairs' 16.4 Reconstruction of an Iron Age warrior 17.1 Map of Anglo-Saxon cemetry sites dated up to c. A H 525 17.2 Map of Anglo-Saxon cemetry sites of the Migration Period dated up to c. AD 560/570

Copyrighted Material

xi 246 247 249 262 263

Copyrighted Material

CONTRIBUTORS

Aleksander Bursche,lnstitute of Archaeology, Warsaw University, ul. Zwirki i Wigury 9 7 / 9 9 , 02-089 Warsaw, Poland. John Collis, Dept of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West St, Sheffield, SI 4ET. Margarita Diaz-Andreu, Departmento de Prehistoria, Facultad de Geografia e Historia, Universidad Complutense, Cuidad Universitaria 28040, Madrid, Spain. Andrew P. Fitzpatrick, Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Sarum Park, Old Sarum, Salisbury, Wilts, SP4 6EB. Beatrice Fleury-llett, 25 Kennington Palace Court, Sancroft St, London, SE11 5UL Paul Graves-Brown, Dept of Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SOI 7 1BJ. Shaun Hides, School of Cultural Studies, Leeds Metropolitan University, Calverley St, Leeds, LSI 3HE. John Hines, School of English Studies, Communication and Philosophy, University of Wales College, Cardiff, Box 94, Cathays Park, CF1 3XB. Liliana Janik, Dept of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing St, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ. Sian Jones, Dept of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SOI 7 1BJ. Kristian Kristiansen, Dept of Archaeology, Box 2133, 40313 Gothenburg, Sweden. Colin Renfrew, Dept of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing St, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ.

Copyrighted

Material

xiv

Contributors

Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, Departmento de Prehistoria, Facultad de Geografia e Historia, Universidad Complutense, Cuidad Universitaria 28040, Madrid, Spain. Cris Shore, Dept of Anthropology, Goldsmith's College, University of London, 40 Lewisham Way, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW. Brit Solli, Riksantikvaren (Directorate for Cultural Heritage), P.O. Boks 8196, Dep. 0034, Oslo, Norway. Hanna Zawadzka, Dept of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ. Marek Zvelebil, Dept of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West St, Sheffield, SI 4ET.

Copyrighted

Material

GENERAL EDITOR'S

PREFACE

W h y does the world need archaeological theory? T h e purpose of Theoretical Archaeology is to answer the question by showing that archaeology contributes little to our understanding if it does not explore the theories that give meaning to the past. T h e last decade has seen some major developments in world archaeology and the One World Archaeology series provides a thematic showcase for the current scale of enquiry and variety of archaeological interests. T h e development of a Theoretical Archaeology series complements these thematic concerns and, by focusing attention on theory in all its many guises, points the way to future longterm developments in the subject. In 1992 the annual Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) conference was held in Southampton. Europe and the world of archaeological theory was our theoretical t h e m e at this EuroTAG conference. We stressed two elements in the structure of the three-day conference. In the first place, 1992 had for long been heralded as the time w h e n the single market would c o m e into existence combined with moves towards greater European unity. While these orderly developments could be planned for and sessions organised around the role of archaeology and the past in the construction of European identity, no one could have predicted the horror of what would occur in former Yugoslavia. T h r o u g h o u t 1992 and beyond, the ideologies of integration and fragmentation, federalism and nationalism vied with each other to use the resources of the past in vastly different ways. This volume on the archaeological contribution to cultural identity in Europe could not be more timely. T h e second element recognised that 1992 was a notable anniversary for theoretical archaeology. Thirty years before Lewis Binford had published his first seminal paper, 'Archaeology as Anthropology', in American Antiquity. This short paper was a theoretical beacon in an otherwise heavily factual archaeological world. From such beginnings came the influential processual movement which, in its early years, was referred to as the N e w Archaeology. Thirty years has clearly knocked the shine off such bright new futures. In the meantime archaeological theory had healthily fragmented while expanding into many areas of investigation previously regarded as off-limits to archaeologists and their mute data.

Copyrighted Material

xvi

General editor's preface

Processualism had been countered by post-processualism to either the enrichment or irritation of by n o w partisan theoretical practitioners. EuroTAG marked the anniversary with a debate involving the views of Lewis Binford, Chris Tilley, John Barrett and Colin Renfew, supplemented by opinions from the floor. Their brief was to outline the theoretical challenges n o w set before the subject. T h e audience heard various programmes of where we might go as well as fears about an uncertain theoretical future. Both optimism and pessimism for another thirty years of theoretical excitement were to be found in almost equal measure. However, the clear impression, exemplified by the n u m b e r of people (almost 800) w h o attended EuroTAG, was that the strength of any future theoretical archaeology n o w lies in its diversity. H o w different in numbers attending and diversity of viewpoints from the early days of TAG, an organisation whose aims have always been simple: to raise the profile of discussion about theories of the past. T h e need for such a group was recognised at the first meeting held in Sheffield in 1979 where the programme notes declared that 'British archaeologists have never possessed a forum for the discussion of theoretical issues. Conferences which address wider themes c o m e and go but all too frequently the discussion of ideas is blanketed by the presentation of fact'. T A G set out to correct this balance and achieved it through an accent o n discussion, a willingness to hear new ideas, often from people just beginning their theoretical careers. EuroTAG presented some of the influences which must n o w contribute to the growth of theory in archaeology as the discipline assumes a central position in the dialogues of the humanities. As expected there was strong participation from European colleagues in sessions which focused on Iberia and Scandinavia as well as discussions of h u m a n ancestry, the regional traditions of theoretical and archaeological research in the continent and an archaeological perspective on theory in world archaeology. Set beside these were sessions devoted to visual information, food, architecture and structured deposition. Two archaeological periods expressed their n e w found theoretical feet. Historical archaeology argued for an escape from its subordination to history while classical archaeology embraced theory and applied it to its rich data. Finally, the current issues of value and management in archaeology were subjected to a critical examination from a theoretical perspective. T h e question of h o w and why archaeology has been used to construct identity has now emerged as one of the subject's biggest questions. As the papers in this volume show, identity is a dynamic process. It has never fossilised at some time in the remote or recent past. It is instead under constant cultural revision and is subject to political, economic and historical forces. N o w h e r e do archaeologists have to confront the impact of their enquiries more directly than in the uses of the past to construct cultural identity either by nations or ethnic groups. Those w h o still

Copyrighted Material

believe that the past is neutral and that it can be pursued outside of political and moral agendas will find their ideas challenged in the chapters which follow. And there is no more challenging idea for the archaeologist than the current creation of a European identity, where already we have seen the European year of the Bronze Age and claims for the oldest European from England. H o w archaeologists should react to these challenges is a debate initiated by this volume and to which they will return many times in the years ahead.

Copyrighted Material

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The EurdTAG organising committee consisted of Clive Gamble, Sara Champion, Simon Keay and Tim Champion. They were helped by many staff and students from the Department of Archaeology at the University of Southampton and particularly by Cressida Fforde and Olivia Forge who did the lion's share of the organisation in the final days. Thanks were also due to Peter Philips who vidoetaped the debate and to Mike Corbishley, Peter Stone and Eric Maddern who organised videos and storytelling while the art of Carolyn Trant and Sylvia Hays provided the art exhibition. Financial support came from The Prehistoric Society, the TAG travel fund, Oxbow books, Routledge and the University of Southampton. Clive Gamble July 1995

Copyrighted Material

PREFACE

This b o o k began its j o u r n e y with two sessions at the Theoretical Archaeology G r o u p (TAG) conference. This meeting, held at Southampton University in D e c e m b e r 1992, had been designated as EuroTAG in the light of the i m m i n e n t and m u c h trumpeted arrival of the so-called 'single market'. T h e first session, organised by two of us (Sian and Paul), derived from a shared interest in the possibility of multiple, co-existing ethnic identities in prehistory, and was entitled Multicultural Communities in European Prehistory- This included contributions by Aleksander Bursche, John Collis, Andrew Fitzpatrick, Beatrice Fleury-Ilett, Shaun Hides, Gonzalo R u i z Zapatero and Brit Solli. T h e second session, organised by Sara C h a m p i o n , T i m C h a m p i o n , Clivc Gamble and Simon Keay, was entitled The Identity of Europe and concerned the role of archaeology in the construction of European identities. Here, the contributors were Felipe Criado-Boado, Margarita Diaz-Andreu, Ian Hodder, Liliana Janik and Hanna Zawadzka, Kristian Kristiansen, Colin Renfrew, Mike Rowlands and Marek Zvelebil. After the considerable success of the conference (it was probably the best attended TAG so far) it was decided, for the purposes of publication, to merge the papers from the two sessions. As with any such project, we have lost some contributors on the way; Felipe Criado-Boado, Ian H o d d e r and Mike Rowlands were forced to withdraw under pressure of other work, and we are conscious of the loss of their contributions in the subject areas of culture and identity, Islamic archaeology and the European Association of Archaeologists. Similarly, there are clear imbalances in the 'national' (not to say ethnic!) origins of the authors; we have only two contributions from Eastern Europeans. Although a n u m b e r of East Europeans had attended the conference, there were few speakers presenting perspectives from the former Eastern Bloc countries in these sessions. At the same time we have been unable to obtain an Islamic perspective on Europe; indeed, such perspectives seem to b e almost totally lacking and represent a pressing need in future research. However, we have been able to commission contributions from Cris Shore, whose expertise in the anthropology of m o d e r n Europe seemed to us to offer an important counterpoint to the other studies in the book,

Copyrighted Material

xx

Preface

and from John Hines who provides a valuable substantive perspective on the question of multiculturalism in prehistory. Overall, this book outlines the current status of archaeological theory and practice with respect to the study of ethnicity and the construction of European identities. We do not see it as offering simple recommendations or solutions, and thus, in our introduction, we have adopted a deliberately polemic role in suggesting issues which could concern and direct future research. We would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people who have helped us along the way. We would like to thank everybody involved in organising the 1992 EuroT AG conference at the University of Southampton, Peter Ucko and Steve Shennan for their valuable advice, and Clive Gamble for his role as series editor. We also thank Katherina Hall for her help in German translation. Paul would like to thank Carolyn Graves-Brown for her general moral support and for paying the phone bill! We should, finally, thank all the contributors for their work, and their tolerance of our comments and suggestions; we hope that this has resulted in a coherent and worthwhile book! Paul Graves-Brown and Sian Jones April 1995

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER O N E

INTRODUCTION Archaeology and cultural identity in Europe SIAN J O N E S

A N D 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 'Europe' means - and could come to mean - to its diverse peoples takes on even greater significance. The events of the 1990s would seem to have the potential for radically reshaping people's 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; t h e 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. T h e breakup of the C o m m u n i s t bloc, the reunification of Germany, the ending of the Cold War and moves towards increasing European unification — economic, political and cultural — all provide n e w contexts in which identities of varying scales and forms are formulated: local, regional, ethnic, national and Europe-wide. O f course, in most, if n o t 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 t h e past is often central to t h e construction of identity, periods of radical social and political change are often a time of 'inventing traditions' (Hobsbawm and R a n g e r 1983), in which histories are re-evaluated and r e written. Ethno-histories provide t h e authenticity and legitimation which cultural groups desire and require in their claims for self-determination a n d / o r secession. As H o b s b a w m points o u t with respect to nationalism: historians are to nationalism what poppy-growers in Pakistan are to heroinaddicts: we supply the essential raw material for the market. Nations without a past are a contradiction in terms. (Hobsbawm 1992: 3)

Copyrighted Material

2

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

T h e same argument could be made of any representatives of disciplines which deal with the past, including archaeologists. This b o o k is concerned with the specific relationship between archaeology and cultural identity in the European context. Whilst there have been a n u m b e r of studies of the relationship between history and cultural identity in Europe (e.g., see contributions to Hastrup 1992; M a c D o n a l d 1993; Tonkin et al. 1989), very little attention has been paid to archaeology (although see U c k o 1995). Furthermore, although, as this b o o k 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 t h e o ries of cultural identity has been very limited. R e c e n t events in E u r o p e have provided the opportunity and, in some people's 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. T h u s , a n u m b e r of chapters in the b o o k are concerned, at least in part, with prevailing discourses' of identity in Europe today, and the use of the past in construction and legitimation of cultural identity.

C O N S T R U C T I O N S OF I D E N T I T Y : E U R O P E A N I S M , N A T I O N A L I S M , E T H N I C I T Y , RACISM A strong element in the construction of n e w identities in Europe has been the emergence of exclusive, ethno-nationalist discourses, and the resurgence of racism and xenophobia (see Bhavnani 1993; B o w m a n 1994; Brah 1993; H o b s b a w m 1992; Mandel 1994; Verdery 1992). Ethno-nationalist arguments are c o m m o n l y the basis of claims for selfdetermination, separatism and expansion by groups in eastern Europe, as in the case of Lithuania's drive for independence from the Soviet U n i o n ; 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 e t h n i c linguistic distinctiveness and historical precedence. National cultures and identities are reified as pure and h o m o g e n e o u s 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 w h o are perceived to be alien, b o t h within and outside of the imagined space of the nation. For instance, nationalist discourse and xenophobia are central to the logic of 'ethnic cleansing' practised in the former Yugoslavia.

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

3

Separatist nationalism is by no means restricted to eastern Europe. Such movements are also c o m m o n 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). T h u s in Britain, for example, the ' N e w R i g h t ' has adopted an explicit racialised discourse u n d e r p i n n e d by the perceived threat posed by 'immigration' to the 'British Character' and 'way of life' (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 C o m m u n i t y / U n i o n ( E C / E U ) officials and other supporters of Federalism in Europe espouse images of a h a r m o nious 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 E C ' s / E U ' s attempts to construct European culture and identity have so far been based o n 'precisely the same symbolic terrain as the old nation-states' (see p. 103), and elitist and exclusive definitions of Europe versus 'the rest'. T h u s there are currently policies aimed at restricting entry into, and movement within, Europe of 'immigrant' peoples (see Bhavnani 1993), and a series of cultural and historical representations tacitly support such policies (see Shore, chapter 6; Kristiansen, chapter 9; Zvelebil, chapter 10; and see below). T h e 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 'authenticity' 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; H o b s b a w m and R a n g e r 1983; Hutchinson and Smith 1994: 4). Furthermore, although many historical narratives conflict with one another, they are based on a c o m m o n logic — an unbroken, linear, historical account, with a unitary origin, and frequently a 'Golden Age' (Smith 1986: 191). For example, in disputes over the sovereignty of Macedonia, and even the right to use the term 'Macedonian', 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 m o d e r n Greece. H e n c e , 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 n o n - G r e e k people, and hence that they have a prior claim to the name and the right to selfdetermination. Whatever the particularities, these competing histories have a c o m m o n form which is shared by many groups throughout Europe, w h e t h e r they be ethnic, national or pan-European.

Copyrighted Material

4

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

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 'create a n e w awareness of commonalities that potentially hold the promise of interrogating parochial and xenophobic tendencies' it may also take the form of 'an unstable complex of competing interest groups' which 'provide fertile ground for the growth of racisms and xenophobia, and their articulation with nationalist imaginations' (Brah 1993: 27). T h e 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 C U L T U R A L

IDENTITY

D u r i n g the first half of the twentieth century, ethnic and national groups were generally assumed to be internally h o m o g e n e o u s , 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 n u m b e r of the chapters in this volume point out, culture historical archaeology 3 has contributed to this picture. T h e 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 prehistorian's counterpart for the peoples and nations of 'historical' 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; Diaz-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; R u i z Zapatero, chapter 12). Such representations of the past are actively constructed from the point of view of the present. For instance,

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

5

during the Franco regime, as R u i z 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 Franco's death and the transition to democracy, there was a growing interest in the Iberians, in the context of attempts by the Autonomous Communities to 'discover' their o w n historical roots. Yet, beyond particular political contexts, a critical reflection on the very concepts of culture, ethnic group and nation used in the h u m a n 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 . . . (MacDonald 1993: 4) T h e 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 n u m b e r 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 Diaz-Andrcu (chapter 3) and Jones (chapter 4) b o t h 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 b o t h macro-theoretical levels, as in the formulation of E C discourses on cultural integration (see Shore, chapter 6), and micro levels, such as the interrelationship between archaeological and oral historical narratives surrounding a particular site (see Solli, chapter 14). T h u s , archaeologists should continually b e aware of the historically contingent nature of the concepts they use, and the interdependence of academia and broader social and political processes. D u r i n g the latter half of the twentieth century, ethnicity and nationalism have ceased to be seen as the product of a natural order and have b e c o m e the focus of intensive research in the h u m a n sciences. It is possible to identify a n u m b e r of general trends in the proliferation of theoretical perspectives which have emerged. T h e portrayal of cultural groups as monolithic, b o u n d e d , objective entities, have c o m e under increasing attack, particularly in Western European and N o r t h American literature. Anthropological studies questioned the congruence of political, cultural and linguistic boundaries (e.g., Fortes 1969 [1945]; Leach 1964 [1954]), thus disputing the very existence of discrete socio-cultural entities (e.g., Jaspan 1964: 298; Leach 1964 [1954]: 299; M o e r m a n 1965: 1215). T h e r e was also increasing scepticism concerning the importance of 'objective' cultural definitions of ethnicity (see the debate between M o e r m a n 1965 and Narroll 1968).

Copyrighted Material

6

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

Ethnic groups came to be regarded as self-defining systems (see Barth 1969; C h a p m a n et al. 1989; C o h e n 1978), primary emphasis being placed on the 'categories of ascription and identification by the actors t h e m selves' (Barth 1969: 10). From this perspective cultural and linguisticvariation is not endowed with a determining role in the definition of ethnicity, which is regarded as a subjective ' w e ' / ' t h e y ' opposition (e.g., de Vos 1982 [1975]: 16). Alongside this new approach to definition, research has focused o n the ethnic construction of boundaries, and ethnic groups have often been characterised as interest groups competing for particular economic and political resources, an approach k n o w n as the 'instrumental' perspective (e.g., Barth 1969; C o h e n 1974; Despres 1975). Others have emphasised the fluid and situational aspects of individual and group identity: ethnicity may be regarded as a resource which can, for some circumstances and in some situations, be mobilised to the advantage of an ethnic/cultural/ 'racial' category, will have no meaning or value in other situations, and will, in still others, in which other needs or objectives are paramount, be construed as a liability to be escaped or denied as far as possible. (Wallman 1977: 532) T h e literature of the last two decades reflects a variety of positions within the broad approach described here, but it is generally accepted that ethnicity involves the dynamic construction of identity through perceived cultural differentiation a n d / o r c o m m o n descent. In these terms theories of ethnicity have a great deal in c o m m o n with theories of nationalism. T h e distinction between ethnic groups and nations is often blurred in social theory, but it is usually argued that 'nations' are distinct from ethnic groups by virtue of their political independence in the form of a sovereign state. 4 Nevertheless, the academic literature stresses that both ethnic and national identities are subjective constructions; they are not 'natural', and there is n o objective congruence between a particular group and the culture or language claimed as its exclusive possession (e.g., Eriksen 1993: 100). Nations are in this sense 'imagined communities' (Anderson 1983), but this does not imply that they are fabrications which can be contrasted with ' t r u e ' communities. T h e recent theoretical emphasis on the subjective and constructed nature of ethnic and national identities also applies to the relationship between history and cultural identity. Contrary to nationalist assertions, it has been shown that ethnic groups and nations do not usually have continuous linear histories, incorporating a c o m m o n origin and a putative 'Golden Age'. Such accounts of group history are constructions in which the past is selectively appropriated, remembered, forgotten and invented, but at the same time reproduced and naturalised in the popular consciousness (see Danforth 1993; C h a p m a n et al. 1989: 5). Nevertheless, these origin myths

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

7

are contingent on real historical processes (e.g., see Devalle 1992) and hence, while it is necessary to be aware of the way in which present politics inform our reconstructions of the past, archaeologists should avoid the dismissal of all attempts to analyse ethnicity in the past as 'modernist phantasies' (see Fitzpatrick, chapter 16). As Fitzpatrick argues, despite valuable critiques of the concept o f ' t h e Celts', the widespread, if uneven, distribution of La T e n e 'culture' still requires an explanation and here cultural identity may have been an important dimension. R e c e n t studies of European identities have revealed the dynamic, situational and heterogeneous nature of identity (see contributions to: Goddard et al. 1994; Hastrup 1992; MacDonald 1993; Tonkin et al. 1989). Furthermore, it is clear from recent research that ethnic, national and European-wide identities intersect in a myriad of ways. 5 Intangible though such constructions of identity may seem once their 'subjectivity' is acknowledged, they are clearly not intangible in their effects. In the words of MacDonald (1993: 7) 'Identities can act as the motive forces of history', as is clearly revealed in Europe, w h e t h e r by the Nazis in their attempts to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other groups in the 1930s and 1940s, or the wars taking place today in the former Yugoslavia. Despite these realities and the ways in which archaeology has been implicated in them, there has been little explicit theoretical consideration of cultural identity in the discipline. H o d d e r (1991) suggests that the rejection of theory in general, and ethnicity in particular, is partly the result of the political manipulation of archaeology in the European context (see also Harke 1995). A c o m m o n reaction amongst archaeologists in many European countries has been to seek refuge in empiricist, descriptive research which, paradoxically, has allowed the perpetuation of the very culture-historical principles which maintain traditional ethnic interpretations (see Collis chapter 11; Harke 1995: 56; H o d d e r 1991). However, even in countries with a strong theoretical tradition, culture history has persisted, and an alternative explanation for this is that it is so often perceived to be appropriate to the construction of cultural identity in many different contexts around the world (Ucko 1995: 10—13). Nevertheless, a n u m b e r of archaeologists have adopted alternative theoretical approaches to the interpretation of ethnicity (e.g., H o d d e r 1982; Renfrew 1987; Shennan 1989), as do most of the contributors in this volume. In developing theoretical analyses of group identity, GravesBrown (chapter 5), Jones (chapter 4) and Renfrew (chapter 8) argue that there is n o o n e - t o - o n e correlation between language, culture and ethnicity, and that group identity is historically contingent. Graves-Brown and Jones both stress that the construction of group identity is multidimensional, and that this has important implications for archaeological analysis. T h e transient, but repeated, expression of group identity in different contexts and at different scales is likely to result in multiple, overlapping distributions of material culture assemblages. Moreover,

Copyrighted Material

8

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

Graves-Brown (chapter 5) argues that the multilevel nature of identity extends to the biological. H e argues that the false dichotomy between biology and culture, nature and nurture, tends to mask the organic causes and consequences of ascriptions of and claims to identity. H e contends that biology is not distinct from other components of identity, and that the biological concept of the species is as historically contingent as that of the ethnic group or the nation-state. O t h e r contributors, such as Zvelebil (chapter 10), Fitzpatrick (chapter 16), R u i z Zapatero (chapter 12), and Collis (chapter 11), deconstruct some persistent orthodox culture historical narratives of the past. Renfrew (chapter 8) and Fitzpatrick (chapter 16) argue that the identification of the 'Celts' is based o n an untenable conflation of linguistic, archaeological and historical evidence. T h e 'Celtic' narrative has retained its m o m e n t u m as specialist and regional studies tend to be uncritically slotted into the narrative frainework, providing it with a spurious validity. Similarly, Zvelebil (chapter 10) develops an alternative perspective o n the 'Neolithic Revolution', criticising the association of language, culture and race with the adoption of agriculture in Europe. However, not all archaeologists accept the direction of recent 'Western' sociological theories of cultural identity. T h e central and eastern European tradition of research into the origins and movements of particular ethnic groups (discussed by Bursche, chapter 15; see also D o l u k h a n o v 1995) cannot merely be attributed to the persistence of a more old-fashioned archaeological m e t h o d . T h e r e are in fact important differences in the development of theories of ethnicity between western and eastern Europe and the diversity of such perspectives cannot be adequately explained within a unilinear Anglo-American disciplinary history of culture history, processualism and post-processualism (Hodder 1991; U c k o 1995). Particular regional and national traditions need to be considered in terms of the diverse socio-historical contexts and 'world views' in which they are situated. In eastern Europe and the former Soviet U n i o n much greater emphasis has been placed on the internal integrity and historical continuity of the ethnic unit or 'ethnos' (Bromley 1980; Fortes 1980; Shennan 1991). Although self-identification is recognised as an important element, it is argued that the essence of the ethnos is constituted by very real cultural and linguistic components which constitute the 'inner integrity' of a group's 'identity' (Bromley 1980: 153). As a result, ethnicity is not considered to be a primarily relational construct in the sense of a ' w e ' / ' t h e y ' opposition between groups in a plural society (Fortes 1980). Furthermore, ethnic identity is considered to be distinct from socio-structural and e c o n o m i c circumstances; it pertains to the social life of people, regardless of these conditions, and has greater continuity than such p h e n o m e n a . As in 'Western' intellectual traditions there is diversity of opinion about the nature of ethnicity, and in particular its relationship to socio-economic

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

9

formations. It is clear that Dolukhanov (1994: 23), in contrast to traditional Soviet theory, considers the ethnos to be more integrally related to economic relations, such as the spatial division of labour, and also to environmental adaptation. Bursche (chapter 15) also examines the relationship between ethnic and economic factors in his discussion of 'ethnic determinants' in the 'Eastern Vistula M o u t h ' . H e argues that evidence for the exchange of amber, and an open sphere of contact, was 'the main reason for the extensive similarity in the material culture between ethnically different groups' (p. 231). Yet, despite his criticism of central and eastern European descriptive culture history, and his consideration of economic relations, his account of ethnicity remains distinct from its conceptualisation as dynamic, oppositional and subjective in recent 'Western' theory. There are striking parallels between the liberal, democratic, incorporative traditions of nationalism which have been dominant in 'Western' Europe, 'Western' theories of ethnicity and nationalism in the h u m a n sciences, and the construction of the ' N e w Europe' on the basis of a shared heritage of liberalism and democracy (see below). W h e r e does this leave eastern Europe, where exclusive forms of cultural nationalism are more prevalent, and the ethnos is often considered to be an 'objective' and 'essential' entity? Such polemical distinctions between 'East' and 'West' require critical analysis because they can easily be used to legitimate other oppositions; civilisation and liberalism versus barbarism and fundamentalism (and see Kristiansen, chapter 9; Shore, chapter 6). To accept such polemics is to tacitly c o n d o n e what is quite plausibly an attempt to revitalise a western European hegemony which excludes eastern Europe from the E U (see Janik and Zawadzka, chapter 7).

THE

IDEA

OF E U R O P E : ' F E S T U N G

EUROPA'

W h a t is Europe? W h e r e arc its boundaries? And what, if anything, distinguishes it from the rest of the world? Is 'Europe', indeed, an appropriate analytical unit for research? As many have argued, the attempt to define Europe, even as a geographical entity, is fraught with difficulty (see Jordan 1973). Europe is only a peninsular on the western end of the supercontinent that includes all of Asia and, via Suez, Africa as well. Although many attempts have been made to define an eastern boundary for the European continent (cf., Janik and Zawadzka, chapter 7) in b o t h geographical and cultural terms, these are largely arbitrary activities. T h e Ural Mountains, for example, make n o obvious frontier, and effectively divide the Eurasian landinass so that more than half o f ' E u r o p e ' lies within the old Soviet U n i o n , whereas Turkey, which also has close connections with the political and cultural centres of Europe, is said to be in Asia. Given the ambiguity of its physical status, Europe can only be an idea, but where does this idea come from? In one sense it originates with the

Copyrighted

Material

10

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

Greek mythological figure of Europa, an unfortunate person w h o was carried off into the west by Zeus in the form of a giant bull, and perhaps identified with a 'land of the setting sun'. 6 However, there can be n o sense in which classical Greece thought of itself as 'European', for clearly the Greek sense of boundedness was not primarily topographical; dividing Persia, the despotic east, from their democratic selves. 7 H e n c e the Greeks did not necessarily see all 'Westerners' as their fellows, indeed they held a sharp distinction between Hellenes and Barbarians 8 and it is quite plausible that the 'Celts' (or Celtoi) and 'Scythians' described in Greek literature were, for Greek geographers and travellers, just derogatory stereotypes. In fact, the whole nexus of the Classical world, which Europe has claimed as its ancestor, is centred not on our 'Europe' but around the Mediterranean, the Middle sea. Here Bernal (1994: 127) remarks: there is a need for a radical reassessment of the image of Ancient Greece . . . we should turn from one of a civilisation which sprang — like Athena from the head of Zeus — virgin and fully formed, to one in which Greece grew up at the intersection of Europe, Africa and Asia as a thoroughly mixed and eclectic culture. Following this line of argument, 'Classical Civilisation' could be claimed as the unique progenitor for the cultures of Africa and Asia, as m u c h as of Europe. T h e R o m a n Empire has also been considered a unique and exclusive progenitor of European culture and identity (e.g., Haverfield 1911). R o m e was influential in the dissemination of Classical culture throughout a broad area of Europe, and as such has been represented as laying the foundations of European culture. It has been particularly important in the origin myths of Western nation-states, such as Britain and France, in their attempts to justify the superiority of 'Western European Civilisation' (see Fleury-Ilett, chapter 13; Hingley forthcoming). As in the case of Classical Greece, however, those w h o wish to see the R o m a n Empire as an exclusively European p h e n o m e n o n forget that a significant proportion of the Empire was outside of m o d e r n Europe; furthermore, much of m o d e r n Europe is outside of the geographical limits of the Empire (seejanik and Zawadzka, chapter 7). T h e extent to which the R o m a n Empire generated a broad self-conscious identity is debatable in itself, but it certainly was not based on the idea of Europe; it is necessary to look to later periods for any sense of a self-conscious Europe. W i t h the gradual disintegration of R o m a n authority, culminating in the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the foci of activity in 'Europe' and the 'Mare N o s t r u m ' were split by a fault line between the surviving Christian domains, emergent 'barbarian' kingdoms (e.g., the Vandals or Visigoths), and, from the end of the seventh century, the emerging world of Islam. According to Rowlands (1987: 76) ' T h e conclusion seems

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

11

unavoidable that " E u r o p e " as a culturally defined whole did not exist prior to the eighth century A D ' . Historically, the concept of C h r i s t e n d o m as a b o u n d e d domain in opposition to Islam seems to predate the conscious delineation of Europe (Hay 1968), and, of course, is an inheritance from R o m a n imperialism. 9 As the physical extent of C h r i s t e n d o m gradually contracted and expanded, its boundaries became coterminous with some of those which might n o w be identified as European. 1 0 T h a t this process was never straightforward can be seen today in southeast Europe and particularly Transcaucasia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Chechenya) where mixed 'Islamic' and 'Christian' communities openly confront one another. It is clear that some would still wish to see Europe as synonymous with Christianity, even though many 'Europeans' have little enthusiasm for religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Paganism or whatever. Yet, the reality of European religious culture is m u c h more complex. Even within ' C h r i s t e n d o m ' there have always been divisions. At one time or another O r t h o d o x — C a t h o l i c ' ' — Protestant divisions have c o m e to be elements in historical and, ultimately, contemporary conflicts (see Collis, chapter 11). T h e considerable influence ofjudaism in European culture is often ignored, whilst at the same time being a focus of prejudice and exclusion. More recently, the immigration of the citizens of colonial empires into Europe has resulted in the introduction of a broader spectrum of world religions. In most cases religious cultures overlap with one another and criss-cross the supposed boundaries of Europe. 1 2 In truth there can be n o specific point of origin for the idea of Europe. Although C h r i s t e n d o m was associated with Europe in the eyes of scholars, clergy and the aristocracy, it is highly likely that the vast majority of people in the Middle Ages had not even heard of Europe, and identification beyond local and national confines was primarily with C h r i s t e n d o m (Hale 1994). It was during the Renaissance that the idea of Europe became part of most peoples' culture and identity. T h e role of Europe in the construction of identity was strongly influenced by the European 'exploration' of the East and the ' N e w World', with the associated development of cartography, the emergence of mercantilism and European colonisation. Knowledge of other cultures in different parts of the world led to a questioning of identity and a reformulation of existing modes of understanding the cultural geography of the world (see Hale 1994; McGrane 1989). T h e result was the construction of a hierarchical opposition between the supposed pinnacle of 'European Civilisation' and 'primitive' or 'barbarian' 'others', which is still pervasive in many forms today. Indeed, many elements in this triumphal ideology are evident in E U / E C rhetoric about European culture: ' G r a e c o - R o m a n civilisation, Christianity, the ideas of the Enlightenment, Science, Reason, Progress and Democracy' (Goddard et al. 1994: 27; see also Shore, chapter 6; and Shore and Black 1994).

Copyrighted Material

12

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

Thus, Europe has been constructed in opposition to its neighbours and enemies, in conjunction with some selective physical, geographical boundaries. It is a territory defined, primarily, in opposition to Islam, but increasingly as a reaction against 'third world' immigrants within Europe and the threat of the 'habitus Americana'. The idea of 'Europe' includes a spectrum of representations which are drawn from a palimpsest of 'cultures', states, wars, migrations, invasions and treaties, and then tied together in a progressive framework. Yet it is without doubt a cultural construct, rather than a unified historical entity, which has been shaped by political and economic institutions, and defined in different ways by diverse groups competing for power. Different representations of European history have been advanced at different times depending on the ideological context and interests prevailing in these contexts. The construction of European identity shares many characteristics with that of the nation-state (see Shore, chapter 6), including the tendency to exclude those aspects of the multiplicity of European histories which are not conducive to a coherent linear narrative (see Kohl 1993), whilst at the same time appropriating elements of the cultural 'other'. Such is the case with Islam (and for that matter post-war immigrants): the orient has had considerable cultural and scientific impact on Europe since the eighth or ninth centuries AD (see e.g., Hodges and Whitehouse 1983), and European culture has absorbed stylistic and artistic ideas from the Islamic world, even as it has confronted Islam, particularly in such boundary regions as Spain or south-east Europe. As with the idea of the nation, it is necessary to adopt a critical perspective on the idea of 'Europe'; as a single all-constitutive entity it is rather meaningless, and yet there are a plurality and diversity of Europes that exist, and have existed. ARCHAEOLOGY AND

EUROPE

As it has grown out of its nineteenth-century context, archaeology has tended to tacitly accept modern political boundaries as a framework for the analysis of the past. The idea of Europe as a conceptual category in archaeological thought is a product of the eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury philosophical and historical discourse of the uniqueness of Europe in opposition to the Orient (Rowlands 1987; Shennan 1987; and see below). European archaeology has also been delimited in terms of those countries which, merely by conventional definition, 'belong' to Europe (Shennan 1987: 366). In the post-war era, through organisational structures and legislation, the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and (more recently) the European Association of Archaeologists, have added a further dimension to the structuring of European archaeology. For instance, there is a 'European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage' and numerous projects set up by the 'Cultural

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

13

Heritage C o m m i t t e e ' of the C o u n c i l o f E u r o p e (see below). There may be many advantages to such inter-national and supra-national institutional structures, not least that they may counteract the use of archaeology in support of divisive and violent ethnic and nationalist movements (Kristiansen, chapter 9). However, such structures tend to encourage representations of the archaeology of Europe as a b o u n d e d entity. This is clearly evident in phrases such as 'the European archaeological heritage' (European A s s o c i a t i o n o f A r c h a e o l o g i s t s , Draft Statutes), and in the aims of the 'European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage' where it is stated that: The aim of this . . . Convention is to protect the archaeological heritage as a source of the European collective memory and as an instrument for historical and scientific study. (The European Archaeologist, 1: 5; our emphasis) However, such institutionalisation of the idea of 'Europe', and consequently of a h o m o g e n e o u s European Heritage, is likely to hinder the analysis of diverse social processes and histories by setting up an exclusive 'archaeology of Europe' in opposition to other regions of the world. T h u s , the establishment of organisations such as T h e E u r o p e a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f A r c h a e o l o g i s t s demands a critical evaluation of the concepts of boundedness, heritage and culture, which are implicit in the structure and projects of such organisations. Within Europe the archaeology of different nation-states has followed a similar path to that of Europe as a whole, taking m o d e r n political boundaries and building national archaeologies within t h e m (see Dietler 1994; Fleury-Ilett, chapter 13; R u i z Zapatero, chapter 12). O f course pan-national 'cultures' — 'Celts', 'Aryans', 'Neolithic farmers' — are identified, but n o n e the less these are also broken down into national heritages — the French Celts b e c o m e 'Gauls', the Spanish Celts 'Iberians', whereas the Welsh or Bretons construct their 'Celtic' past as oppositional to the supervening nation-state (Dietler 1994). Simply through the institutional structures of different nations and, until recently, the divisions of east and west (see Janik and Zawadska, chapter 7), these national archaeologies have been perpetuated — differences of methodology, terminology, preferences to study different periods and, most of all, languages, have produced an archaeology worthy of Babel (see H o d d e r 1991). Even the archaeologies of neighbouring states can be worlds apart — whilst British archaeology has traditionally associated itself with the Anglophone United States (and to a lesser extent Scandinavia), France has seen its archaeology as one of 'continental insularity' (Audouze and Leroi-Gourhan 1981; Graves 1994). T h e result is that archaeological practitioners in neighb o u r i n g states are largely ignorant of each other's literature, material and ideas; whilst Britons read very little in other European languages and translate less, other Europeans resent and resist the international hegemony

Copyrighted Material

14

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

of the English language (Graves 1994; Kerrigan 1993). T h u s , as pointed out above, o n e of the potential advantages of European organisations, and the increasing interaction and dialogue which they generate, is that they may overcome such national particularism. T h e influence of m o d e r n political boundaries has resulted in an acceptance of a discrete European archaeology, even though studies of all prehistoric periods have revealed extensive links to other - supposedly distinct — regions (see Zvelebil, chapter 10). Defined on the basis of largely nineteenth-century political boundaries, Europe has remained an analytical unit, whether in terms of ex oriente lux or indigenous developm e n t (see Shennan 1987). It has often been seen as an a u t o n o m o u s region, advancing almost inexorably towards Capitalism, 'Western Civilisation' and the European U n i o n , if these three are not indeed synonymous! This process was, and in many cases still is, underwritten by the tradition of culture history (see Shennan 1987). Yet, as argued above, the concept of Europe is a comparatively recent one and the existence of a distinct and unified European culture and identity is heavily disputed even today. Whilst we may talk of a European Bronze Age or a European Palaeolithic, we surely do not mean to imply that Bronze Age people were selfconsciously European, or that they had a consciousness of a geographical entity congruent with 'Europe'. T h e more c o m m o n assumption that Europe constitutes a distinctive social entity at particular periods in prehistory is also debatable, and often manifests itself as a search for 'the uniqueness of Europe' (e.g., Renfrew 1995: 157—61). S E A R C H I N G FOR T H E F I R S T E U R O P E A N S : THE N E O L I T H I C , THE B R O N Z E AGE A N D THE CELTIC I R O N AGE Given that the idea of Europe has precarious ontological status, it is not really surprising that a concern with understanding the uniqueness of the European experience, and the roots of European culture, has at times dominated interpretations of the past. At one time or another, numerous periods have been taken as revolutionary phases in the foundation of Europe. As well as 'historical' epochs such as the Dark Ages and 'Classical Civilisation', origin myths include periods stretching deeper into the past, such as the 'Celtic' Iron Age, the Bronze Age and the Neolithic. Thus, as Zvelebil (chapter 10) shows, the 'Neolithic Revolution' and the representation of early farming societies has been b o u n d up in the construction of an opposition between European 'Civilisation' and the 'savage' 'other' represented by hunter-gatherers. Furthermore, the rural farming idyll, constructed in the context of industrialisation and national origin myths, figures prominently in contemporary political debates, such as those surrounding the General Agreement o n Tariffs and Trade, and the C o m m o n Agricultural Policy.

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

15

T h e 'Celtic Iron Age' is also central in constructions of both European and national identities (see Collis, chapter 11; Diaz-Andreu, chapter 3; Fitzpatrick, chapter 16; Fleury-Ilett, chapter 13; R u i z Zapatero, chapter 12). As Collis argues, the Celts are taken both as a symbol of European unity and of national separateness. Yet despite (or perhaps because of) this contradiction, the idea that Celtic culture lies at the roots of Europe has received considerable attention in recent years, in exhibitions and in both popular and academic literature. Such representations often attempt to tie together regional/national and European interests. As Almagro Gorbea (1991: 12, cited in Diaz-Andreu, chapter 3), a prominent Spanish archaeologist, has put it: The Celts are significant not only because of their importance in the ethnic formation of the | Iberian | Peninsula, but also because they linked it to a wider Celtic world, now a factor of great importance insofar as it constitutes one of the cultural roots of Europe. A further element in European prehistory which has been elevated to a position of special status is the Bronze Age. As Kristiansen (chapter 9) and Rowlands (1984; 1987) argue, the Bronze Age has long been taken as prehistorys answer to the question of w h e n and h o w a distinctive European society emerged. T h u s , in Childe's (1925; 1958) works on European prehistory, the aim was 'to show that even in prehistoric times barbarian societies in Europe behaved in a distinctively European way, foreshadowing, however dimly, the contrast with African and Asiatic societies that has b e c o m e manifest in the last thousand years' (Childe 1958: 9); a project which hinged on the Bronze Age. T h e thesis that bronze metallurgy introduced a more efficient technology, required an international trade for the acquisition of raw materials, and also fostered a stratum of full-time, independent craftworkers has been used to support a fundamental opposition between a capitalist, individualist Europe and a totalitarian, despotic Near East. This general picture still informs recent views, for instance Renfrew (1995: 159) argues that: to the European prehistorian, the insight of Hawkes and Childe remains valid, although it can be put more simply. Europe is the only continent in which there is a true Bronze Age — that is to say a 'barbarian' or pre-urban Bronze Age. This view also underlies the selection of the Bronze Age as 'the first Golden Age of Europe' in a C o u n c i l o f E u r o p e initiative to increase awareness of the value and significance of the European heritage, as stated by Trotzig (1993: 3) in The European Archaeologist: There is every justification for describing the Bronze Age as the 'Golden Age' of Europe. . . . There was a network of trade routes connecting even the remotest areas with major cultural centres and with one another. This can be

Copyrighted Material

16

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

observed in technical achievements as well as in architecture, art, music, and even literature. . . . Copper from the south and east was united with tin from the west, and the resulting glistening bronze was spread by trade up to the farthest northern areas of the continent. It was clearly a prosperous period which enjoyed a pleasant climate. This idealised view suggests that the Bronze Age not only provides the basis of a European 'free-market' but is also the fount of high culture in Europe! T h e choice of the Bronze Age may be influenced by its apparent neutrality — too long ago to enter any controversy (as is potentially the case with the Celts), but recent e n o u g h to provide material ancestors for European high culture (i.e. fine metalwork). This concentration on the Bronze Age might almost be seen as an attempt to find the one still point in the palimpsest of pasts which haunt Europe. But its real significance may be that it is intended to show that Europe has 'been capitalist since the Middle Bronze Age' (Rowlands 1987: 67—8). It is n o exaggeration, then, to see the choice of the Bronze Age as more than a neutral political zone, free of ethnic controversies. It can also be presented as the period in which the values of capitalism, the values on which the E U is constructed, were first to appear; proto-urban = Froto-Brussels? (see Shore, chapter 6). O n this basis, the relationship between national identities and Europe 'as a w h o l e ' can be negotiated and played out within a c o m m o n cultural and e c o n o m i c framework in the past (e.g., Eogan 1995: 7). All of these elements in the history of Europe — the Neolithic, the Bronze Age and the 'Celtic' Iron Age — have been situated within a unilinear, developmental framework manifested in archaeology as the ' T h r e e Age System'. Within this framework 'emphasis was placed on the transitions between the segments rather than the segments themselves' (Rowlands 1987: 65). This approach, as both Zvelebil (chapter 10) and Fitzpatrick (chapter 16) emphasise in their analyses of the Neolithic and the 'Celtic' Iron Age, produces blocks of h o m o g e n e o u s empty time, and results in the concentration of change at the temporal boundaries between them. T h u s , within a traditional framework there is n o space for the analysis of the complexity of the b o u n d a r y between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, nor of the ways in which Mesolithic hunter-gatherers may have contributed to the appearance of agricultural practices. T h e real fallacy is to suggest that o n e set of fictitious boundaries can be used to define another. For example, the spatial boundaries of the Bronze Age are used to bolster the ontological fiction of a b o u n d e d Europe. If there can be an identifiable, unique European Bronze Age, mutatis mutandis there can be an equally definable, unique, Bronze Age Europe. But is this really a possible or desirable goal? Simply by a tacit use of the notion of a 'European' prehistory it may be that archaeologists are accepting a flawed and o u t m o d e d logic. Any choice of a

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

17

particular provenance for 'Europeanness' is b o u n d to alienate many people/groups (see Solli, chapter 14). It is often suggested that the academic study of the past began in Europe (e.g., Renfrew 1995: 153—4; although see Sparkes and U c k o forthcoming), but we should not forget that the origins of this enterprise were located within a progressivist, not to say supremacist, system of logic. T h e associated deterministic and essentially monogenic view o f ' o r i g i n s ' has been seen to be inappropriate; black and Asian Europeans are just that, but what is the 'Bronze Age' to them? Archaeologists need to recognise both that a multiplicity of components have combined to produce the European archaeological record, and that Europe itself is a dynamic entity that is not tied to any particular political structures or geographical boundaries.

PLURALITY

A N D M U LTICU LTU R A L I S M IN PREHISTORY

In order to examine the diversity of Europe's past, archaeologists must find n e w ways of analysing past cultural identities w i t h o u t projecting the same essentialist concepts of culture and identity, which they criticise in the present, o n t o the past. T h e recognition of multiple forms of identification in the present — local, ethnic, national, and supra-national — raises a n u m b e r of questions about the reconstruction of the past in terms of a mosaic of h o m o g e n e o u s spatial and temporal blocks. D o such cultural units represent a 'natural' form of socio-cultural differentiation? A c o m m o n response to the complexity and fragmentation of 'postmodern life' has been to assert an historical trajectory along which h u m a n groups have developed from discrete, primordial cultural entities, into complex, polyethnic, multi-layered interest groups. However, a detailed analysis of the concepts which contribute to this picture, suggests that they are themselves an historically contingent product of the 'age of nationalism' (Handler 1988; Diaz-Andreu, chapter 3; Jones, chapter 4). Viewed as a unitary principle of h u m a n differentiation, the idea of a b o u n d e d culturebearing unit may well be a m o d e r n classificatory myth projected o n t o all of h u m a n history (Handler 1988: 291). Cultural groups are not neatly packaged in the present, nor are they likely to have been in the past (see Jones 1994 and forthcoming). A n u m b e r of the contributors in this volume attempt to find n e w ways of exploring cultural identity in the past. From a theoretical perspective, Graves-Brown (chapter 5) and Jones (chapter 4) suggest that the construction of cultural identity in different contexts and at different scales of interaction in the past is likely to be manifested in the archaeological record as multiple overlapping patterns in the distribution and use of particular forms and styles of material culture. As a result it is necessary to adopt a contextual approach in order to explore such diverse patterns from archaeological material. Fitzpatrick (chapter 16) argues that the widespread distribution of

Copyrighted

Material

18

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

Celtic styles and forms of material culture does not mean that all the people within these areas shared the same ethnic identity. H e suggests that there may have been multiple levels of identification, the significance of which 'may have lain not so m u c h in the grand narrative as in the small, local routines of everyday life' (p. 248). Hincs (chapter 17) focuses on the concepts of multiculturalism and monoculturalism in the context of R o m a n and Anglo-Saxon Britain. H e concludes that whilst multi- or monocultural systems may appear to achieve temporary dominance, they represent essentially imaginary extremes of a c o n t i n u u m , and thus, ' t r u e ' multiculturalism is an impossible ideal, as is its opposite, monoculturalism. However, despite important contributions to the analysis of past cultural identities here, and elsewhere in the literature (e.g., H o d d e r 1982; Shennan 1989), archaeology is still some distance from understanding the ways in which past societies have conceptualised and institutionalised social and cultural difference. A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D THE OF I D E N T I T Y

POLITICS

This b o o k does not attempt to map out past cultures and identities in Europe. Rather, most of the contributions problematise the archaeological identification of past cultural identities, and the role of archaeological evidence in the construction and legitimation of contemporary cultural groups. T h r o u g h detailed studies of the use of archaeology in the construction of European identities, the book confirms that archaeology's intimate involvement with cultural identity is likely to continue and even intensify during the 1990s (see H o d d e r 1991; Rowlands 1994; U c k o 1995). This inevitably raises longstanding debates about scientific 'objectivity', and, in particular, the role of archaeology in moral, ethical and political issues. Will these debates continue to perpetuate tired o p p o sitions between objectivity and subjectivity, universal truth and pluralistic relativism (cf. the Euro TAG debate, 1992), or can alternative perspectives be generated (cf. T h o m a s 1995)? Archaeology's role in the justification of Nazi atrocities and the e x p e rience of World War II in general have had a profound effect on the discipline (see Harke 1995; H o d d e r 1991; Collis, chapter 11; Renfrew, chapter 8), often leading to a reaction against theory in general and nationalistic archaeology in particular (see above). As U c k o (1995) points out, archaeologists have until recently removed themselves from the political fray by asserting the 'objectivity' of their interpretations, and have claimed that the 'truth' was being manipulated by others for their own political ends. Needless to say, this position has not brought political uses of the past to an end, and the culture-historical approach which has been associated with ethnic interpretation persists in many countries (see H o d d e r 1991; U c k o 1995; Collis, chapter 11; Jones, chapter 4).

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

19

Nevertheless, there are undoubtedly other reasons which contribute to the longevity of culture-historical archaeology and which need further research (see above and U c k o 1995). In the last decade or so, the argument that archaeological interpretation is necessarily a subjective process which is influenced by the socio-political context in which it takes place has b e c o m e commonplace (e.g., Bond and Gilliam 1994; Shanks and Tilley 1987; Shennan 1989; U c k o 1987, 1995). Most of the chapters in this book accept this position and take it for granted that archaeologists need to take a critical stance o n the interrelationship between their work and the construction of contemporary identities (e.g., Zvelebil, chapter 10; Fleury-Ilett, chapter 13; R u i z Zapatero, chapter 12; Kristiansen, chapter 9). Others adopt critical perspectives on the concepts of culture and identity as they are used in archaeological interpretation and the ways in which these intersect with popular notions of identity (e.g., Diaz-Andreu, chapter 3; Hides, chapter 2; Jones, chapter 4; Graves-Brown, chapter 5). Solli (chapter 14) extends this reflexive position by exploring the ways in which archaeological knowledge about a particular site becomes intertwined with local oral historical narratives. H e r analysis illustrates that the practice of archaeology is involved in a continuous dialogue concerning identity and the past (and see Moser 1995). Archaeologists are often expected to act as 'experts' by members of the community, and yet have limited control over the ways in which archaeological evidence is appropriated. T h e analysis of the ways in which the past is continuously appropriated and re-interpreted in the construction of communities of shared memory, is one way in which archaeologists can critically engage with exclusive and essentialist uses of the past. A theoretically-informed analysis of cultural identity in the present or the past illustrates that identity is dynamic and historically contingent, hence subjecting nationalist and ethnic claims about the p e r m a n e n t and inalienable status of identity and territory to continuous scrutiny. Thus, rather than reproduce monolithic notions of cultural unity and continuity in support of the ' N e w Europe', archaeology should be able to contribute to a critically informed view of the plurality of histories and cultures which make up European identities. Far from being a descent into relativism, such an approach is likely to bring archaeology into a closer alignment with the ways in which multiple narratives of the past are negotiated by c o m m u nities themselves. As Solli (chapter 14) points out, 'lay' m e n and w o m e n seem to have few problems with complex, unfinished and often i n c o m mensurable narratives of the past (including archaeological ones). O n e of the most important points made in this b o o k is that the same essentialist concepts of culture and identity which have u n d e r pinned conflicting ethnic and national constructions of the past, are also being reproduced in constructions of the ' n e w ' European identity. This brings into question the compatibility of ethnic, national and European

Copyrighted Material

20

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

constructions of identity and raises doubts as to whether the ' N e w Europe' will b e c o m e the pluralistic and culturally diverse haven which politicians claim it will. It is clear that in many respects the construction of European culture and heritage potentially involves the exclusion of many peoples' cultural and historical realities, and that these processes of identity construction are embedded in relations of power and inequality. As indicated above, the idea of Europe, its culture and identity, has been deeply implicated in the establishment and legitimation of relations of inequality o n a world scale in the last three to four hundred years (Bernal 1994; Hale 1994). Archaeologists, amongst others, need to be aware of the relationships between such ideas, the images and discourses which surround them, and relationships of power if they are to avoid a continuation of this legacy in their desire to construct a c o m m o n European heritage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Clive Gamble, Maggie R o n a y n e , Steve Shennan and Peter U c k o for their helpful comments on this introduction. We also thank Antony Firth for sharing his knowledge of European political structures. Needless to say, any errors or omissions are entirely our own responsibility.

NOTES 1 Throughout the introduction the term 'discourse' is used to refer to a configuration of ideas that structures knowledge and experience of a particular domain, in this case cultural identity. 2 Attempts to integrate Europe at varying levels have been an important element in western European politics and economics since World War II, and were an explicit response to the desire to prevent further conflict between nation-states. As Shore (chapter 6) points out, these moves initially focused on economic integration leading to the formation of the European E c o n o m i c Communities (EEC), but have since involved further integration in the domains of politics, culture and law, leading to the formation of the European Community (EC) and recently the Economic Union (EU). It is important to note that whilst the EU, including the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, is a supra-national entity which has a direct political effect on its member states, other European institutions such as the Council o f Europe are inter-national organisations in that they sponsor conventions between states, but depend on the states to institute their own legislation. 3 For non-archaeologists: the culture-history paradigm was developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is primarily associated with the assumption that distinct distributions of material culture, known as 'archaeological cultures', correlate with past peoples. It not only represented a means of reconstructing the past in terms of the presence and movement

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

21

of particular peoples, but also constituted the primary methodology for the description and classification of material remains. The equation of the nation and the state is an ideal enshrined in nationalism, which according to Gellner (1983: 1) 'is primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent'. For instance, see the analyses of the construction of German identity with relation to both migrant workers, Ausldndcr, and Europeanness (see Forsythe 1989; Mandel 1994; Morley and Robbins 1993). It is sometimes suggested that the etymological origin of the word 'Europe' lies with a Phoenician or Semitic word meaning 'sunset' (see Jordan 1973) This opposition of the 'west' with the despotic east survives to the present; see, for example, Marx's Asiatic mode of production. It is also worth noting that there was not necessarily a single cohesive political entity called Greece in Classical Antiquity (see Just 1989: 73). Given that Christianity had been the official religion of the empire since the third century AD. See Jordan 1973, figure 1.7, for the north-westward migration of'Europe'. Yet another legacy of Rome. In the case of Christianity examples outside of Europe include Egyptian Copts, Lebanese Marinates, and perhaps, one might argue, Transcaucasian Armenians - see Kohl, 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Audouze, F. and A. Leroi-Gourhan (1981) 'France: a continental insularity.' World Archaeology 13, 2: 170-89. Barker, M. (1978) 'Racism the New Inheritors.' Radical Philosophy 9: 2-17. Barth, F. (1969) 'Introduction.' In F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries.: 9-38. Boston: Little Brown. Bernal, M. (1994) 'The image of ancient Greece as a tool for colonialism and European hegemony.' In G.C. Bond and A. Gilliam (eds), Social Construction of the Past.: 119-28. London: Routledge. Bhavnani, K-K. (1993) 'Towards a multi-cultural Europe?: "Race", nation and identity in 1992 and beyond.' feminist Review 45: 30—45. Bond, G.C. and A. Gilliam (1994) 'Introduction.' In G.C. Bond and A. Gilliam (eds), Social Construction of the Past. Representation as Power.: 1-22. London: Routledge. Bowman, G. (1994) 'Xenophobia, phantasy and the nation: the logic of ethnic violence in former Yugoslavia.' In V. Goddard el al. (eds), The Anthropology of Europe. Identities and Boundaries in Conflict.: 143-171. Oxford: Berg. Brah, A. (1993) 'Re-framing Europe: en-gendered racisms, ethnicities and nationalisms in contemporary western Europe.' Feminist Review 45: 9—29. Bromley (1980) 'The object and subject matter of ethnography.' In E. Gellner (ed.), Soviet and Western Anthropology.: 151—60. London: Duckworth. Champion, T.C. (1990) ' Medieval archaeology and the tyranny of the historical record.' In D. Austin and L. Alcock (eds), Prom the Baltic to the Black Sea. Studies in Medieval Archaeology.: 79—95. London: Routledge.

Copyrighted Material

22

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

Chapman, M., M. McDonald and E. Tonkin (1989) 'Introduction.' In Tonkin et al. (eds), History and Ethnicity.: 1—21. London: Routledge. Childe, V.G. (1925) The Dawn of European Civilization. London: Kegan Paul. (1958) Tlie Prehistory of European Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Clifford, J. (1988) The Predicament of Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Cohen, A. (1974) 'Introduction: the lesson of ethnicity.' In A. Cohen (ed.), Urban Ethnicity.: ix-xxiv. London: Tavistock Publications. Cohen, R. (1978) 'Ethnicity: problem and focus in anthropology.' Annual Review of Anthropology 1: 379-403. Danforth, L.M. (1993) 'Competing claims to Macedonian identity: the Macedonian question and the breakup of Yugoslavia.' Anthropology Today 9, 4: 3-10. Despres, L.A. (1975) 'Introduction.' In L.A. Despres (ed.), Ethnicity amd Resource Competition in Plural Societies.: 1-7. Paris: Mouton Publishers. Devalle, S.B.C. (1992) Discourses of Ethnicity. Culture and Protest in Jharkhand. London: Sage Publications. Dietler, M. (1994) '"Our ancestors the Cauls": archaeology, ethnic nationalism, and the manipulation of Celtic identity in modern Europe.' American Anthropologist 96, 3: 584-605. Dolukhanov, P.M. (1994) Environment and Ethnicity in the Ancient Middle East. Aldershot: Avebury. (1995) 'Archaeology in Russia and it's impact on archaeological theory.' In P.J. Ucko (ed.), Tlieory in Archaeology. A World Perspective.: 327-42. London: Routledge. Eogan, G. (1995) 'Celebrating the Bronze Age.' Archaeology in Ireland 9, 1: 7. Eriksen, T.H. (1993) Ethnicity and Nationalism. Anthropological Perspectives: London: Pluto Press. Forsythe, D. (1989) 'German identity and the problems of history.' In E. Tonkin et al. (eds), History and Ethnicity. London: Routledge. Fortes, M. (1969) [1945] The Dynamics of Clanship Among the Tallensi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1980) 'Introduction.' In E. Gellner (ed.), Soviet and Western Anthropology.: xix-xv. London: Duckworth. Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Goddard, V.A., J.R. Llobera and C. Shore (eds) (1994) The Anthropology of Europe. Identities and Boundaries in Conflict. Oxford: Berg. Graves, P.M. (1994) 'My strange quest for Leroi-Gourhan.' Antiquity 68: 457-60. Hale, J. (1994) Tlie Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance. London: Fontana Press. Handler, R. (1988) Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Hiirke, H. (1995) '"The Hun is a methodical chap": reflections on the German tradition of pre- and proto-history'. In P.J. Ucko (ed.), Theory in Archaeology. A World Perspective.: 46-60. London: Routledge. Hastrup, K. (1992) Other Histories. London: Routledge. Haverfield, F. (1911) 'An inaugural address delivered before the first Annual General Meeting of the Society.' Journal of Roman Studies 1: xi-xx. Hay, D. (1968) Europe: the Emergence of an Idea. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Copyrighted Material

Introduction

23

Hingley, R. (forthcoming) 'The "legacy" of Rome: the rise, decline and fall of Romanization.' Hobsbawm, E.J. (1992) 'Ethnicity and nationalism in Europe today.' Anthropology Today, 8, 1: 3-8. and Ranger, T. (cds) (1983) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Canto. Hoddcr, I. (1982) Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1991) 'Archaeological theory in contemporary European societies: the emergence of competing traditions.' In I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological 'Theory in Europe.: 1-24. London: Routledge. Hodges, R. and D. Whitehouse (1983) Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origins of Modern Europe. London: Duckworth. Hutchinson, J. and A.D. Smith (1994) Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaspan, M. (1964) 'Comment.' [on Narroll, R. (1964) On Ethnic Unit Classification.] Current Anthropology 5, 4: 298. Jones, S. (1994) Archaeology and Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past and the Present. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton. (forthcoming) The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past and the Present. London: Routledge. Jordan, T . O (1973) The European Culture Area: A Systematic Geography. New York: Harper and Row. Just, R. (1989) 'Triumph of the ethnos.' In E. Tonkin, M. McDonald and M. Chapman (eds), History and Ethnicity.: 71—88. London: Routledge. Kerrigan, M. (1993) 'Words lost in a new landscape.' Times Higher Educational Supplement. 2 April: 15 Kohl, P. (1993) 'Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology in Soviet Transcaucasia.' Journal of European Archaeology 1, 2: 181—8 Leach, E. (1964 [1954]) Political Systems of Highland Burma. A Study in Kachin Social Structure. London: G. Bell and Sons. MacDonald, S. (1993) 'Identity complexes in western Europe: social anthropological perspectives.' In S. Macdonald (ed.), Inside European Identities. Ethnography in Western Europe.: 1-26. Oxford: Berg. (ed.) (1993) Inside European Identities. Ethnography in Western Europe. Oxford: Berg. McGrane, B. (1989) Beyond Anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press. Mandel, R. (1994) '"Fortress Europe" and the foreigners within: Germany's Turks.' In V.A. Goddard et al. (eds), The Anthropology of Europe. Identities and Boundaries in Conflict.: 113—24. Oxford: Berg. Moerman, M. (1965) 'Who are the Lue?' American Anthropologist 67: 1215—30. Morley, D. and K. Robbins (1993) 'No place like Heimat: images of home(land) in European culture.' In E. Carter, J. Donald and J. Squires (eds), Space and Place: Theories of Identity and Location.: 3-31. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Moser, S. (1995) 'The "Abonginalization" of Australian archaeology: the contribution of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies to the indigenous transformation of the discipline.' In P.J. Ucko (ed.), Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective.: 150—77. London: Routledge. Narroll, R. (1968) 'Who the Luc are.' In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the Problem of Tribe.: 72—9. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Copyrighted Material

24

Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown

Renfrew, C. (1987) Archaeology and Language, The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Penguin. (1995) 'The identity of Europe in prehistoric archaeology.' Journal of European Archaeology 2, 2: 153—73. Rowlands, M. (1984) 'Conceptualising the European bronze age and early iron age.' In J. Bintliff (ed.), European Social Evolution.: 147-56. Bradford: Bradford University Press. (1987) '"Europe in prehistory": a unique form of primitive capitalism?' Culture and History 1: 63—78. (1994) 'The politics of identity in archaeology.' In G.C. Bond and A. Gilliam (eds), Social Construction of the Past. Representation as Power.: 129—43. London: Routledge. Shanks, M. and C. Tilley (1987) Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Sherman, S.J. (1987) 'Trends in the study of later European prehistory.' Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 365—82. (1989) introduction.' In S.J. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.: 1-32. London: Unwin and Hyman. (1991) 'Some current issues in the archaeological identification of past peoples.' Archaeologia Polona 29: 29—37. Shore, C. and A. Black (1994) 'Citizens Europe and the construction of European identity.' In V. Goddard et at. (eds), The Anthropology of Europe. Identities and Boundaries in Conflict.: 275—98. Oxford: Berg. Smith, A.D. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. Sparkes, B. and P.J. Ucko (forthcoming) Reaching for the Past: Wlicre, Why and Wlien did Archaeology Begin? Thomas, J. (1995) 'Where are we now? Archaeological theory in the 1990s.' In P.J. Ucko (ed.), Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective.: 343—362. London: Routledge. Tonkin, E., M. McDonald and M. Chapman (eds) (1989) History and Ethnicity. London: Routledge. Trotzig, G. (1993) 'The Council of Europe's involvement in archaeology.' The European Archaeologist 1: 3. Ucko, P.J. (1987) Academic Freedom and Apartheid. The Story of the World Archaeological Congress. London: Duckworth. — (1995) 'Archaeological interpretation in a world context.' In P.J. Ucko (ed.), Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective.: 1-27. London: Routledge. Verdery, K. (1992) 'Comment: Hobsbawm in the East.' Anthropology Today 8, 1: 8-10. de Vos, G. (1982) |1975] 'Ethnic pluralism: conflict and accommodation.' In G. de Vos and L. Romanucci-Ross (eds), Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change: 5—41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wallman, S. (1977) 'Ethnicity Research in Britain.' Current Anthropology 18, 3: 531-32. Wolf, E.R. (1982) Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER T W O

T H E GENEALOGY OF MATERIAL C U L T U R E A N D CULTURAL IDENTITY SHAUN

HIDES

INTRODUCTION The concrete is concrete because it is the concentration of many determinations, hence a unity of diverse elements. In our thought it therefore appears as a process of synthesis, as a result, and not as a point of departure. (K. Marx, Grundrissc (1857-8), cited in McLellan 1980: 34) T h e relationship between objects and identity has always been important for archaeology and its cognate disciplines, in particular anthroplogy. For Mauss, objects were the most reliable evidence, being 'authentic, a u t o n o m o u s objects . . . that thus characterise types of civilizations better than anything else' (Mauss 1931: 6—7). Whilst for other disciplines objects are interpreted in their social context, archaeologists must recreate that context from the objects themselves. This has important consequences for the way in which objects and identity are linked and understood. Even early antiquarians, such as C a m d e n and Aubrey, sought to differentiate the Saxon and Celtic influences on English history from material objects (Piggott 1967). An interest in similar themes has continued through numerous transformations of the study of the past, but difficulties in defining cultural/ethnic groups and theorising their relationship to material culture have persisted. This essay will argue that archaeological theorists and historians have seen the link between artefacts and identity as an intrinsic property of social existence upon which universal theoretical abstractions can be based. Yet, the nature of this relationship is itself the product of sociohistorical transformations and should, therefore, be subjected to critical scrutiny in those terms. T h r o u g h an analysis of the epistemological contexts of interpretations of archaeological material, I will show that the

Copyrighted Material

26

Shaun Hides

relationship between materiality and identity has undergone a series of transformations in concert with the broadest shifts of European culture.

THE PROBLEM Conventionally, it has been taken as self-evident that objects were produced and used by specific social or cultural groups, peoples, or tribes and therefore reflect that group in some manner. Yet attempts to define these groups and their relationship to material culture patterning, have proved difficult to achieve. This difficulty has not called into question the assumption of an intrinsic link between artefacts and groups. Rather, it has been attributed to the complexity and incompleteness of the artefactual record, or to the problems of deriving an appropriate interpretative m e t h o d . This problem is evident in numerous instances in the twentieth-century literature (Abercrombie 1912; Harrison 1980; Piggott 1938; 1954; Renfrew 1984; Shennan 1978). T h e ideas of one of the earliest theorists of archaeological cultures, Gordon Childe, and one of the most recent, Ian Hodder, conveniently encapsulate and periodise the characteristic features of m o d e r n archaeological theory. G o r d o n Childe s concept of an archaeological culture was an abstraction identified by 'certain types of remains . . . pots, implements, ornaments, burial rites, house forms . . . constantly recurring together' (Childe 1929: v—vi), and recognisable in a series of interacting diffusions and evolutions (Childe 1929: 418—19). This abstraction was based on the concept of Kullur-Gruppe, a co-extensive artefactual distribution and ethnic unit, devised by Gustav Kossinna (1858—1931) in his 'settlement archaeology'. In his early writings (1925; 1926; 1929), Childe's characterisation of the ethnic equivalent of an archaeological culture' was largely linguistic, perhaps reflecting his limited awareness of anthropology. Although Childe questioned w h e t h e r archaeological evidence could reveal ethnicity (Childe 1930), he saw the value of relating ethnographic and archaeological 'cultures', advocating a societal classification which was 'perceptible to archaeologists, but also meaningful to ethnographers and historians' (Trigger 1980: 148). However, such a scheme was never achieved, and Childe became increasingly aware of the difficulty of theorising the link between archaeological cultures and specific social groups (Trigger, 1980: 149). Whilst he rightly eschewed the racist, ideological linkage between archaeological cultures and Volk asserted by Kossinna (1911), he was unable to develop a sustainable theoretical linkage of his own. A second more recent consideration of the relationship between material culture and identity is Ian Hodder's (1982) ethnographic analysis of material culture in the Baringo District of Kenya. H e observed artefacts, not merely used as tools, possessions, or simple badges of rank or belonging, but being actively manipulated in the negotiation of identities based on age, gender and ethnicity. W i t h recourse to a complex

Copyrighted Material

Material culture and cultural identity

27

theory of interpretation and social determination, H o d d e r (1982: 185; 1986) argued that all objects, including prehistoric artefacts, were m e a n ingful in this way. Further, that the archaeologist is able to 'read', i.e. interpret, that meaning. T h r o u g h an idealist historical perspective, derived from Collingwood (1946), he suggested that having identified an artefact's archaeological context, the artefact can be 'read' within this context (Hodder 1982; 1986; 1987). T h e contemporary context of excavation, conservation and interpretation, enables the past context (the culture) to be reconstructed from artefacts and their distribution. A problematic circularity exists here; the artefact's meaning is derived from its context, and its context is defined by those associated artefacts which give it meaning. For example, cultural/ethnic identity is always recoverable from artefacts, a n d / o r is a contextual presence shaping all aspects of the object's meaning. Circularity also undermines the necessary separation of past and present contexts. If ideology and social organisation determined the significance of an artefact in the past, surely the same determinations operate on the artefact in the present. This implies that artefacts do not reveal past (in the strict sense) social contexts, but are only 'meaningfully constituted' by the specific context of the ideologies and codes of contemporary archaeology. These examples reveal two difficulties which have beset most archaeological theories of cultural identity (e.g., Childe 1929; Clarke 1968; H o d d e r 1986; Kossinna 1911; Renfrew 1987). First, they attempt to place their conceptual definition beyond historical determination; the relationship between artefacts and identity must be an intrinsic property of the artefacts themselves. Childe conceptualised artefacts through functionalism and a normative concept of culture; H o d d e r asserts that all objects are meaningfully constituted. These propositions make 'culture historical' and 'contextual' archaeology possible. Second, both with Childe's culture history and Hodder's contextual archaeology, there is an apparent acknowledgement of the contemporary context of the discipline, which is in fact an exercise in circumscribing and negating its relevance. T h e y do not consider the broader pre-conceptual frameworks through which the relationship between artefacts and identities are understood.

HISTORY Michel Foucault's (1970) characterisation of the culture of ' M o d e r n Europe' is distinct from that of conventional histories of knowledge or science on two accounts. First, he emphasises the importance of major discontinuities in the description of the material and social world through formal knowledge, and second, he describes these discourses without direct recourse to moral or philosophical judgements based o n contemporary criteria. In conventional histories of archaeology (e.g., Daniel 1981; Piggott 1976; Trigger 1989) the activities of antiquarians

Copyrighted Material

28

Shaun Hides

are described accurately, but they are evaluated according to their manifestation of elements of contemporary theory and practice; for example, the first recognition of stone tools as artefacts (Trigger 1989: 53, 88), the first theory of appropriate ethnic divisions in prehistoric Britain (Piggott 1967: 11), or the pioneers of scientific excavation techniques. Foucault's (1970) approach to historical analysis offers a persuasive framework through which to re-examine the development of archaeological theories of cultural identity, in terms of the modes of knowledge current at particular times. H e identifies three distinct 'epsistemes' (modes of knowledge) which operated in the Late Renaissance (c. 1550—1650), the Classical Age (c. 1650-1790) and the M o d e r n Age (r. 1790-1900). THE LATE R E N A I S S A N C E : C O L L E C T I N G THE W O R L D Historians of archaeology (e.g., Daniel 1967, 1981; Trigger 1989) have identified those aspects of Renaissance culture which prompted an interest in antiquity. From this perspective, the 'quasi-historical' activities of such antiquarians as J o h n Leland (1503—52) and William C a m d e n (1551—1623) are important because they reject the medieval, mythological frameworks like that of Geoffrey of M o n m o u t h (Kendnck 1950: 4—5). Antiquarian studies are, however, presented as lacking a coherent methodology with respect to evidence, and limited by their irrationality and reliance on literary sources: they did little deliberate digging and had no sense of chronology apart from what was known from written records. (Trigger 1989: 48) Antiquarians produced itineraries — literary collections — assembling without priority: genealogical material, heraldic imagery, monastic literature, local folk tales, myth and anecdote, together with the occasional description of a curio or artefacts (Piggott 1976: 6—8). However, these apparently haphazard activities take on a different significance w h e n examined in relation to the form of knowledge, and the conceptions of identity current in the late Renaissance. These formulations can be summarised in terms of three concepts: resemblance, the microcosm (as collection or book) and the exotic. In The Order of Things, Michel Foucault (1970: 17—45) describes the way in which the world could be k n o w n during the late Renaissance (c. 1550—1650). H e suggests that scholars attempted to read signs, visible in all things, which revealed their resemblances to other things. Resemblance, in the form of four specific kinds of similitude (Cotwenientia, Aemulato, Analogy, Sympathy) and its opposite, Antipathy, united and structured the Renaissance universe, articulating every object, word and being.

Copyrighted

Material

Material culture and cultural identity

29

Foucault argues that the process of acquiring knowledge consisted of recognising and reading the visible signs, 'signatures', which revealed other deeper, or invisible resemblances: It is the same with the affinity of the walnut and the human head: what cures 'wounds of the pericranium' is the thick green rind covering the bones — the shell - of the fruit; but internal head ailments may be prevented by use of the nut itself 'which is exactly like the brain in appearance' [Crollius, Traite des signatures, 4]. (Foucault 1970: 27) However, this m o d e of understanding only produced the same knowledge of each object, i.e. what resemblances it held with other objects. This in turn implied that certainty, with respect to even o n e analogy, could only be attained through the infinite collation of resemblances across the entire world; each resemblance pointed immediately to the next before confirming the first. This potentially endless project of accumulation was, Foucault argues, limited by the concept of microcosm, wherein the visible, concrete world constituted a finite instance of the greater, divine macrocosm. For example, M a n acted as the focal point of the operation of analogy, 'his face is to his body what the face of heaven is to the ether' (Foucault 1970: 22). Two particular forms of the microcosm: the b o o k and the collection, are important for this discussion. T h e e n o r m o u s social and cultural impact of the development and expansion of printing during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is n o w widely accepted (Einstein 1979; Mandrou 1978; Mukerji 1983). Printing induced the broad dissemination of texts, wresting their control from clerics and transforming their content. T h e emergence of editor—printers; the re-prmting of classical (secular and pagan) texts and the expansion of a Latin-literate, international academic community are inextricably b o u n d up together. However, the book was also important as a configuration of knowledge. D u r i n g the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries language was implicitly enmeshed in the similitudes and signatures which ordered objects: The great metaphor of the book that one opens and pores over and reads in order to know nature, is merely the reverse and visible side of another transference, and a much deeper one, which forces language to reside in the world, among the plants, the herbs, the stones, and the animals. (Foucault 1970: 35) Indeed, there was not the clear distinction we draw between words and things. Words were seen to be ordered through the same principles of resemblance which linked other signs; letters were drawn together by their sympathies. T h e b o o k both authorised the writing, the signs, that are manifest in nature, with the word of God (Foucault 1970: 38), and it offered a figure of

Copyrighted Material

30

Shaun Hides

containment, a microcosm, in which knowledge could be fixed. It is unsurprising then, that the activities of Renaissance antiquarians were focused on, and expressed through literature, as Evans (1956: 3) notes of John Leland, and Hunter (1971: 118-19) of William Camden and Ole Worm (1588-1654). The priority of the written word and the reliance on literary sources is also evident in the interpretation of historical identity at this time. Generally, identity was traced through resemblance. Foucault (1970: 39) cites Aldrovandi's Historia scrpentium ct draconum which characterised the serpent through, amongst other features, the etymology and synonyms of the word, its form, its anatomy, habits, antipathy, sympathy, modes of capture, wounds caused by, remedies, epithets, allegories, emblems and symbols, historical facts, dreams, miscellaneous uses. This is the kind of 'mass of miscellaneous notes' (Piggott 1976: 12), in which Leland collected accounts of antiquities, topographical features and genealogies, etc.. Camden's Remains Concerning Brillainc (1607) includes: a history of costume, place-names, 'an essay on British coins, . . . and another on Anglo-Saxon, with examples; a very full list of proverbs current in his day, two selections of medieval Latin verse' (cited in Piggott 1976: 37). No priority was attached to different types of historical, genealogical or mythological evidence, because it was, as Foucault (1970: 39) puts it, 'all legenda — things to be read'. Clearly, Renaissance antiquarianism was also implicitly bound up in the political interests of the day. Scholars, churchmen and statesmen were concerned to establish the ancient precedents, and genealogical derivation of contemporary institutions, particularly with reference to their Celtic or English origins (Evans 1956: 11; Piggott 1976: 6). The identity of the nation was interpreted through genealogical studies of quasi-historical documents and etymological comparisons of 'named' tribes, e.g., 'Galatae', 'Celtae', 'Galli'. Aylett Sammes' Britannia Antiqua Illustrata (something of an anachronism when published in 1676) links Britons with the 'Cimbri' of the continent because of, 'the similitude of Name between these Cymri of Britain and the Ancient people, the Cimbri' (Sammes 1676, cited in Piggott 1967: 9). Whilst antiquarians were not often explicitly concerned with artefacts, the collection of objects was a crucial feature of Late Renaissance culture. Collection emerged from Medieval, clerical stores of relics, the hoarding of wealth and early Renaissance 'princely' collections (Hooper-Greenhill 1992: 47-52; Piggott 1976: 102). Several socio-cultural changes of this time (Burke 1974; Mandrou 1978) are relevant to the proliferation of collecting, including the emergence of formal discourses concerned with the secular, aesthetic valuation of objects;2 the partial dissipation of clerical authority in the face of expanding mercantile power; and the burgeoning class of editor—scholars. Each marks the growing distinction made between the natural world and the artificial world which reproduces (mirrors) nature (Baudrillard 1994: 50-2). 3

Copyrighted Material

Material culture and cultural identity

31

T h e collection of objects in 'Cabinets of Curiosity' — Wunderkammer — and 'Cabinets of the World' — Kunstkammer — has been characterised as the acquisition of a disorganised mass of rarities (Malina and Vasicck 1990: 26). However, the radical diversity of objects found in collections, such as those of Francesco Calceolari and Ulisse Aldrovandi in Italy, O l e W o r m in D e n m a r k and the Tradescants in England, are in fact closely ordered according to the forms of similitude, visible or innate, which linked them, and the mirroring of Nature in Art. Collections were often organised into Natural and Artificial objects (Hogden 1964: 123; Hooper-Greenhill 1992: 13, 125; Piggott 1976: 107). W h a t appears to be an incongruous juxtaposition of natural curiosities, mineral and animal rarities, with exotic artefacts and antiquities, is in fact, an attempt to represent the whole world, an Encyclopaedia. Antiquities were not separated from other exotic objects by their age, but united with t h e m through resemblance. T h e web of resemblances between the diverse objects could be read in this microcosm in m u c h the same way as in the literary collections or the signatures inherent in nature. O n e feature uniting all such collections was the emphasis on rarity, curiosity, and the exotic (Murray 1904: 186—7). Collections manifested this interest in a n u m b e r of ways. 4 In part, rarity itself conferred value on these objects; they were collected less avidly w h e n more commonplace (Impey and MacGregor 1985: 3). However, the taste for exotic objects was widespread e n o u g h to generate both an academic (Findlen 1991) and commercial exchange (Piggott 1976: 107). This interest can be directly linked with the rapid expansion of knowledge of the world beyond Europe. N o t only did the limits of the k n o w n world recede dramatically after the discovery of America in 1492, but the n u m b e r and diversity of 'voyages of discovery' increased exponentially (Hogden 1964: 112). 5 T h e exotic, in the form of customs, practices and objects, were incorporated into both forms of microcosm: the book and the cabinet. T h e narratives (histories) in which the ship's captain or doctor chronicled these voyages, were assemblages of information, interweaving navigational observation, accounts of customs, mythological and biblical quotations, etc.. Occasionally, these were separated into an inventory and a chronology (Defert 1982: 12—14), but similitude still united the interpretation of observations (Boon 1982: 38; Defert 1982: 12). In 1520 J o h a n n Boemus produced one of the first collections of this p r o t o ethnographic material, published in England in 1555 as The fardk offations, with the aim of assembling information on exotic cultures in print, as others had employed the 'cabinet of curiosities' (Hogden 1964: 131). T h e relationship between the identities of these cultures (Patagonians, Feugians, etc.) and Europeans, were also interpreted through resemblance. Medieval conceptions of monstrous races were amalgamated with O l d Testament antidiluvianism and direct observations (Boon 1982; Mason 1990). Moreover, the effort to assimilate 'other' cultures into Renaissance

Copyrighted Material

32

Shaun Hides

understanding operated in concert with the interpretation of ancient peoples, through the observation of similitudes; for example, circumcision identified the resemblance between Indian tribes and O l d Testament Jews (Boon 1982: 162). 6 T h e analogy between exotic and ancient cultures became explicit in John White's illustrations (1580s) of Ancient Britons, which combined his observations of Virginian Indians made in N o r t h America with descriptions of Britons based on classical sources (Piggott 1976: 9). Images of exotic peoples had been available in England from the 1560s, for example, E d m u n d Harman's m o n u m e n t 1569 (Piggott 1976: 10), and 'Indians' became the constant point of reference for ancient cultures. D u r i n g the Late Renaissance objects and identity were both interpreted through the philosophy of resemblance. T h e microcosm provided the concrete dimensions which limited encyclopaedic collection, either in the b o o k or in the cabinet of curiosities. Ancient peoples and their artefacts were principally understood through their curiosity, or strangeness. They, like the exotic cultures being discovered at the time, constituted, in different ways, the limits of the world, and this explains the emphasis which Renaissance culture placed on the strange or curious (Mullaney 1983). T h e cabinet of the world (Kunstkammer) had to manifest the similitudes which crossed the entire k n o w n world. This could best be achieved by assimilating, and therefore controlling, the most diverse and strange objects: the extremities of the world. Viewed in this context, Renaissance antiquarians were neither confused, n o r lacking rigour in their interpretations of ancient peoples. Rather, their m o d e of ordering the world was radically different from our own. THE SEVENTEENTH A N D E I G H T E E N T H C E N T U R I E S : T H E W E L L L A I D TABLE By the mid-seventeenth century 'scientific antiquarianism' characterised by Baconian empiricism, is taken to have gradually rationalised the study of antiquity to some degree (Trigger 1989: 61). However, Foucault suggests that at this m o m e n t a seismic shift occurred from an episteme based o n interpretation, to a 'Classical' episteme based on representation. Foucault perhaps over-emphasises the discontinuity between the Renaissance and Classical epistemes. Certain practices, such as collecting, continued into the eighteenth century and later. However, it is clear that in the mid-seventeenth century the way in which knowledge was accumulated changed dramatically. Language was removed from the world of similitude to b e c o m e the transparent m e d i u m of representation. The essential problem of classical thought lay in the relations between name and order, how to discover a nomenclature that would be a taxonomy, or again, how to establish a system of signs that would be transparent to the continuity of being. (Foucault 1970: 208)

Copyrighted

Material

Material culture and cultural identity

33

For Foucault this episteme is typified by attempts to define a general grammar, or ideal language, e.g., Condilliac and Smith (Foucault 1970: 124); the development of classificatory systems in natural history based o n observing differential morphology, e.g., Linnaeus, Buffon (Foucault 1970: 162); and the analysis of economic exchange in terms of wealth, e.g., Hobbes, Locke, Condilliac (Foucault 1970: 167—8). T h e attempts to derive a universal grammar implied that language should reflect objects in as direct a way as possible; understanding consisted of ordered representation. Foucault argues that neither Cartesian rationality, nor Baconian empiricism, made natural history possible (Foucault 1970: 125—6), but rather, the restriction of the gaze to the observation of a species' morphology. T h e Systems of Linnaeus, Ray and Grew (1681: 150) provided a language through which each species was represented in the grid of identities. Each acquired its place (name) through observable features and was simultaneously differentiated from others approximating to it. Similarly, the understanding of commerce was transformed from an interpretation based on m o n e y as a sign of all intrinsic values, to one in which m o n e y was valued because it was the means to conduct exchange. All wealth was seen to be convertible into coinage, 'For Classical thought in its formative phase, m o n e y is that which permits wealth to be represented' (Foucault 1970: 177). T h e analysis of goods in circulation, on the basis of the exchange of monetary values, follows the same pattern as the differentiation of species in natural history, and of words in grammar. In this case the table or grid of values (identities) is established by the monetary values with which all goods are commensurate. 7 Similarly, the analysis of other cultures proceeded through the measurem e n t of their customs as deviations from the natural n o r m . Buffon (1971 [1749]) defines a series of h u m a n kinds and examines, 'traditionally sensational cross-cultural topics — eunuchs, harems, h u m a n sacrifice — by charting them as innocuous, physiological correlations between sexual forces and vocal range' (Boon 1982: 34). Helvetius analyses human diversity 'from Hottentots and Caribs to Fakirs and Brahmins' (Boon 1982: 34) in terms of gradable divergences from natural moral laws. These proto-ethnographies also display a clear concern to identify (name) groups, and attempt to differentiate (order) them in terms of the material conditions which each displayed. In England, the institutional centre for such projects was the Royal Society, founded in 1660. O n e of the aims of the Society was to replace the collection of curiosities, in cabinets of the world, with the systematic acquisition and cataloguing of objects representing the whole natural order. T h e establishment of this collection, the 'Repository', was articulated through the 'scientific' schemes of natural history and general grammar. T h e initial ordering of the collection was based on the universal language schemes with which several of the society's fellows, including J o h n Wilkins and the curator R o b e r t H o o k e , were involved (Hunter 1985: 164). H o o k e

Copyrighted Material

34

Shaun Hides

made explicit the link between the collection of objects, the universal languages and taxonomic tables in his General Scheme or Idea of the present state of Natural Philosophy (Hooper-Greenhill 1992: 154). However, the Classical character of the Royal Society Repository came entirely from the post hoc attempts to order and catalogue the collection. It remained an eclectic assemblage of objects, founded, and later added to, from private collections of curiosities. Following the Society's ideas o n rational language and classificatory schemes, N e h e m i a h Grew catalogued the Repository's artefacts in 1681. Whilst Grew hoped ' T h a t not only things strange and rare, but the most k n o w n and c o m m o n amongst us, were thus describ'd' (Grew 1681: p r e f ) , the Repository contained little that was commonplace. O n l y the parochial questionnaires, sent out in the 1670s by Ogilby, Machell and Lhwyd (Piggott 1985), offered a possible model for such a collection. Collection continued, both as a private concern related to the aesthetics of mercantilism (Bunn 1980), and also institutionally. However, it was n o longer central to the understanding of the material world. This was the age of the catalogue, the written expression of the Classical table of ordered knowledge. T h e Tradescants' collection was also catalogued in the late seventeenth century (MacGregor 1983). Ole Worm's M u s e u m was catalogued and rehoused by King Frederik III (Klindt-Jensen 1975), and antiquarians were now, in effect, writing annotated catalogues of field monuments. Several figures of the Royal Society, J o h n Aubrey (1626—97), Edward Lhwyd (1660-1709) and R o b e r t Plot (1640-96), were interested in antiquities. Antiquarianism underwent a radical transformation in the mid-seventeenth century, typified by the work of J o h n Aubrey. Aubrey himself was highly specific about this change in the nature of scholarship, dating it to 1649 (Piggott 1976: 102). Antiquarianism in the Royal Society's m o d e , from the 1680s onwards (Hunter 1971: 114), was characterised by the observation, classification and visual recording of field m o n u m e n t s , coins, inscriptions and architectural features. An excellent example of this approach is Aubrey's plan of Avebury from Monumenta Britannica (c.1687) (Trigger 1989: 48). Many antiquarians at the time, like Aubrey and Anstis, believed that recording field antiquities visually and collating t h e m was essential to their interpretation; Lhywd's classification of fossils even offered a model typology for artefacts (Piggott 1976: 20— 1).H Perhaps most notable of all was William Stukeley (1687-1765), w h o systematically produced illustrations of field m o n u m e n t s , classified into types, according to their form (Trigger 1989: 62). T h e interpretation of antiquities and their identification with tribes or peoples, was not obviously helped by the application of classificatory schemes to ancient objects. However, language classification came to bear directly o n the question of ancient Britons in the form of Lhwyd's hypothesis of C - and P-Britons (Piggott 1976: 20). T h e established

Copyrighted Material

Material culture and cultural identity

35

Renaissance analogy of exotic and ancient cultures was retained, but in the transformed m o d e of Classical comparison and differentiation. Whilst the Society's collection included ethnographic specimens, under humane rarities, it was rarely concerned with the study of other cultures per se. J o h n Locke compiled an annotated 'ethnographic' bibliography and R o b e r t H o o k e collected a series of programmes of enquiry for travellers in 1692 as General heads for the natural history of a country, great or small; drawn out for the use of travellers and navigators. But the discussion of other cultures was usually raised only in relation to other topics including antiquity. T h o m a s Hobbes, a friend of Aubrey, presented a model of the state of nature, an ancient time in which pre-social m e n lived. This state was defined, like exotic cultures, in terms of those aspects of rational society which it lacked, In such condition, there is no place for industry . . . no culture of the earth; no navigation; . . . no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. . . . The savage people in many places of America . . . live at this day in that brutish manner. (Hobbes 1969 [1651 J: 97-9) Aubrey turned Hobbes's abstract model into an explicit comparison in his Essay Towards the Description of the North Division of Wiltshire (1659). H e described the topography and flora of the area, the language, transport (curricles), social units (Reguli), defences and religion, concluding, ' T h e y k n e w the use of Iron. T h e y were 2 or 3 degrees, I suppose, less savage than the Americans' (Aubrey 1659, cited in Piggott 1976: 9). Aubrey's description shares Hobbes's low estimation of ancient Britons' lives, and assesses their circumstances in the same terms: their difference from the Native Americans (the State of Nature), and its representation in material conditions. Unlike the Renaissance form, which integrated antiquities, with other exotic objects, into the m i c r o cosm through similitude, Classical antiquarianism classified and represented objects according to the concrete criteria of the Natural Sciences, and identified them through their graduated divergence from a natural—moral order. Stukeley, often praised for his field work, is criticised for his continual association of m o n u m e n t s with druidic practices — the beginning of antiquarianism's decline into Romanticist fancy (Trigger 1989: 63—5). But Stukeleys interpretation of druidic practices is not categorically different from his contemporaries' identifications of Ancient Britons. H e too utilises the notion of a scaled decline from the natural—moral order, but produces a contrary estimation of ancient cultures. To him Druids are highest in that order, closer to primordial monotheism than contemporary religions.

Copyrighted Material

36

Shaun Hides

Analysing antiquities through the table of identities itself inhibited the development of antiquarianism. Unlike natural objects of study, which provided an almost endless series of instances and forms, antiquities were intrinsically rare and unusual. Hence, as Grew notes of the Repository, a systematic taxonomy was impossible 'because as yet the collection itself is not perfect' (Grew 1681: 124). Grew devised a complex system for classifying shells, but only a crude categorisation for antiquities. Moreover, whilst the ordering of exotic cultures was possible, their culture and material circumstances being observable, the classification of antiquities itself offered few insights into ancient cultures. T h e context of the natural sciences enabled the identification and ordering of antiquities, but circumscribed their historical interpretation. As Trigger (1989: 65—7) points out, by the mid-eighteenth century, R o m a n t i c i s m and nationalism offered n e w narratives through which artefacts could be interpreted. But their influence was m u c h more a measure of the limits of the Classical episteme, than of the foolishness of eighteenth-century antiquarians. Romanticism and particularly nationalism were also implicit in the development of the institutional interpretations of the past characteristic of the nineteenth century. NINETEENTH CENTURY: MODERNITY, M A N , L A N G U A G E , LIFE, LABOUR A N D N A T I O N Rationalist philosophy and systematic field practices are usually seen to have transformed nineteenth-century archaeology into a recognisably m o d e r n , scientific form (Daniel 1981; Trigger 1989). Yet there were other dimensions to archaeological thought at the time. For example, it has b e c o m e the accepted view that nineteenth-century archaeology was characterised by theories of racial superiority, and used to legitimise i m p e rialism (Trigger 1984; 1989). However, neither conventional models of the progressive influence of rationality, nor simple ideological critiques of colonialism can explain the emergence of n e w archaeological discourses relating objects to collective identities, or the development of the competing evolutionary and culture historical models of human prehistory and social development. 9 It is clear though, that n e w modes of interpretation, new forms of discourse and n e w practices characteristic of the m o d e r n discipline did emerge in archaeology at this time. In the late eighteenth century, the "Age of Revolution", socio-political and e c o n o m i c transformations were so numerous and far-reaching that the constitution of knowledge could hardly be expected to remain constant. However, Foucault does not directly link the emergence of a M o d e r n episteme to such social shifts. Rather, he explains it as the exhaustion of the Classical cpistcme's reliance on the representation of the natural order, and the development of the 'new empiricities' o f ' L a b o u r ' , 'Life' and 'Language' (Foucault 1970: 250). In Ricardo and,

Copyrighted

Material

Material culture and cultural identity

37

later, Marx, labour ceases to be seen as an abstract equivalence, and instead becomes regarded as a productive process which 'is the source of all value' (Foucault 1970: 254). After Cuvier, biology is constituted around the investigation of the processes of life, organic structure and functions, rather than the form of organisms (Foucault 1970: 263). Language, for G r i m m , Schegel, Rasp and Bopp, is an object of study in its o w n right, examined in its operation. It is n o longer a transparent m e d i u m of expression. Uniting these n e w discourses is the figure of ' M a n ' . In what Foucault terms the 'analytic of finitude' (1970: 313), Man is both the source of all intelligibility and the subject of all enquiry. H e is 'a living being (the subject of Biology), an instrument of production (a labouring subject), a vehicle for words which exist before him (subject to the language)' (Foucault 1970: 313). Man, recognising his finite nature, approaches the world through those empirical fields he himself defines; he is thus separated from God's creation, becomes sovereign in place of God; and therefore makes nature intelligible for himself. 'History' — the emergence of the empirical — came to occupy a similar place in the m o d e r n episteme to that which order had occupied for the classical m o d e of thought. T h e task within the n e w empirical fields, was to examine the point of origin of historical features, to analyse their processes of operation and their analogous relations to other structures. Given the foundation of history as the fundamental m o d e of being, together with the recognition of the historicity of thought itself (Foucault 1970: 219—20), n e w academic disciplines of the h u m a n sciences (philology, economics, and biology; but also anthropology, psychoanalysis and others) emerged to articulate Man's relation to the material world (Foucault 1970: 344). As a h u m a n science, archaeology was principally concerned with the origins and development of humanity — its history. T h e question of the relation between h u m a n beings and nature had been resolved in the classical episteme through the revelation of the natural order. However, in the nineteenth century the notion of History — i.e. the depth of time and the coming to being of the knowablc, empirical world — implied that the h u m a n past could only be articulated through an abstract or objective measure of the time of the past. Such a chronology, the ' T h r e e Age System', enabled T h o m s e n (1788-1865), and then Worsaae (1821-85) to analyse the (pre-)history of Denmark. T h e chronology, offered a framework through which the successive phases of the transformation of material by labour could identify distinct epochs, and the societies which produced these technologies. At the same time, their nationalism was expressed in the exploration of the origins and history of Denmark, and shaped by the ideals of the Enlightenment as manifested in revolutionary France (Trigger 1989: 74). Archaeologists' explanations of materiality and identity were also shaped by the practices linking the two in other institutional contexts. T h e discourses of the h u m a n sciences found practical expression in a series of

Copyrighted Material

38

Shaun Hides

new institutions: asylums, hospitals, prisons and schools (Foucault 1965; 1970; 1973; 1977). Each of these institutions whilst expressing a specific social function, simultaneously promulgated new modes of existence, actively determining the lives they sought to improve. T h e early n i n e teenth century saw the emergence of the concept of society as a totality: 'the people', or nation (see also Jones, chapter 4). Foucault argues that this social body is an effect 'not of a consensus [shared bourgeois values, democratic participation, etc.] but of the materiality of power operating on the very bodies of individuals' (Foucault 1980: 55). These institutions, asylums, hospitals, schools, operated practices of subjectification: the production of complicit citizens — 'Docile Bodies' (Foucault 1977). Foucault's exemplary instance of such practices is represented by Bentham's Panopticon, an ideal prison in which docility is achieved by continuous surveillance and routimsation. T h e subject ultimately b e c o m i n g the instrument of their o w n subjectification by the inducement of self-surveillance (Foucault 1977: 201). Revolutionary France was a primary site of emergence for such institutions. 1 0 T h e establishment of the M u s e u m Fran^ais in the Louvre in 1793 instituted the explicit integration of artefacts within a disciplinary framework (Hooper-Greenhill 1992: 171). Conflict and military—bureaucratic organisation enabled the post-revolutionary commissions to acquire new collections of artefacts and to establish a hierarchical system of central and regional museums (Bazin 1967). Moreover, a new administrative apparatus was established to extend the principle of surveillance to the acquisition, distribution, conservation and exhibition of artefacts within the m u s e u m (Hooper-Greenhill 1992: 179-85). Artefacts within such collections were re-ordered and exhibited according to the artist's country of origin, and so as to represent the historical development of that country's art (Bazin 1967: 159). T h u s , philosophical discourse linked artefacts with disciplinary practices. T h e educative function of such displays was an explicit discursive m o d e of the constitution of the social body. T h e history of France was identified with History per se; as Hudson (1987: 42) points out, the M u s e e Centrale des Arts recognised no 'English School' of painting because England was not part of the empire. Whilst the disciplinary museum can be characterised within the practices of the institution itself (e.g., Hooper-Greenhhill 1992), the ordering of artefacts can also be examined from positions outside the cabinet (e.g., Bennett 1994). Bennett (1994) argues that the viewpoint of power implicit in institutional surveillance has its counterpart in the gaze invited by the 'exhibitionary complex'. T h e large-scale and public exhibition of artefacts, either as an instructional device in museums or as a spectacular m o d e of consumption in the exhibitions and arcades which emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, was exemplified by the Great

Copyrighted Material

Material culture and cultural identity

39

Exhibition at the Crystal Palace in 1851 and the Paris Exhibition of 1855 (Bennett 1994: 128, 132). In these and later exhibitions the visitor consumed the artefacts only by looking at them: through the spectacular (Richards 1991). T h e visitor to museums and exhibitions was not subjectified by the surveillance of the museum officials, rather the viewing of objects on display caused an elision of the viewer's gaze with the gaze of power. T h e power of the Exhibitionary complex is not a reversal of the principles of surveillance, its effect, lies in its incorporation of aspects of those principles together with those of the panorama, forming a technology of vision which served not to atomise and disperse the crowd but to regulate it, and to do so by rendering it visible to itself, by making the crowd itself the ultimate spectacle. (Bennett 1994: 131-2) In such spectacles the social b o d y ' ' is constituted from individual beings through three domains (Dean 1994): the discursive practices which articulate objects within the domain of knowledge (the exhibition narratives); governmental practices problematising objects in relation to power (the administrative and professional roles which produce and control the space of the exhibition); and the ethical practices 'techniques of the self which order the formation of the self as a desiring but self-referencing subject (the constrained but 'free' choices offered by c o m m o d i t y consumption vs. the d e c o r u m of the crowds) (Bennett 1994: 134). T h e arcades and department stores, like the great exhibitions, with their spectacularity offered 'the spatial and visual means for a self-education from the point of view of capital' (Tafuri 1976: 83). Exhibition was a pivotal form, through which the dramatic expansion in the n u m b e r and diversity of commodities, available to large urban populations, changed the way in which people constructed their lives. Mass-produced goods became integrated into a series of practices through which middle- and working-class identities were articulated (Bennett 1994; Briggs 1988; Richards 1991). T h e discourses which ordered objects within these contexts were crucial to the definition of those identities, and to related notions of identity produced by academic discourses. Labour for Ricardo (Foucault 1970: 253—63), and later in Marx's analysis of capitalism, constituted the activity which transformed inert matter into value. This value was both economic and cultural. T h e Great Exhibition represented national identities, and the hierarchy of those identities, through displays of the artefacts produced in each country (Richards 1991: 25). Moreover, exhibition together with its street counterpart the advertisement, offered instances through which cultural development could be analysed (see Richards 1991: 47). T h e view that labour, in transforming nature (the production of artefacts), constituted the fundamental activity in the rise of civilization was widely held, and was certainly central to the m o d e r n m o d e of archaeological interpretation.

Copyrighted Material

40

Shaun Hid es

Both in exhibitions and archaeological discourses on the past, narratives addressing history in terms of progress were significantly bolstered at this time. On the Origin of Species, Darwin's (1859) account of the origin and development of M a n in biological terms fin terms of Life), quickly influenced thinking on social development. 1 2 T h e work of Herbert Spencer (Stocking 1968: 234—69) and T h o m a s Huxley (Trigger 1989: 113), amongst others, established theories of social evolution based on racial differences. J o h n Lubbock (1834—1913) argued in Prehistoric Times (1965) that m o d e r n Europeans were biologically and culturally more advanced than their 'primitive' counterparts in Africa and elsewhere, and that parallels existed between contemporary primitives and ancient cultures because they occupied similarly low evolutionary positions. H e also emphasised the 'degenerate' nature of primitive cultures as a justification for Britain's Imperial rule (Trigger 1989: 116—18). Imperialism of course also allowed access to antiquities and enabled excavation. Lubbock's work was extremely influential, particularly in America, and similar colonial ideologies shaped archaeological studies of Africa, and other English colonies (Trigger 1989: 119-47). Such views were c o m m o n in the later nineteenth century. Many museums and exhibitions characterised the history of humanity in racial terms and represented differential social evolution through the display of artefacts. Thus, the subjected peoples of Africa and the Americas, represented by 'primitive' handicrafts, occupied the lowest levels of civilization [in terms of technological, social and physical evolution]. Naturally, European metropolitan cultures were the most spectacularly displayed (Bennett 1994: 146). T h e Paris Exposition of 1889 included a colonial city where the whole ambit of social evolution was represented, the primitive 'other' present in simulated villages populated by Africans and Asians (Bennett 1994: 148). In the displays of the Pitt-Rivers M u s e u m in Oxford the biological analogue of history — evolution — was most closely linked with the production of culture in the genetic or typological series into which Pitt-Rivers arranged Australian Aboriginal artefacts: Human ideas, as represented by the various products of human industry, are capable of classification into genera, species and varieties in the same manner as the products of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, and in their development from homogeneous to the heterogeneous they obey the same laws. (Lane Fox [Pitt-Rivers] 1874) Probably the most notorious archaeological attempt to link material culture and identity was made by Gustaf Kossinna (Trigger 1989: 163—70). T h e 'settlement archaeological m e t h o d ' , through which Kossinna (1911) identified distributions of artefact types, was important to his work and influence. However, Kossinna sustained his linkage of artefacts and ethnicity through a philosophically derived nationalism, acquired in an

Copyrighted Material

Material culture and cultural identity

41

intellectual context shaped by Herder and Fichte ( D u m o n t 1986). H e elided the themes of historical development in language, and h u m a n progress [life] into the racial concept of volk. T h e vigour — the p r o d u c tivity — of the Germani was a consequence of their superior Aryan racial and linguistic characteristics. Kossinna's search for the origins and historical emergence of the Germani was a quintessential expression of m o d e r n philosophy.' 3 In c o m m o n with the progressivist and evolutionary discourses ordering museum and exhibition displays, Kossinna's archaeological theory utilised the empirical — Language, Labour and Life — to produce a hierarchical (racial) history of Man, which was typically nationalistic. Whilst Gordon Childe rejected the excesses of Kossinna's nationalism, the two had more in c o m m o n than the definition of an archaeological culture.' 4 Childe's culture-historical approach utilised the same empirical domains — Language, Labour and Life — in explanation of the human past. T h e difference was that culture history did not adopt the biological unilinear model of social evolution. However, Childe's definition of the ethnic groups that related to archaeological cultures was almost entirely linguistically based. T h e history of humanity — the development of social groups and the increasing complexity of h u m a n culture in general — were constant themes of his work. T h e means by which social evolution took place and could be discerned in the artefactual record were an amalgam of labour, Man Makes Himself (1936), a particular racial 'vigour and genius' (Childe 1925: 151), and linguistic and therefore intellectual superiority (Childe 1926: 3). It seems clear then, that from the early nineteenth century onwards, a distinctive m o d e of formal discourse on the past had emerged. T h u s m o d e r n archaeology sought evidence, conceptualised problems and interpreted artefacts, in similar ways to the other h u m a n sciences. But the emergence of this m o d e of analysis marked a disjunction from the ways in which materiality and identity had been related in Classical rationality. Philosophy defined the relationship between objects and identity historically, through the figure of Man, in the study of his languages, his racial origins and his industry.

CONCLUSIONS:

LATE/POST-MODERNITY

In this essay I have argued that the way in which the artefacts and identities of the past have been articulated has undergone a series of radical transformations since the Late Renaissance. This implies that the conventional picture of the development of Archaeology, in which there is a gradual revelation of more information about the past and a steady improvement of our theories and interpretations of that data, cannot be sustained. T h e archaeologists of the twentieth century are not simply making better use of the same (though more abundant) objective evidence

Copyrighted Material

42

Shaun Hides

as was available to antiquarians in the seventeenth century. Furthermore, the importance of the cultural context in which the past is studied is not limited to its influence on interpretation (Trigger 1989: 379). C o n t e m porary concerns do focus the minds and activities of archaeologists, as others, but their 'subjectivity' is not the central issue, as is often argued: The importance of ethnic issues and conflicts of interest in the modern world at least partly explains and justifies our interest in them in the past. Unfortunately, in investigating these questions as with so many others, we have tended to create the past in our own image. The challenge for the future . . . is to try to transcend this parochial subjectivism. (Shennan 1989: 30) T h e pre-conceptual frameworks, cpistemes, through which our culture orders the material and social worlds, have changed through time and are themselves specific to each time and culture. This affects not merely the interpretation of evidence, or the articulation of subjective influences with material data, but the very fabric of our understanding. T h e concepts and modes of analysis through which we interpret the past are not neutral, abstract tools, they are cultural products (see also Diaz-Andreu, chapter 3; Jones, chapter 4). As Binford has pointed out (1962; 1972), archaeology must be anthropological in that it must produce general theories. However, the historical and cultural derivation of concepts undermines the universalist assumptions which such theories have generally been founded u p o n . In essence, I would argue that the importance of b o t h anthropology (ethnography) and history is that, w h e n applied to the analysis of the construction of knowledge, they offer the possibility of deriving theories of materialism and identity which are more than parochially based generalisations. It is likely, for example, that the concept of alienation will be useful in the analysis of the development of nineteenth- and twentieth-century mass consumption in industrialised societies; but it becomes problematic w h e n extended to the investigation of the ritual use of objects by the Walbiri of the central Australian desert (cf, Miller 1987: 5 3 - 6 3 ) . Alienation, as a tool for analysing material and social worlds, is as much an artefact of the m o d e r n world as is a cotton mill. It could constitute an element of a general theory of materialism if it were situated within an historical and cross-cultural context. This context would have to include its o w n historical derivation, and the materialism and sociocultural contexts of a diversity of other peoples. In contrast to previous and existing attempts to theorise materialism and identity in archaeology (e.g., Childe's cultural history, Binford's n e w archaeology, and Hodder's contextual archaeology), it must eschew the temptation to claim a transcendental, immanent or objective origin in the artefacts themselves. T h e thorough re-evaluation of the epistemic/cultural circumstances of European intellectual practice has already been addressed by

Copyrighted Material

Material culture and cultural identity

43

anthropologists. T h e y are beginning to see their discipline as just that: a cultural practice, rather than an objective scientific instrument (Clifford 1988; Clifford and Marcus 1986). Therefore, the prospect of producing a similar archaeological theory of materialism and identity may not be so daunting. Such a theory would offer a useful perspective from which to analyse theoretical archaeology's contemporary concern for the distinctly ' p o s t - m o d e r n ' themes of textuality, critical theory, multiple identities, consumption, individualism, etc.. It may also illuminate the current p r e o c cupation, in heritage and museums presentation, with nineteenth-century industrial culture (Walsh 1992). M o r e specifically, the internal contradictions in archaeological conceptions of cultural identity can only be resolved with reference to their o w n historical emergence.

NOTES 1 Childe's neo-Marxist notion of socio-historical evolution led to analyses based on generalised types or stages of social development, within which he framed a normative conception of anthropological cultures and a functionalist conception of material culture (see Trigger 1980). 2 An interesting example of these emerging discourses is to be found in the Italian City States in the Renaissance, where mathematical education, concerned with solid geometry and the estimation and valuation of objects as commodities developed, as did contractual and aesthetic valuation of paintings (Baxandall 1972). 3 For example, Robert Fludd's cosmography, Integrae Naturea Speculum Artis que imago [The Mirror of the Whole of Nature and the Image of Art] (Hooper-Greenhill 1992: 111). 4 The letter from John Tradescant 'To the marchants of the Ginne Company & the Gouldcost Mr. Humphrie Slainy Captain Crispe & Mr. Clobery & Mr. John Wood Cape marchant' (1625) gives an excellent illustration of this theme. It requests that they find amongst other things: on Ellophants head with the teeth In it very larg...of All ther Strang sorts of fowelles & Birds Skines and Beakes Lcggs & phethers that be Rare or Not Knowne to usof All sorts of Strang fishes skines of those parts the Greatest sorts of shellfishes shells of Great flying fishes & sucking fishes withe what els strangof the habits weapons & Instrumentsof ther Ivory Long fluts . . . of All sorts of Serpents and Snakes Skines & Especially of that sort that hathe a Combe on his head lyke a Cock . . . Of All sorts of Shining Stones or of Any Strang ShapesAny thing that Is Strang (MacGregor 1983: 20)

5 For example, in 1532 William Hawkins presented a Brazilian king to the court of Henry VIII; in 1550 a whole Brazilian village was returned to France (Figgott 1976: 30—1), and in 1600 the East India Company was granted a charter by Queen Elizabeth I consolidating the commercial exploitation of these discoveries. 6 The interpretation of such similitudes also integrated exotic peoples into the realm of European political identities, Protestant—Catholic conflicts, and

Copyrighted Material

44

7

8

9

10

11

12 13

14

Shaun Hides disputes between sovereigns. Thus for Samuel Purchas and Theodori de Bry (a Huguenot), natives in South America and the East Indies were corrupted by the Spanish and Dutch emissaries of the Pope (Anti-Christ) into fallen practices such as sodomy. For Hobbes this grid corresponded to the natural order by virtue of the sovereign's power to legitimate its denominations (by minting the coinage) in the heart of the Leviathan (State) (Foucault 1970: 179), and through the utility of the objects exchanged. Hobbes also invests authority over the meaning of words and the definition of identities in the sovereign of the absolutist state, identifying its configurations with the natural order (Ryan 1982: 3). Others, like Elias Ashmole (1617-92), William Dugdale (1605-86) and Robert Sibbald (1641-1722), operated with essentially the same frame of reference. The idea that these differences are the result of the different academic biographies of their authors or their divergent beliefs merely displaces the question to another level of enquiry. The situation in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century France produced specific expressions of the new episteme and the disciplinary regimes, but it was not an isolated instance. In England, numerous local philosophical societies were established from the early nineteenth century onwards. These often included museums, founded with donations from colonial administrators, which were also intended for 'public education' (Walsh 1992). Indeed, similar institutions formalised cultural practices throughout Europe at this time. The social body implied 'the people', or a nation as a whole, integrated by their common history, language, practices and institutions etc.. It was obviously the condition upon which Sociology was founded. The idea of social progress had been established since the Enlightenment and described in evolutionary terms by Lamark (Stocking 1968: 234—69). As Foucault characterises it 'In the nineteenth century, philosophy was to reside in the gap between history and History, between events and the Origin, between evolution and the first rending open of the source, between oblivion and Return' (Foucault 1970: 219—20). This is more than evident in the titles of Kossinna's work: Tlw Origin of the Germani (1911), German Prehistory, a Pre-eminently National Discipline (1914). See Trigger (1980; 1989) for a conventional account of the relationship.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abercrombie, J. (1912) A Study of the Bronze Age Pottery in Great Britain and Ireland and Its Associated Grave Goods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baudrillard, J. (1994) Symbolic Exchange and Death. London: Sage. Baxandall, M. (1972) Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bazin, G. (1967) The Museum Age. Brussels: Desoer, S.A. Publishers. Bennett, T. (1994) 'The exhibitionary complex.' In N. Dirks, T. Eley and S. Ortner (eds), Culture, Power, History.: 123—154. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Copyrighted Material

Material culture and cultural identity

45

Binford, L. (1962) 'Archaeology as anthropology.' American Antiquity 28(2): 217-25. (1972) An Archaeological Perspective. London: Seminar Press. Boon, J.A. (1982) Other Tribes, Other Scribes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bnggs, R. (1988) Victorian Things. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Buffon, G.-L. de (1971 [1749]) Histoire Naturelle De I'Homme. Paris: Francois Maspero. Bunn, J.H. (1980) 'The aesthetics of British mercantilism.' New Literary History 11: 303-21. Burke, P. (1974) Tradition and Innovation in Renaissance Italy. London: Fontana. Childe, V.G. (1925) The Dawn of European Civilization. London: Kegan Paul. (1926) The Aryans: a Study of Indo-European Origins. London: Kegan Paul. (1929) The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (1930) The Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1936) Man Makes Himself. London: Watts. Clarke, D.L. (1968) Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen. Clifford, J. (1988) The Predicament of Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. and G. Marcus (eds) (1986) Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Collingwood, R.G. (1946) The Idea of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daniel, G. (1967) The Origins and Growth of Archaeology. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (1981) A Short History of Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson. Dean, M. (1994) Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault's Methods and Historical Sociology. London and New York: Routledge. Defert, D. (1982) 'The collection of the world: accounts of voyages from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.' Dialectical Anthropology 7: 11-20 Duniont, L. (1986) Essays on Individualism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Einstein, E.L. (1979) 'The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, J. (1956) A History of the Society of Antiquaries. Oxford: The Society of Antiquaries. Findlen, P. (1991) 'The economy of scientific exchange in Early Modern Italy.' In B. Moran (ed.), Patronage and Institutions.: 5-24. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Foucault, M. (1965) Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. London: Tavistock. (1970) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock. (1973) The Birth of the Clinic. London: Tavistock. (1977) Discipline and Punish. London: Allen Lane. (1980) 'Body/Power.' In C. Gordon (ed.), Power /Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972—1977.: 55-62. Brighton: Harvester. Grew, N. (1681) Musaeum Rcgalis Societatis. London. Harrison, R.J. (1980) The Beaker Folk. London: Thames and Hudson. Hobbes, T. (1651 [1969]) D'viathan. London: Andrew Crooke [Menston: Scholar Press].

Copyrighted Material

46

Shaun Hides

Hodder, I. (1982) Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1986) Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ed.) (1987) The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hogden, M. (1964) llarly Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992) Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London: Routledge. Hudson, K. (1987) Museums of Influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunter, M. (1971) 'The Royal Society and the origins of British archaeology.' Antiquity hw: 113-21, 187-92. (1985) 'The cabinet institutionalised: the Royal Society's "Repository" and its background.' In O. Impey and A. MacGregor (eds), The Origins of Museums.: 159-64. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Impey, O. and A. MacGregor (eds) (1985) The Origins of Museums. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kendrick, T.D. (1950) British Antiquity. London: Methuen and Co. Klindt-Jenscn, O. (1975) A History of Scandinavian Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson. Kossinna, G. (1911) Die Hcrkunft der Cermanen. Leipzig: Kabitzsch. (1914) Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte cine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft. Wiirzburg: Kabitzsch. Lane Fox, A.H. (1874) Catalogue of the Anthropological Collection lent by Colonel Lane Fox. . . . London: British Museum. Lubbock, J. (1865) Prc-historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. London: Williams and Norgate. MacGregor, A. (1983) Tradcscant's Rarities. Oxford: Clarendon Press. McLellan, D. (1980) Marx's Grundrisse. London: Macniillan. Malina, J. and Z. Vasicek (1990) Archaeology Yesterday and Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mandrou, R. (1978) Prom Humanism to Science 1480-1700. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Mason, P. (1990) Deconstructing America. London: Routledge. Mauss, M. (1931) Instructions Sommaires Pour les Collectings d'Obfets iithnographiques. Paris: Musee d'Ethnographie Trocadero. Miller, D. (1987) Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Mukerji, C. (1983) Prom Craven Images. New York: Columbia University Press. Mullaney, S. (1983) 'Strange things, gross terms, curious customs: the rehearsal of cultures in the Late Renaissance.' Representations 3: 40—67. Murray, D. (1904) Museums, Their History and Their Use. Glasgow: Glasgow University Press. Piggott, S. (1938) 'The Early Bronze Age in Wessex.' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4: 52-106. (1954) The Neolithic Cultures of The British Isles. London: Cambridge University Press. (1967) Celts, Saxons and the Parly Antiquarians. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (1976) Ruins in a Landscape. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Copyrighted Material

Material culture and cultural identity

47

(1985) (revised edition) William Stukeley: An Eighteenth Century Antiquarian. London: Thames and Hudson. Renfrew, C. (1984) Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (1987) Archaeology and Language. London: Jonathan Cape. Richards, T. (1991) The Commodity Culture of Victorian England. London: Verso. Ryan, M. (1982) Marxism and Deconstruction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Shennan, S.J. (1978) 'Archaeological cultures: an empirical investigation.' In I. Hodder (ed.), Hie Spatial Organisation of Culture.: 113—39. London: Duckworth. (ed.) (1989) Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London: Unwin Hyman. Smith, A.D. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Stocking, G.W. Jr. (1968) Race, Culture and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology. New York: Free Press. Tafuri, M. (1976) Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Trigger, B. (1980) Gordon Childe: Revolutions in Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson. (1984) 'Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist.' Man 19: 355-70. (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walsh, K. (1992) The Representation of the Past. London: Routledge.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER THREE

CONSTRUCTING IDENTITIES T H R O U G H CULTURE The past in the forging of Europe MARGARITA

DIAZ-ANDREU

INTRODUCTION This essay seeks to offer some reflections on the use of the concept of 'culture' in archaeology. It will be argued that the concept of culture is closely linked to the nationalist ideologies which emerged during the last two centuries, and ultimately to conceptions of otherness which have dominated Western thought since Classical times. T h e use of the concept of culture illustrates the influence which contemporary concerns have had on the analysis of past societies, as well as the parallel ethnocentricity which characterises studies of existing non-Western societies. Childe (1929) was the first to explicitly define the concept of culture in the archaeological literature. H e wrote that 'we find certain types of remains - pots, implements, ornaments, burial rites, house forms constantly recurring together. Such a complex of regularly associated traits we shall term a "cultural g r o u p " or just a " c u l t u r e " ' (Childe 1929: v—vi). T h e use of the concept of culture in archaeology did, however, predate Childe's explicit definition which closely resembled the systematic application of the concept in the work of Gustaf Kossinna (1911; 1914) at the turn of the twentieth century. Like Kossinna, Childe used the concept of culture to refer to an essence, that is, something intrinsically natural that preceded the very existence of the group, provoked its creation, and defined its character. This essence, according to Childe, took o n a concrete form in a series of material elements, which were assumed to correspond to the h u m a n group. In this sense he went on to write that, 'We assume that such a complex [of regularly associated traits] is the material expression of what would today be called a " p e o p l e " ' (Childe 1929: vi).

Copyrighted Material

Constructing identities through culture

49

It can be further argued that the concept of culture had been explicitly defined and applied to prehistoric societies even before Kossinna and Childe, by the British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor. Tylor (1871) began his b o o k Primitive Culture by explaining what he understood by the concept of culture which he had adopted from German anthropology (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952: 146): 'Culture, or civilization, . . . is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a m e m b e r of society' (Tylor 1871: 1, my emphasis). His use of the concept in the study of both contemporary and prehistoric societies was not surprising as archaeology and anthropology did not b e c o m e separate disciplines until the twentieth century, and nineteenth-century authors frequently assumed a direct correspondence between contemporary 'primitive' groups and prehistoric ones. All these definitions reflect elements which are still associated with the concept of 'culture' today: in particular, the fact that a very wide range of cultural attributes, including virtually all social practices, are directly related to particular h u m a n groups. Such an approach can be traced to the use of the concept from the late eighteenth century onwards, and with increasing frequency from the mid-nineteenth century, to refer to the spirit or the defining essence of a people, and in a metaphorical sense, to the people itself. W h a t is surprising, however, is that until n o w this essentialist conceptualisation of culture has been uncritically accepted in archaeology, and consequently the assumption that h u m a n groups can be rigidly and clearly differentiated from one another has been largely unquestioned (although see Sherman 1989). In this chapter I trace the emergence and complex semantic history of the term 'culture' in order first, to explain its widespread acceptance, and second, to highlight its implications.

THE CONCEPTS OF NATIO,

GENS A N D

POPULUS

Although the t e r m 'culture' has only been used in its m o d e r n sense for the last three to four hundred years (see below), 2 the elements which it refers to were previously conceptualised through other Latin terms, such as natio, gens and populus and their translations in various European languages. Natio was the Latin term for the Greek word ethnos, which was used to define a n u m b e r of people living together with something in c o m m o n , for example a sanctuary or a language. O t h e r Latin terms in part coincided semantically with natio, namely populus and gens, which was a translation of the Greek genos. However, as a n u m b e r of studies have demonstrated (Dauge 1981; Hartog 1980), the use of these terms reflected Greek and R o m a n perceptions of others, rather than the selfperceptions of these other groups. Furthermore, the construction of Greek and R o m a n identities took place through these constructions of the

Copyrighted Material

50

Margarita Diaz-Andreu

'other'. For instance, the Greeks were conscious of forming, in a unique and absolute way, a racial, linguistic, religious, legal and moral c o m m u n i t y 3 that was superior to all others (Dauge 1981). These Latin terms did not disappear during the Middle Ages. T h e y can be found, for example, in English documents in the formula super omnes nationes (Maravall 1981 [1954|: 441), and also very frequently in texts from the different kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula. In his study of the idea of Spain in the Middle Ages, Jose Antonio Maravall argues that the t e r m natio was used to refer to groups of people from the point of view of their origin or genesis, responding more or less vaguely to the etymological origin of the word. . . . This origin was not always genetic in character; on occasion it reflected a sense of territory, on others a sense of race, and given that the concepts of territory and race were also imprecise and variable, the concept of nation, even in the strictest case when it was intended to refer to people with a common origin, was very indeterminate. Accordingly, a group of people could form part of various nations. (Maravall 1981 [1954]: 476)

D u r i n g the Renaissance, Europe's rediscovery of the Classical world had considerable influence, which was reflected in the way in which the past was understood. T h e use of the terms natio, gens and populus spread considerably, although their use was initially restricted to R o m a n c e languages. This development can clearly be seen by comparing the influence of classical literature upon the works of two major figures, Cervantes (1547—1616) and Shakespeare (1564—1616). In a play about the heroic defeat of the town of Numantia by the R o m a n s , Cervantes used the term nation to refer to Spain, whereas Shakespeare employed the term 'country' in his works, even in those such as Julius Caesar or Pericles which were set in antiquity (Shakespeare 1954: 844, 1071). In countries where R o m a n c e languages were not spoken, such as those of the British Isles, the use of the term 'nation' to refer to past human groups emerged somewhat later, towards the end of the seventeenth century. Many examples of the use of the term 'nation' can be found in the works of some of the best k n o w n antiquarians such as J o h n Toland, William Stukeley and Charles Vallancey. However, numerous examples also testify to the continued use of the term 'people' alongside that of 'nation'. In 1797 John Frere described some Acheulean hand-axes as 'weapons of war, fabricated and used by a people w h o had not the use of metals' (cited in Daniel 1975: 3 1 , my emphasis). Still later, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Sir Richard Colt Hoare described the aim of his work as, 'to ascertain to which of the successive inhabitants of the island they [the prehistoric antiquities| are to be ascribed, or whether, in fact they are the work of more than one people' (cited in Daniel 1975: 3 1 , my emphasis). T h e same author, however, also used the word 'nation', affirming in his Tour in Ireland, published at the beginning

Copyrighted Material

Constructing identities through culture

51

of the nineteenth century, that it was still not k n o w n 'to what nation the construction of this singular m o n u m e n t [New Grange] may reasonably be attributed' (quoted in Daniel and Renfrew 1988: 1 9 - 2 0 , my emphasis). Thus, the Renaissance witnessed the development of a concern with the European past through the history of individual 'peoples' or 'nations'. Antiquarian accounts of the past reflected the particular historical context in which they were produced (see also Hides, chapter 2), pursuing concrete interests through the application of classically-derived concepts that they transposed to the most remote archaeological remains in Europe. In a similar fashion the same concepts were applied to n o n - E u r o p e a n groups encountered via European colonisation, groups which would later be compared to the long extinct societies which had inhabited Europe many centuries before.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE TERM ' C U L T U R E ' T h e word 'culture' appeared in at least two R o m a n c e languages, Italian and Castilian (i.e. Spanish), in the fifteenth century (Cortelazzo and Zolli 1979: 305; Maravall 1977: 82), 4 but it only became used as a synonym for 'nation' in the seventeenth century. In accordance with its roots in the Latin verb colcrc (to cultivate), culture initially meant the action or practice of cultivating the soil, cultivating or rearing a plant or crop. 3 In the sixteenth century the term acquired a further metaphorical meaning, namely the cultivation o f ' t h e interior regions of man', hence acquiring a moral and spiritual value (Maravall 1977: 82). It was in the seventeenth century that it first appeared as a concept which comprised the accumulation of spiritual, technical, and political qualities which made each people different from the rest. Thus, for the first time the term 'culture' could be used in the plural. For instance, J e r o n i m o de San Jose wrote that Spain 'today has come to surpass the finest culture of the Greeks and Latins' (cited in Maravall 1977: 84, my emphasis). According to Maravall, the context of this statement suggests that J e r o n i m o de San Jose was using the t e r m 'culture' to signify a unified and compact group which had achieved a high degree of historical development (Williams 1988: 90). Eighteenth-century authors were to make more frequent use of the correspondence between 'culture' and 'nation', and Maravall has argued that: it makes a great deal of sense that it was in Spain that this evolution [of the meaning of the word 'culture'] was most rapid, as centuries earlier the Iberian Peninsula itself, and from the end of the fifteenth century, exotic places (the Canary Islands, the Americas), provided evidence of the coexistence of ethnic groups that not only differed in customs, myths, or certain aspects of their mentality and way of life, but in everything which concerned them. The need quickly arose for a word which would globally refer to these distinct ensembles, and it was the word 'culture' which came to be used for this purpose. (Maravall 1977: 86)"

Copyrighted Material

52

Margarita Diaz-Andreu

T h e term 'culture' also appeared in German in the eighteenth century and by the end of this century it was being used as a synonym for 'nation' in both G e r m a n and Spanish. 7 This development is frequently attributed to the German intellectual tradition in general (see e.g. Williams 1988: 89), and in particular to Herder, w h o wrote in the first volume of his Ideen zur Philosophic dcr Geschichte dcr Menschheit [Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Humanity] (1784-1791): ' W h i c h people (Volk) on earth does not have its own culture (Cultur)?' (Herder 1887: 4). x However, the concept of culture was used in this fashion by other G e r m a n authors, and by Spaniards, at a similar time, challenging the view that the use of culture as a synonym for nation was an exclusively German Herderian development. For instance, in 1785 the German author Christoph Meiners published Grundriss dcr Geschichte dcr Menschheit [Elements for the History of H u m a n i t y ] , in which he aimed to examine the peoples' culture (Garo Baroja 1985: 35). In the first volume of his Historia Gritica de Espaha y de la Cultura Espahola [Gritical History of Spain and Spanish culture] (1783) de Masdeu used the term 'culture' as a unitary concept defining a human group. In this sense he explained that his goal was to write 'a complete history of the political state of Spain, and of the culture of all its inhabitants of all conditions and ages' (de Masdeu 1783: 16, my emphasis). In 1785 he also spoke of ' R o m a n culture' and of 'Greek and Garthaginian culture' (de Masdeu 1785: vi—vii), clearly using the term 'culture' as a synonym of 'nation'. 9 T h e term 'culture' passed from G e r m a n to French (Maravall 1977: 85), 1 " but the term civilisation, n o w rarely used as a synonym of culture (in its m o d e r n sense), tended to be employed in France (Escobar 1984; Maravall 1977: 85) until the nineteenth century. T h e English derivative of 'civilisation', 'civility', was also in use until the nineteenth century (Williams 1988: 88). In France the term 'culture' replaced that of 'couture' in the seventeenth century, but it continued to be used in the same old sense of individual intellectual development (the first meaning given by William 1988, see note 2) rather than as an equivalent to the term 'nation' right up to the twentieth century. To indicate this second meaning in France the word 'civilisation' was used. Some non-French archaeologists and anthropologists, such as Tylor (1871, see above), Bosch Gimpera (1912) and Childe (1929), moreover, also used this term. T h e shift in the meaning of the word 'culture', from a h u m a n process (Williams 1988: 87) to an abstract n o u n referring to particular h u m a n groups, was just one aspect of an ideological transformation taking place in Europe which would ultimately lead to the appearance of political nationalism, an ideology which has deeply marked the destiny of the entire world during the last two centuries.

Copyrighted Material

Constructing identities through culture NATIONALISM AND

53

CULTURE

T h e concept of the 'nation' espoused by the French Revolution of 1789 was based on the notion of'national sovereignty' through which the b o u r geoisie was able to break the m o n o p o l y of political power enjoyed by the nobility and its principal representative, the monarchy. This was then substituted by the 'nation', defined as the body of individuals governed by the same law and represented by the same legislative assembly (Kamenka 1976: 10). From a political perspective, therefore, the French Revolution resulted in a transformation of the way in which the individual's relation to the state was perceived. Very rapidly, however, the meaning of nationalism was altered by the introduction of an essentialist cultural element to the concept of nation, which came to be perceived as something derived from nature predating any other form of political organisation. In the long t e r m this shift signified the erosion of the notion of'national sovereignty'. T h e emergence of an essentialist cultural nationalism is evident in the ideas ofjohann Gottlieb Fichte (1762—1814). Albeit without actually using the term 'culture', Fichte centred his discourse on the G e r m a n language and spirit (Kedourie 1988 [1966]: 48, 51), characteristics which others would later label 'culture'. Whilst in the French Revolution 'nation' had been identified with 'state' (that is, with the French state), the use of the term 'culture' to refer to the supposed unifying essence of a group of people irrespective of w h e t h e r they were politically autonomous, enabled a radical transformation of the basis of nationalist ideology embodied in the claim to self-determination. In this way, human groups that claimed to have their own distinctive culture (comprising language, race, religion a n d / o r character) could make demands for political self-government and independence. However, the question remained as to w h o defined the distinctive cultural characteristics of a particular group and, by implication, w h o belonged to the group. Therefore, whilst scholars of nationalism have argued that nineteenth-century intellectuals 'created' (Gellner 1964) or 'imagined' (Anderson 1983) nations, it might also be pointed out that they did the same with the 'cultures' of these nations. While it has long been understood that nationalism radically transformed Western political philosophy (Kedourie 1988 [1966]), m u c h less is k n o w n about h o w these changes influenced the study of the past and, in particular, archaeology. First, the emergence of cultural nationalism contributed to a conceptualisation of the nation as an organism with a life of its own. If the nation (or a particular culture) existed it was because it had been b o r n at some point in the past and during its existence had acquired its own distinct character. Hence, the importance ascribed to tracing the steps which had brought the nation to its present state. T h e interest in this question provoked an explosion of historical studies, which were consequently characterised by their political intentionality. T h e development of both history and archaeology played a vital role in the construction of European identities and of their dissemination through

Copyrighted Material

54

Margarita Diaz-Andreu

all kinds of media, such as the arts, scientific discourse and museums (Anderson 1983; Hobsbawm 1983). This explains why the adjective 'national' came to be appended to state institutions connected with archaeology, for example museums. D e n m a r k is perhaps the earliest example, the Danish National M u s e u m opening to the public in 1807 (Kristiansen 1981: 22). In other countries national museums were established at a later date, for instance, 1825 in Mexico (Lorenzo 1984: 90) and 1867 in France (Schnapp 1984: 49). I 0 Second, the success of political nationalism arising from the French Revolution meant that the use of the term 'nation' became commonplace in studies of the past in countries where R o m a n c e languages were not spoken. It began to appear frequently in publications such as Nilsson's Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia (1838—43) in which the author pointed out that 'nations spring into existence, and, in their turn, decline and fall' (cited in Daniel 1975: 45). This personification of the nation was subsequently popularised by such authors as Spengler, although in reality the roots of the idea lay in the late eighteenth century." A third effect of nationalism on studies of ancient societies, and s o m e thing which nearly all authors of the period were well aware of, was the politicisation of their work. By claiming that what they called nations in the past were in fact the seeds of contemporary nations, nineteenthcentury researchers sought to legitimate the latter. An example of this position is provided by the Spanish intellectual Joaquin Costa, w h o argued that the Celtiberian 'nation' was the first manifestation of Spanish nationality, and maintained that the Iberian Peninsula saw the creation of the 'nation' at the same time as the Hellenic nation was being formed (Costa 1879: 102 and 103; see also R u i z Zapatero, chapter 12). THE T W E N T I E T H C E N T U R Y : THE T R I U M P H OF THE TERM ' C U L T U R E ' From the beginning of the twentieth century the term 'culture' progressively displaced other related concepts, most notably 'civilisation' and 'nation'. T h e reason why the concept of 'culture' came to predominate at this time and not during the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, w h e n it was also used in its m o d e r n sense, can be attributed to the consolidation of cultural nationalism following the unification of Italy in 1870 and G e r m a n y in 1871. That is, a nationalism n o longer based on the concept of national sovereignty, but on the essential character of particular human groups. T h e increase in the popularity of the concept of 'culture' was further stimulated by the fact that the newly united G e r m a n y emerged not only as a strong political power, but also as an intellectual stronghold. As a result, concepts such as 'culture' which were important in the Germanic world spread rapidly throughout the rest of Europe.

Copyrighted Material

Constructing identities through culture

55

Before G e r m a n unification, the use of the term 'culture' had already been consolidated in anthropology by Gustav Klemm, w h o in 1843 published the multi-volume Allgemeine Cultur-Geschichte dcr Metischheit [General Cultural History], which was followed in 1854—5 by his Allgemeine Culturwissenshaft. Die materiellen Grundlagen menschlicher Cultur [General Science of Culture. T h e Material Basis of H u m a n Culture] (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952: 146). T h e t e r m culture had been used in reference to prehistoric material at least by the Norwegian archaeologist, 12 O l o f R y g h in 1866 and 1871, and by his G e r m a n counterpart, Hans Hildebrand in 1870 (Mcinander 1981: 106). As noted above, the term was used by Sir Edward Burnett Tylor in the field of anthropology, which, it should be remembered, played an important role in the development of archaeology. Another German, Eduard Meyer, used it a little later, in 1884, in order to divide his history into chapters, each of which dealt with a particular culture ('die dgyptischc Kultur', 'die griechische Kultur). Nevertheless, it was the development of the theory of Kulturkreise (culture provinces) by Frobenius in 1898 ( Z w e r n e m a n n 1983: 31), and its application to archaeological material by Kossinna in 1911, which marked the coming of age of the term 'culture' in archaeology. From the early twentieth century onwards, the use of the term in the discipline became ever more frequent, as illustrated by Meinander's (1981) compilation which includes a n u m b e r of cases in N o r t h e r n Europe. Bosh Gimpera (1915) in Spain and Childe (1929) in Great Britain, are just two further examples. 'Culture' has now almost completely supplanted the terms 'nation' and 'civilisation' in archaeology, to the extent that the former is n o w rarely used in relation to past societies (although see Momigliano 1975), and the latter generally used to refer to state-organised societies. Even in the English-speaking world where the culture historical approach and the theory of culture provinces has largely been abandoned, 'culture' is still a key concept. If the modification of the meaning of the word 'culture' and its definitive acceptance in the nineteenth, and above all, twentieth century, was closely related to cultural political nationalism, does the use of the term have political connotations? T h e political implications of 'culture' are not as apparent as those of 'nation'. Nor, especially since World War II, do intellectuals act as explicitly, or as intentionally, with respect to political interests, as their nineteenth-century colleagues. Most authors would deny, therefore, that their use of the term 'culture' implies that they are referring to a group which is subject to a single political entity. In practice, however, examples exist of such a use of the term, Childe once again providing o n e of them. In his book The Prehistory of European Society (1958), the impression is constantly given that Childe conceived of cultures as being politically united groups. For instance, referring to the invaders w h o formed the 'culture' of Dimini to the east of Thessaly and C o r i n t h , he writes that:

Copyrighted Material

56

Margarita Diaz-Andreu Here the intruders expelled or subjugated the Sesklo villagers, betraying their North Balkan origin by the spirals and meanders painted on their technically inferior pots, by their employment of antler mattocks or axes, and perhaps by their domestic architecture, though preserving the same sort of ideological equipment. If the newcomers really built the fortifications round their hilltop villages and the little palaces enclosed therein, they could be regarded as a conquering aristocracy ruling subject Sesklo populations but themselves ruled by embryo kings. (Childe 1958: 58, my emphasis)

Most archaeologists do not assert such an explicit equivalence of the political unit and the cultural unit. However, it would seem important to emphasise that it is nonetheless a political decision to assemble what are potentially different h u m a n groups under a single name on the basis of a c o m m o n material culture. As has been argued above, such an approach is characteristic of an ethnocentric and presentist attitude towards the study of the past. Appeal cannot be made to anthropology in defence of this posture, as it shares the same nineteenth-century intellectual framework and associated assumptions as archaeology. In this it can be argued that the tribes - and, hence it might be suggested, the cultures which Europeans supposedly discovered and described were to some extent constructs of anthropologists' own making (see contributions to Vail 1988). An associated, though separate problem is that posed by the use of the t e r m 'culture' for overt political purposes in the twentieth century. Kossinna is perhaps the clearest example of the use of the culture concept in the pursuit of political interests. T h e distinctly conservative and even racist implications of Kossinna's concept of culture when used in relation to G e r m a n y were evident in his popular book Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte. Eine hervorragend nationale IVisseiischaft [German Prehistory, a Pre-Eminently National Discipline] (Kossinna 1914). Hitler's rise to power led to the develo p m e n t of Kossinna's ideas and the blatant exploitation of archaeology for nationalist purposes (Arnold 1990; Harke 1991: 1 8 7 - 9 1 ; Veit 1989). Following World War II the potential for the political manipulation of archaeology appears to have been forgotten in Europe until the last ten to fifteen years. Many of those w h o have studied the history of archaeology, such as Glyn Daniel, make only passing reference to this question and as a result the emergence of prehistoric studies appears to have been due to the development of geology and the debate on evolution, rather than to the rise of nationalist ideology. T h e work of some archaeologists constitutes an exception to this attitude (e.g., Canfora 1980; Clarke 1957: 2 5 6 - 6 4 ; H i m m e l m a n n 1976: 119-30; Wahle 1950 and 1951). A valuable clue to the political connotations of the use of the word 'culture' is given by recent scholarly trends. It would not seem u n reasonable to relate the e n o r m o u s increase in the study of Celtic 'culture' over the last few years to current attempts to construct a politically united

Copyrighted Material

Constructing identities through culture

57

Europe. Books, such as Lcs racines des Europeens. Des origines aux Celtes [The roots of the Europeans. O n the origins of the Celts] (Millotte and T h e v e m n 1988), indirectly associate the Celts with a culturally-united Europe. In a similar vein, the catalogue of the / Celti exhibition about the Celts, itself a good example of the revived interest in the subject, stated that 'the subject [of the Celts] is even more fascinating because, as is logical, most of o u r culture has been borrowed from theirs' (Benvenuti 1991). Equally, there has been an attempt to 'Celticise' areas of Europe, such as Spain, which for decades have not been considered as having a predominantly Celtic heritage or origins. Here the leading authority on the subject has emphasised the Celtic origins of Spain whilst relating these Celtic roots to those of Europe: The Celts are significant not only because of their importance in the ethnic formation of the [ Iberian | Peninsula, but also because they linked it to a wider Celtic world, now a factor of great importance insofar as it constitutes one of the cultural roots of Europe. (Almagro Gorbea 1991: 12, my emphasis) T h e r e are any n u m b e r of examples of the current manipulation of the 'Celts' b o t h as a people and as a culture (and see Collis, chapter 11, and R u i z Zapatero, chapter 12). W h a t I wish to emphasise here, however, is that the manipulation of the idea of the Celts is based on the belief in an essentialist element - culture - a m o n g the Celts, which allows us to refer to them as a unit which is related, and by n o means fortuitously, to the future European U n i o n .

CONCLUSIONS T h e purpose of this article is not limited to drawing attention to the political implications which the use of the concept of 'culture' sometimes has in archaeology. For this critique aims to go deeper taking the use of ethnos in the Hellenic world as its starting point. As has been d e m o n strated by Hartog (1980), Herodotus - the father of many of the human sciences including history and anthropology - had a deeply ethnocentricattitude towards the other h u m a n groups he described. Such e t h n o c e n tricity has been inherited by Western thought. As a result we assume that our way of perceiving the other, and hence ourselves, is universal and that it can be attributed to groups w h o have left n o written records, such as prehistoric groups, or others we ourselves describe as 'primitive' societies. As has been argued both here and elsewhere (see contributions to Vail 1988), such universalism cannot be assumed . H o w might such a presentist approach be avoided? Should we continue to use 'culture' in archaeology as a convenient joker, as an ethnocentric presentism which we believe enables us both to better understand past h u m a n groups, and, in the European case, to depict them as constituting

Copyrighted Material

58

Margarita Diaz-Andreu

the origins of our o w n cultural identity. O n the contrary, perhaps we should eliminate it from our vocabulary and try to start from scratch in order to develop our understanding of the history of humanity in a m u c h more o p e n and flexible way than we have d o n e until now.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This article was written during my stay at the C e n t r o de Estudios Histoncos, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC), Spain. I would like to thank Ricardo O l m o s R o m e r a and Angel Smith for their comments on this article, and D o m i n g o Placido and Matiide Fernandez for their advice regarding a n u m b e r of specific points. Translation by Justin Byrne.

NOTES 1 The modern definitions of culture which 1 am concerned with are, following Williams' (1988: 90) classification: '(i) the independent and abstract noun which describes a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development, from C18; (ii) the independent noun, whether used generally or specifically, which indicates a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period, a group, or humanity in general, from Herder and Klemm.' 2 Aristotle, for example (Politics iv (vii), 7, p. 1327b) referred to the Greek 'race' (genos) and to the Hellenic 'peoples' (ethne). 3 In France the word 'couture' was used at this time, but not 'culture'. 4 In fact this definition of culture was given by the Oxford English Dictionary until 1933 (Kroeber and Kluckholn 1952: 147). 5 In his reference to the ethnic diversity of the Iberian Peninsula, Maravall is referring to the co-existence of Arabs, Christians and Jews in the Peninsula during the Middle Ages. 6 As against the hypothesis outlined by Maravall (1977). It is possible that the origin of the connection between 'culture' and 'nation' is to be found in Italy and that she then operated as the linchpin between Germany and Spain. I have, however, been unable to find any studies on this question. 7 Surprisingly, Herder went on to write that 'Nothing is more indeterminate than this word [culture], nothing more misleading than its application to entire peoples and epochs' (Herder 1887: 4). However, despite this, he himself used the term culture, writing of 'Greek culture' and 'Roman culture' (Herder 1887: 227 and 492, my emphasis). 8 All these examples undermine the primary role usually attributed to Herder in bringing about this shift in the meaning of the term 'culture'. This shift is evident in the work of other German authors prior to the publication of Herder's Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind (1784-91). Furthermore, the characterisation of this semantic shift as an exclusively German phenomenon is challenged by the fact that Spaniards (de Masdeu), and probably Italians (de Masdeu wrote his work in Naples, Italy), also use the term 'culture' in this new sense, as a synonym for 'nation'.

Copyrighted Material

Constructing identities through culture

59

9 This analysis o f the semantic and geographic expansion of the term culture contradicts Trigger's claim that the term can be traced back to France (Trigger 1989: 162). According to Williams (1988: 8 8 - 9 ) the use of the term culture in French up until the eighteenth century 'was always accompanied by a grammatical form indicating the matter being cultivated. . . . T h e i n d e p e n d e n t n o u n civilization also emerged in m C 1 8 ' . 10 It was, for example, used by H e r d e r (1887 [ 1 7 9 4 - 9 1 ] : 4). 11 N o r w a y formed part o f Sweden until 1905.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Almagro Gorbea, M . (1991) 'Los celtas en la Peninsula Iberica.' In M . Almagro Gorbea (ed.), LAK celtas en la Peninsula Iberica.: 12—17. Madrid: Revista de Arqueologia. Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities. L o n d o n : Verso. Aristotle (1951) Politica. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Politicos. Arnold, B. (1990) ' T h e past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi G e r m a n y . ' Antiquity 64: 4 6 4 - 7 8 . Benvenuti, M . (1991) In S. Moscati (ed.), / Celti.: 11. Milan: B o m p i a m . Beyens, J.I. (1868) 'La importancia del estudio de la Arqueologia.' Revista de Bellas Artes e Historico—Arqueologica 70. Bosch Gimpera, P. (1912) 'La civilitzacio cretico—micenica. Estudis de prehistoria grega.' Estudis LJniversitaris Catalans VII: 9 - 3 5 . (1915) El Problema de la Cerdmica Iberica. M e m o r i a de la C o m i s i o n de Investigaciones Paleontologicas y Prehistoricas 7. Madrid: M u s e o de Ciencias Naturales. Canfora, L. (1980) Ideologic del Classicismo. Italy: Giulio Einaudi. C a r o Baroja, J. (1970) El Mito del Caracter Nacional. Meditaciones a Contrapclo. Madrid: Semanarios y Ediciones. (1985) Los Eundamentos del Pensamiento Antropologko Moderno. Biblioteca de dialectologia y tradiciones populares XVIII. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. C h i l d e , V.G. (1929) 'Ehc Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Glarendon Press. (1958) lite Prehistory of European Society. Llarmondsworth: P e n g u i n . Clarke, J . G . D . (3rd edn, 1957) Archaeology and Society. L o n d o n : M e t h u e n . Cortelazzo, M . and P. Zolli (1979) Dizionario Etimologico della Lingua ltaliana. Bologna: Zanichelli. Costa, J. (1879) Organizacibn Politica, Civil y Religiosa de los Celtiberos. Madrid. Daniel, G. (1975 [2nd edn, 1978|) A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology. London: Duckworth. and C . R e n f r e w (1988) The Idea of Prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Dauge, Y.A. (1981) Lc Barbate. Rccherches sur la Conception Romaine de la Barbaric et de la Civilisation. Collection Latomus 176. Brussels: R e v u e d'Etudes Latines. Escobar, J. (1984) 'Mas sobre los origenes de civilizar y civilization en la Espana del siglo X V I I I . ' Nueva Revista de Eilologia Hispamca X X X I I I : 8 8 - 1 1 4 . Gellner, E. (1964) Thought and Change. L o n d o n : Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Harke, H . (1991) 'All quiet on the Western Front? Paradigms, m e t h o d s and approaches in West G e r m a n archaology.' In I. H o d d e r (ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe. I'he last three decades.: 187—222. L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e .

Copyrighted Material

60

Margarita Diaz-Andreu

Hartog, F. (1980) Le Miroir d'Herodote. Essai sur le Representation de 1'Autre. Paris: Gallimard. Herder, J.G. (1887 [1784-1791 ]) Ideeti zur Philosophic der Geschkhte der Menschheit. Berlin: Weidmansche Buchhandlung. Himmelmann, N. (1976) Utopische Vergangenheit. Archdologie und Moderne Kultur. Berlin: Mann Verlag. Hobsbawm, E.J. (1983) 'Introduction: inventing traditions.' In E. Hobsbawm, and T. Ranger (eds), The Invention of Tradition.: 1-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kamenka, E. (1976) 'Political nationalism. The evolution of the idea.' In E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism. The Nature and Evolution of an idea.: 2—21. London: Edward Arnold. Kedourie, E. (1966 [1988 trans]) Nacionalismo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales Kossinna, G. (1911) Die Herkunft der Germanen. Zuer Methode der Siedlungsarchdologie. Wiirzburg: Mannus-Bibliothek 6. (1914) Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte. Eine hervorragend nationale Wissenscliaft. Wiirzburg: Mannus-Bibliothek 9. Knstiansen, K. (1981) 'A social history of Danish Archaeology (1805-1975).' In G. Daniel (ed.), Towards a History of Archaeology.: 20—44. London: Thames and Hudson. Kroeber, A.L. and C. Kluckhohn (1952) Culture. A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Cambridge, Mass.: Papers of the Peabody Museum 47(1). Lorenzo, J.L. (1984) 'Mexico.' In H. Cleere (ed.), Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage.: 89—100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maravall, J.A. (1977) 'La palabra "civilizacion" y su sentido en el siglo XVIII.' Adas del V Congreso Internacional de Hispanistas I: 79—104. (1954 [1981, 3rd edn]) El concepto de Espana en la Edad Media. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales. de Masdeu, J.F. (1783) Historia Critica de Espana y de la Cultura Espanola. Tomo I y Preliminar a la Historia. Madrid. (1785) Historia Critica de Espana y de la Cultura Espanola. Tomo I Parte Segunda. Espana Antigua. Madrid. Meinander, C.F. (1981) 'The concept of culture in European archaeological literature.' In G. Daniel (ed.), Towards a History of Archaeology.: 100-11. London: Thames and Hudson. Millotte, J.P. and A. Thevenin (1988) Les Racines des Europeens. Des Origines aux Celtcs. Paris: Horvath. Momigliano, A. (1975) Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schnapp, A. (1984) 'France.' In H. Cleere (ed.), Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage.: 48—53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shakespeare, W. (1954) The Oxford Shakespeare Complete Works. London: Oxford University Press. Sherman, S. (1988) 'Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity.' In S. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.: 1—32. London: Unwin Flyman. (ed.) (1988) Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London: Unwin Hyman.

Copyrighted Material

Constructing identities through culture

61

Trigger, B.C. (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tylor, E.B. (1871) Primitive Culture. London: John Murray. Vail, L. (ed.) (1988) The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa. California: University of California Press. Veit, U. (1988) 'Ethnic concepts in German prehistory: a case study on the relationship between cultural identity and archaeological objectivity.' In S. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.: 35—56. London: Unwin Hyman. Wahle, E. (1950) 'Geschichte der prahistorischen Forschung.' Anthropos XLVXLVI: 499-538. (1951) 'Geschichte der prahistorischen Forschung.' Anthropos XLVI: 40-112. Williams, R. (1988 [2nd edn, 1976]) Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana Press. Zwerneniann, J. (1983) Culture History and African Anthropology. A Century of Research in Germany and Austria. Uppsala: Acta Univ. Uppsala.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER FOUR

D I S C O U R S E S OF I D E N T I T Y IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PAST SI A N

JONES

the uniqueness and unity of European history must be dismantled. . . . If our cultural consciousness has become objectified in a particular historical genre (cf, Sahlins 1985: 52) that is linearised and continuous, analysis reveals the nonsynchronicity and discontinuity of social experience. (Hastrup 1992: 2; my emphasis) T h e m o d e of European cultural consciousness explored by Hastrup is integral to dominant discourses of cultural identity in Europe, w h e t h e r they be European, national or ethnic. Typically group identities are represented as unified, monolithic wholes, with linear and continuous histories which in turn are used in the legitimation of claims to political autonomy and territory within the prevailing ideological climate of ethnic nationalism (see C h a p m a n et al. 1989; Danforth 1993; Just 1989; Shore 1993). T h u s , whilst competing interpretations of the past arise in the context of political disputes, they tend to share a c o m m o n m o d e of representation; a m o d e which is not restricted to ethnic and national groups, but also extends to supra-national entities. For instance, despite the emphasis on the co-existence of supra-national, national and regional cultural identities, the symbolic terrain on which the N e w Europe is being actively produced, 'is precisely that u p o n which the nation-state has traditionally been constructed' (Shore 1993: 791). T h a t is the ' N e w E u r o p e ' is being constructed as a unified entity with a unilinear continuous history (see Shore, chapter 6). Archaeology has undoubtedly played a central role in the construction of such identities, and the details of particular liaisons between archaeology and nationalism have been the subject of a n u m b e r of recent studies (e.g., Knstiansen 1993; Kohl 1993; Olsen 1986; U c k o 1995). In this essay I

Copyrighted

Material

Discourses of identity

63

take a more abstract approach and examine the c o m m o n discourses of identity' which have characterised myths of origin and historical continuity during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There is always a tension between past and present in archaeological interpretation; between the past meanings and processes which we wish to reconstruct from the material remains, and the meanings which we wish these remains to reveal to us in the present. This tension is nowhere greater than in accounts of past cultural groups. T h e critical role of the past in the assertion and legitimation of group identities often leads to a problematic slippage between contemporary concepts of group identity and the mapping of past groups in archaeology. Here, I explore the way in which c o n t e m porary, historically-contingent concepts of culture and identity shape o u r understanding of the past (see also Diaz-Andreu, chapter 3; Hides, chapter 2), and I suggest that we need to adopt a radically different theoretical framework for the analysis of cultural identity in the past. Such a theoretical framework must accommodate the fluid and contextual nature of cultural identity and facilitate the exploration of alternative associations of identity, history and place.

PEOPLES A N D

CULTURES

Archaeology, like anthropology, has tended to deal with 'wholes'; a concern epitomised in the identification of past peoples and cultures, which continues to provide a basic conceptual framework for archaeological analysis today. T h r o u g h o u t the history of archaeology, from its antiquarian origins onwards, the material record has been attributed to particular past peoples (see Daniel 1978 [1950]; Trigger 1989). However, it was with the development of the culture history paradigm in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that a systematic framework for the classification of cultures in space and time was established. Despite the diverse histories of archaeology in different regions and countries, culture history has provided the dominant framework for archaeological analysis throughout most of the world during the twentieth century (see contributions in U c k o 1995). Processual and post-processual archaeologies have rejected culture historical interpretation as an end product in itself. Yet even these archaeological 'schools' are still largely dependent upon material evidence which has been described and classified on the basis of an essentially culture historical epistemology (see Jones 1994: 19—20 and forthcoming). O n e of the main assumptions underlying the culture-historical approach is that b o u n d e d uniform cultural entities correlate with particular peoples, ethnic groups, tribes a n d / o r races. Thus, Kossinna, one of the pioneers of culture history, asserted that 'in all periods, sharply delineated archaeological culture areas coincide with clearly recognisable peoples or tribes' (cited in Malina and Vasicek 1990: 63). 2 This assumption is based on a normative conceptualisation of culture: that within a given group, cultural

Copyrighted Material

64

Sian Jones

practices and beliefs tend to conform to prescriptive ideational norms or rules of behaviour. It is assumed that culture is made up of a set of shared ideas or beliefs, which are maintained by regular interaction within the group, and the transmission of shared cultural norms to subsequent generations through the process of socialisation, which, it is assumed, results in a continuous cultural tradition. Childe was explicit about this process, arguing that 'Generation after generation has followed society's prescription and produced and reproduced in thousands of instances the socially approved standard type. An archaeological type is just that' (Childe 1956: 8). Within such a theoretical framework the transmission of cultural traits/ideas is generally assumed to be a function of the degree of interaction between individuals or groups. A high degree of homogeneity in material culture is regarded as the product of regular contact and interaction (e.g., GifFord 1960: 341-2), whereas discontinuities in the distribution of material culture are assumed to be the result of social and/or physical distance. Gradual change is attributed to internal drift in the prescribed cultural norms of a particular group, whereas more rapid change is explained in terms of external influences, such as diffusion resulting from culture contact, or the succession of one cultural group by another as a result of migration and conquest: 'Distributional changes [in diagnostic types] should reflect displacements of population, the expansions, migrations, colonisations or conquests with which literary history is familiar' (Childe 1956: 135). It has been argued (Trigger 1978: 86) that the widespread adoption of the culture-historical approach in archaeology was a product of the need to establish a system for classifying the spatial and temporal variation in material culture which became evident in the nineteenth century. However, such an argument implies that discrete monolithic cultures constitute a natural and universal mode of socio-cultural differentiation waiting to be discovered by the discipline of archaeology. Certainly spatial and temporal variation in human ways of life is an unequivocal fact which is manifested in the archaeological record, but, it can be argued that the particular classificatory framework developed in archaeology in order to describe and explain such variation was based on historically contingent assumptions about the nature of cultural diversity. That rather than 'discovering a general form of universal difference' archaeologists, along with other social scientists, invented it (Fardon 1987: 176, my emphasis). The expectations of boundedness, homogeneity and continuity which have been built into ideas concerning culture since the nineteenth century are related to nationalism and the emergence of the nation-state (see DiazAndreu, chapter 3; Handler 1988: 7-8; Spencer 1990: 283; Wolf 1982: 387). As Handler points out, nationalist ideologies and social scientific inquiry [including that of archaeology] developed in the same historical context — that of the post-Renaissance

Copyrighted Material

Discourses of identity

65

European world — and . . . the two have reacted upon one another from their beginnings.' (Handler 1988: 8) Nations are considered, in the words of Handler, to be 'individuated beings'; endowed with the reality of natural things, they are assumed to be b o u n d e d , continuous, and precisely distinguishable from other analogous entities (Handler 1988: 6, 15). T h e idea of culture is intricately enmeshed with nationalist discourse; it is culture which distinguishes between nations and which constitutes the content of national identity. Moreover, 'culture symbolises individuated existence: the assertion of cultural particularity is another way of proclaiming the existence of a unique collectivity' (Handler 1988: 39). T h e representation of culture in nationalist discourses is strikingly mirrored in the pre-suppositions which have dominated traditional concepts of 'culture' and 'society' in academic theory and practice. Such categories have been traditionally seen as well integrated, b o u n d e d , continuous entities, which occupy exclusive spatiotemporal positions and which are assumed to be the normal and healthy units of social life (see Clifford 1988; Handler 1988). T h e concept of an archaeological culture represents a particular variant of this formula. As discussed above, b o u n d e d material culture complexes are assumed to be the material manifestation of past peoples, w h o shared a set of prescriptive learned norms of behaviour. Archaeological cultures came to be regarded as organic, individuated entities, the prehistorian's substitute for the individual agents which make up the historian's repertoire: 'prehistory can recognise peoples and marshal them on the stage to take the place of the personal actors w h o form the historian's troupe' (Childe 1940: 2; see also Piggott 1965: 7). Moreover, as in the case of contemporary claims concerning the relationship between nations and cultures, the relationship between archaeological cultures and past peoples is based o n teleological reasoning in that culture is both representative of, and constitutive of, the nation or people concerned. As Handler points out: the almost a priori belief in the existence of the culture follows inevitably from the belief that a particular human group . . . exists. The existence of the group is in turn predicated on the existence of a particular culture. (Handler 1988: 39) T h r o u g h the concept of an archaeological culture the past is reconstructed in terms of the distribution of h o m o g e n e o u s cultures whose history unfolds in a coherent linear narrative measured in terms of objectified events, such as contacts, migrations and conquests, with intervals of homogeneous, empty time in between them. 3 Furthermore, the understanding of culture which is embodied by the notion of an archaeological culture enables history, place and people to be tied together in the exclusive and monolithic fashion c o m m o n to contemporary representations of

Copyrighted Material

66

Sian Jones

ethnic, national and European identity. Yet recent anthropological research (see Fardon 1987: 176; Handler 1988: 291) suggests that the relationship between culture and peoplehood is not so straightforward, and that the idea that ethnic and national groups are fixed, h o m o g e n e o u s , b o u n d e d entities extending deep into the past is a m o d e r n classificatory invention. 4 O n the contrary it has been shown that ethnic and national identities are fluid, dynamic and contested. ETHNICITY

AND

CULTURE

D u r i n g the 1960s and early 1970s there was a shift in the analysis of cultural differentiation in the context of critiques of existing social scientific concepts. 5 This shift was marked by the proliferation of research into ethnicity, and the use of 'ethnic g r o u p ' in place of 'tribe' and 'race'. However, it was not merely a terminological sleight of hand, it also represented important changes in the orientation of research and theories of cultural differentiation (see C o h e n 1978; Jones 1994). Increasing emphasis was placed o n the self-identifications of the social actors concerned, the processes involved in the construction of group boundaries, and the interrelationships between socio-cultural groups. Such approaches contrast sharply with the traditional holistic analysis of supposedly discrete, organicentities. As early as 1947 Francis had argued that the ethnic group constitutes a c o m m u n i t y based primarily on a shared subjective 'we-feeling' and that 'we cannot define the ethnic group as a plurality pattern which is characterised by a distinct language, culture, territory, religion and so o n ' (1947: 397). A n u m b e r of other authors adopted a similar argument (e.g., M o e r m a n 1965; Shibutam and Kwan 1965: 40; Wallerstein 1960: 131). Yet the real turning point in the definition of ethnic groups seems to have followed Barth's (1969) reiteration of the subjective aspects of ethnic identity within a programmatic theoretical framework ( C o h e n 1978). H e argued that ethnic groups cannot be defined by the cultural similarities and differences enumerated by the analyst, but rather o n the basis of 'categories of ascription and identification by the actors themselves' (Barth 1969: 10). In many instances ethnic groups may possess social and cultural commonalities across boundaries and exhibit considerable variation within the group. Yet in the process of social interaction both real and assumed cultural differences are articulated in the maintenance of ethnic boundaries (Barth 1969). Ethnographic research has confirmed that ethnicity involves subjective processes of classification, and in much of the recent literature it has been regarded as a consciousness of real or assumed cultural difference vis a vis others; a 'we'—'they' opposition (e.g., C h a p m a n ct at. 1989; C o h e n 1978; R i n g e r and Lawless 1989; Shennan 1989). This emphasis on the formation and persistence of subjective ethnic categories in the context of embracing social systems also contributed to

Copyrighted

Material

Discourses of identity

67

a concern with the economic and political dimensions of ethnicity. Ethnicidentity, it is argued, is 'instrumental' in that it provides a group with the boundary maintenance and organisational dimensions necessary in order to maintain, and compete for, a particular socio-economic niche (e.g., Barth 1969; C o h e n 1974). In this sense ethnic groups are a product of differential socio-structural a n d / o r environmental conditions. Moreover, it is argued that ethnicity is manipulated and mobilised, on an individual and group level, in the pursuit of economic and political interests (e.g., Barth 1969; Patterson 1975). For instance, some of the hoe-agricultural Fur of the Sudan have adopted the lifestyle and identity of the nomadic cattle Arabs, the Baggara (see Barth 1969: 2 5 - 6 ; Haaland 1969); a shift in identity which can be explained by the limited opportunities for capital investment in the village economy of the Fur, in contrast to the o p p o r tunities presented by the Baggara economy. Broadly speaking, instrumentalist approaches dominated research on ethnicity in the 1970s and 1980s. T h e recent literature on ethnicity has further illustrated the dynamic nature of ethnicity, not only historically (see contributions in Tonkin et al. 1989), but also in different social contexts according to the interests and positions of the actors (e.g., C o h e n 1978; Wallman 1977). T h e recognition that ethnic groups are fluid self-defining systems which are embedded in economic and political relations, represents an important contribution to our understanding of the maintenance and transformation of ethnicity. Most significantly in terms of this discussion, such an approach to ethnicity reveals a critical break between culture and ethnicity. Whilst it is still assumed that there is some relation between ethnicity and culture, it is generally accepted that there is rarely a straightforward correlation between cultural similarities and differences and ethnic boundaries. Hence, recent theories of ethnicity mark a significant departure from the notion of ethnic groups as culture-bearing units; a notion which, as discussed above, is central to nationalist discourses as well as traditional social scientific theory. However, whilst ethnographic research supports a distinction between culture and ethnicity, the precise nature of the relationship between ethnicity and culture has been a neglected area of research. Instrumentalists tend to focus on the organisational aspects of ethnicity and take the cultural differences on which ethnicity is based for granted. Culture is reduced to an epiphenomenal and arbitrary set of symbols (Eriksen 1992: 30) manipulated in the pursuit of changing individual a n d / o r group interests (Bentley 1987: 26, 48; Eriksen 1992: 44).

T O W A R D S A PRACTICE THEORY OF E T H N I C I T Y O n e important problem which subjective instrumental approaches to ethnicity fail to resolve is the relationship between agents' perceptions of ethnicity, and the cultural contexts and social relations in which they are

Copyrighted Material

68

Sian Jones

embedded. Such a question can be addressed by drawing on theories of practice that are concerned with the general relationship between the conditions of social life and agents' subjective constructions of social reality. For instance, Bourdieu (1977) argues that social actors possess durable, often subliminal, dispositions towards certain perceptions and practices (such as those relating to the sexual division of labour, morality, tastes and so on) which he calls 'habitus'. Such dispositions, which are inculcated into an individual's sense of self at an early age (Bourdieu 1977: 78—93), are generated by the conditions constituting a particular social environment, such as, modes of production or access to certain resources (Bourdieu 1977: 77—8). However, the practices engendered by such conditions are not constituted by the mechanistic enactment of a system of normative rules which exist outside of individual history (Bourdieu 1977: 72). Rather, structural orientations exist in the form of the embodied knowledge and dispositions of social actors, but these structures depend for their existence on the practices and representations of social actors, which lead to their reproduction or transformation. As Postone et at. (1993: 4) point out, the orientations of the habitus, 'are at once "structuring structures" and "structured structures"; they shape and are shaped by social practice'. T h e concept of the habitus can be used to articulate the way in which subjective ethnic classifications are grounded in the social conditions and cultural practices characterising particular social domains. Ethnicity is not a passive reflection of the cultural similarities and differences in which people are socialised, as traditional normative approaches assume. N o r is ethnicity, as some instrumental approaches imply, produced entirely in the process of social interaction, whereby epiphenomenal cultural symbols are manipulated in the pursuit of e c o n o m i c and political interests. Rather, drawing on Bourdieu's theory of practice, it can be argued that the subjective construction of ethnic identity in the context of social interaction is grounded in the shared subliminal dispositions of the habitus which shape, and are shaped, by commonalities of practice. As Bentley puts it: '[a| shared habitus engenders feelings of identification a m o n g people similarly endowed. T h o s e feelings are consciously appropriated and given form through existing symbolic resources' (Bentley 1987: 173). Moreover, these 'symbolic resources' are not essentially arbitrary. T h e cultural practices and beliefs which b e c o m e objectified as symbols of ethnicity are derived from, and resonate with, the habitual practices and experiences of the agents involved, as well as reflect the instrumental contingencies of a particular situation. As Eriksen argues, symbols of ethnicity are intrinsically linked with experienced, practical worlds containing specific, relevant meanings which on the one hand contribute to shaping interaction, and on the other hand limit the number of options in the production of ethnic signs. (Eriksen 1992: 45)

Copyrighted Material

Discourses of identity

69

Yet within this theoretical approach the habitus and ethnicity are not directly congruent, thereby constituting a similar position to the traditional equation of culture and ethnicity. There is a break between the structured dispositions constituting the habitus as a whole, and the objectified representation of cultural difference involved in the production and reproduction of ethnicity. Shared habitual dispositions provide the basis for the recognition of commonalities of sentiment and interest, and the basis for the perception and communication of cultural affinities and differences which ethnicity entails. However, social interaction between actors of differing cultural traditions engenders a reflexive m o d e of perception contributing to a break with forms of knowledge which, in other contexts, constitute subliminal, taken for granted modes of behaviour. Such exposure of the arbitrariness of cultural practices, which had hitherto been taken as self-evident and natural, permits and requires a change 'in the level of discourse, so as to rationalise and systematise' the representation of those cultural practices, and, more generally, the representation of the cultural tradition itself (Bourdieu 1977: 233). It is at such a discursive level that ethnic categories are produced, reproduced and transformed through the systematic communication of cultural difference with relation to the cultural practices of particular 'ethnic others'. 6 This process can be further elaborated by reference to a specific example, that of the construction of Tswana ethnicity in the context of European colonialism (see C o m a r o f f a n d ComarofF 1992: 235—63). In the process of interaction and communication between the Tswana and evangelist missionaries, both groups began to recognise distinctions between them; 'to objectify their world in relation to a novel other, thereby inventing for themselves a self-conscious coherence and distinctness — even while they accommodated to the n e w relationship which enclosed t h e m ' ( C o m a r o f f a n d ComarofF 1992: 245). This objectification is not a fabrication; an entirely instrumental construction. Tswana ethnicity is based o n the perception of commonalities of practice and experience in Setswana (Tswana ways) in opposition to Sekgoa (European ways). Yet the form which Tswana self-consciousness takes in this context is different from the cultural identities which prevailed in pre-colonial times w h e n they were divided into political communities based on totemic affiliations. In b o t h p r e - and post-colonial times the construction of identity involves the marking of contrast — the opposition of selves and others — but colonialism provided a n e w context in which Tswana tradition was objectified as a coherent body of knowledge and practice uniting the Tswana people. T h u s , the objectification of cultural difference involves the dialectical opposition of different cultural traditions. T h e particular forms which such oppositions take is a product of the intersection of people's habitus with the social conditions constituting any particular context. These conditions include the prevailing power relations, and the relative distribution of the

Copyrighted Material

70

Sian Jones

material and symbolic means necessary for the imposition of dominant regimes of ethnic categorisation. For instance, in many colonial contexts ethnic or 'tribal' categories were imposed by colonial regimes (see Colson 1968; Fried 1968), or were a product of large-scale urban migration and associated social and cultural dislocation (see Comaroff and Comaroff 1992). Hence, the extent to which ethnicity is embedded in pre-existing cultural realities represented by a shared habitus is highly variable. T h e extent of contiguity depends upon the cultural transformations brought about by the processes of interaction and the nature of the power relations between the interacting 'groups' (Comaroff and Comaroff 1992: 56). In some instances, for example as in colonial situations, minority ethnicgroups may be composed of people of diverse origins, and 'the substance of their identities, as contrived from both within and outside, is inevitably a bricolage fashioned in the very historical processes which underwrite their subordination' (Comaroff and Comaroff 1992: 57). However, even w h e n ethnicity is as much a product of the historical relations of inequality between 'groups' as it is a reflection of pre-existing cultural realities, the reproduction of these emergent forms of cultural difference will, over time, lead to their internalisation as part of the structured dispositions of the habitus. T h u s , manifestations of ethnicity are the product of an ongoing process involving multiple objectifications of cultural difference and the internalisation of those differences within the shared dispositions of the habitus. Such processes will lead to fluctuations in the correspondence between constructions of a particular ethnic identity, in terms of objectified cultural difference, and the overall cultural practices and historical experience of the people involved. Furthermore, the expression of cultural difference depends u p o n the particular cultural practices and historical experience activated in any given social context, as well as broader idioms of cultural difference. Consequently the cultural content of ethnicity may vary substantively and qualitatively in different contexts, as may the importance of ethnicity in general (see Eriksen 1991 and 1992). O n the basis of this theoretical approach it can be argued that there is unlikely to be a o n e - t o - o n e relationship between expressions of a particular ethnic identity and the entire range of cultural practices and social conditions associated with that particular 'group'. Yet this is not because culture is an epiphenomenal resource which is consciously and deliberately manipulated in the pursuit of individual and group interests. Whilst ethnicity always involves active processes of performance and interpretation in the objectification of cultural difference, it is still constituted in the context of specific cultural practices and historical experiences which provide the basis for the perception of similarity and difference. From a 'bird's eye view' the construction of ethnicity is likely to be m a n i fested as multiple overlapping boundaries constituted by representations of

Copyrighted Material

Discourses of identity

71

cultural difference, which are at once transient, but also subject to reproduction and transformation in the ongoing processes of social life. Such a view of ethnicity undermines conventional methodological approaches which telescope various spatially and temporally distinct representations of ethnicity o n t o a single plane for the purposes of analysis and attempt to force the resulting incongruities and contradictions into an abstract conceptualisation of the ethnic group as a discrete, internally h o m o g e n e o u s entity characterised by continuity of tradition. T h e theoretical approach developed here suggests that such a methodological and conceptual framework obliterates the reality of the dynamic and creative processes involved in the reproduction and transformation of ethnicity.

A R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N OF A R C H A E O L O G I C A L APPROACHES TO E T H N I C I T Y T h e traditional assumption that a o n e - t o - o n e relationship exists between the sum of the cultural similarities and differences and the ethnic group has recently been criticised in archaeology (e.g., H o d d e r 1982; Shennan 1989), as in other disciplines. It has also been argued that ethnic groups are not the product of social and physical isolation, but rather a consciousness of difference reproduced in the context of ongoing social interaction. Consequently archaeologists cannot continue to regard variation in the archaeological record as a passive measure of physical/ social distance between groups (see H o d d e r 1982). N o r can they assume that close contact between groups or the incorporation of one group by another will lead to gradual and uniform acculturation. However, it is necessary to make more wide-reaching changes to our analytical frameworks in order to analyse the construction of ethnicity in the past. In particular, there is a need to discard classificatory and interpretive frameworks based upon the presumed existence of b o u n d e d socio-cultural units; frameworks which are still fundamental to much archaeological theory and practice (and see C o n k e y 1990: 12). Ethnicity must be distinguished from mere spatial continuity and discontinuity in that it refers to self-conscious identification with a particular group of people (Shennan 1989: 19). I have argued that ethnicity involves the objedification of cultural difference vis a vis others in the context of social interaction. Such objectifications are based upon the perception of commonalities of practice and experience, as well as the conditions prevailing in particular social and historical contexts. A variety of scenarios may arise. At one extreme there may be a high degree of homology between the structuring principles of the habitus and the signification of ethnicity in both material and non-material culture (as in Hodder's (1982) study of the Baringo District). Whereas at the other end of the spectrum there may be a dislocation of such homologous relationships to the extent that the generation and expression of a

Copyrighted Material

72

Sian Jones

c o m m o n ethnic identity incorporates a bricoiage of different cultural traditions characterised by heterogeneous structuring principles in many social domains (see Rowlands 1982: 164 for a similar argument). Yet whatever the degree of homology between the habitus and ethnicity, it must be emphasised that archaeologists may not be able to find a reflection of past 'ethnic entities' in the material record (see also Miller 1985: 202 with relation to caste). It is possible to question the very existence of b o u n d e d , h o m o g e n e o u s ethnic entities except at an abstract conceptual level. As Bourdieu (1977) has pointed out, such conceptual categories are based o n the methodological reification or objectification of transient cultural practices taking place in different spatial and temporal contexts, and the ' g r o u p ' exists only in the context of interpretation where it justifies and explains past practices and modes of interaction, and structures future practices. In contrast, the praxis of ethnicity results in multiple transient realisations of ethnic difference in particular contexts. These realisations of ethnicity are b o t h structured and structuring, involving, in many instances, the repeated production and consumption of distinctive styles of material culture. Yet they are a product of the intersection of the perceptual and practical dispositions of social agents and the interests and oppositions engendered in a particular social context, rather than abstract categories of difference. H e n c e , configurations of ethnicity, and consequently the styles of material culture involved in the signification and structuring of ethnic relations, may vary in different social contexts and with relation to different forms and scales of social interaction. From an archaeological point of view the likely result is a complex pattern of overlapping material culture distributions relating to the repeated realisation and transformation of ethnicity in different social contexts, rather than discrete monolithic cultural entities. Patterns in the production and consumption of material culture involved in the communication of the 'same' ethnic identity may vary qualitatively as well as quantitatively in different contexts. Furthermore, items of material culture which are widely distributed and used in a variety of social and historical contexts may be curated and consumed in different ways and b e c o m e implicated in the generation and signification of a variety of expressions of ethnicity. T h e analysis of these contextual realisations of ethnicity, and ultimately the manifestation of ethnicity in the past, is not beyond the possibilities of archaeological interpretation. T h e systematisation and rationalisation of distinctive cultural styles in the process of the recognition, expression, and negotiation of ethnic identity is likely to result in discontinuous, n o n random distributions of material culture of the type suggested by H o d d e r (1982) and Wiessner (1983). However, in order to analyse such patterns in archaeological material it will be necessary to adopt a radically different framework for b o t h classification and interpretation.

Copyrighted Material

Discourses of identity

73

Most archaeological classification is ultimately based on the assumption that stylistic groupings are co-extensive with normative historical entities. Two particular principles are central: (i) that change in material culture is a gradual, regular process which occurs in a uniform manner throughout a spatially h o m o g e n e o u s area; (ii) that the prime cause of variation in design is the date of manufacture. Such an approach to classification presupposes a normative view of culture and produces what is essentially an illusion of b o u n d e d uniform cultural entities. Artefacts are extrapolated from their contexts of deposition, grouped together into predetermined classes of material and classified, spatially and temporally, according to the principles noted above. Such an approach obscures the kind of information which is of interest in the analysis of ethnicity (and arguably past cultural processes in general). Ethnicity, amongst other factors, may disrupt regular spatio-temporal stylistic groupings, resulting in boundaries which are discontinuous in space and time. Yet in order to analyse such patterns it is necessary to consider artefact assemblages within a contextual framework, and to date assemblages, where possible, on the basis of independent methods and stratigraphy. Such an approach to the basic classification of material culture will enable the analysis of variation in the deposition and use of material culture in different social domains. Any distinctive n o n - r a n d o m distributions of particular styles and forms of material culture in different contexts which emerge from such an analysis may plausibly relate to the expression of ethnicity. Yet a variety of factors may be involved in producing such variation, and it will be necessary to employ independent contextual evidence in the interpretation of ethnicity, as the significance of material culture in terms of ethnicity is culturally and historically specific (Hodder 1982; Shennan 1989: 2 1 ; Wiessner 1989: 58). T h u s , a broad understanding of past cultural contexts derived from a variety of sources and classes of data is a necessary part of any analysis of ethnicity in archaeology. As ethnicity is a product of the intersection of the habitus with the conditions prevailing in any particular social and historical context, it will be important to have a broad understanding of such conditions, including the distribution of material and symbolic power. An adequate knowledge of past social organisation will also be important, as ethnicity is both a transient construct of repeated acts of interaction and communication, and an aspect of social organisation which becomes institutionalised to different degrees, and in different forms, in different societies. Moreover, an historical approach will be particularly important given the role of historical context in the generation and expression of ethnicity. A diachronic framework may enable archaeologists to pick up shifts in the expression of ethnicity, and those dimensions of material culture which signify it, over time. Such shifts may involve greater or lesser fixity and institutionalisation of expressions of ethnic difference, and changes in

Copyrighted Material

74

Sian Jones

the use of particular aspects of material culture in the signification of ethnicity. In short, the use of a diachronic contextual framework may reveal something about the contexts in which ethnicity is generated, reproduced and transformed; to examine 'the mobilisation of group as process' (Conkey 1990: 13).

C O N C L U S I O N S : DISCOURSES OF HISTORY A N D PLACE I N THE C O N S T R U C T I O N OF E T H N I C I T Y Ultimately, in the state-ist conception of the nation, state and nation become one, an 'imagined community' that ignores the various nations/identities/ histories it may include. To maintain this conception of the nation-state it is necessary constantly to stress the existence of only one possible cultural model, one history, one language, one social project. (Devalle 1992: 20) In this essay I have argued that the very concepts used in the archaeological identification of past peoples are historically contingent (see also Diaz-Andreu, chapter 3; Hides, chapter 2). T h e concept of 'a culture' which has been embraced in archaeological epistemology, and its conflation with ethnicity, is the product of a particular ideology of cultural differentiation which emerged in the context of post-Enlightenment European nationalism. Cultures are considered to be b o u n d e d , continuous, unified entities, that bear witness to the existence of the nations which are their bearers. This conceptualisation of culture contributes to the assertion of a congrueney between territorial contiguity and ethnic unity across an historical stage — a mosaic of discrete spatially and temporally bounded, monolithic entities. Such a conflation of social scientific and political ideological concepts serves to hinder the analysis of the real nature of the processes involved in the construction of ethnic and national identity (Llobera 1989: 248). Instead, the unfortunate implication is that social scientists (including anthropologists and archaeologists) may have developed paradigms 'to explain that which they have themselves created' (Bond and Gilliam 1994: 13; see also Handler 1988). In some spheres of archaeology, culture history, and its equation of cultures with peoples, has been rejected (for a review see Jones 1994; Shennan 1989). However, a normative concept of culture still underlies m u c h of archaeological description and classification (see Jones 1994), and ethnic groups are still considered to be b o u n d e d continuous, if dynamic, entities. T h e pre-supposition that an exclusive congruence exists between ethnic unity, territory and history remains intact, although more elastic (e.g., see Blackmore et at. 1979; Kimes el a\. 1982). Drawing upon recent research, 1 have argued that ethnicity is a dynamic, contested p h e n o m e n o n , which is manifested in different ways in different contexts, with relation to different forms and scales of interaction. Moreover, the representations of cultural difference involved in the articulation of

Copyrighted Material

Discourses of identity

75

ethnicity are transient, although subject to reproduction and transformation in the ongoing processes of social life. Such an approach to ethnicity challenges the assumption that b o u n d e d , h o m o g e n e o u s ethnic or cultural entities constitute the natural units of socio-cultural differentiation. Furthermore, it explodes the exclusive association of ethnic entities with a single, discrete, territory and history. From an archaeological perspective the material manifestation of ethnicity, amongst other factors, may disrupt regular spatio-temporal stylistic patterning, resulting in an untidy and overlapping web of stylistic boundaries in different classes of material culture and in different contexts; boundaries which may be discontinuous in space and time. My aim has been to suggest alternative ways of conceptualising the relationship between history, place, and identity in archaeological theory and practice. R e t u r n i n g to the representation of European identities the argument presented here inevitably represents a threat to certain u n d e r standings of European, national and ethnic identity. As Boyarin points out in his analysis of Israeli nationhood: It seems almost gratuitous to state that my point is not to dismantle the state of Israel. But if the Israeli state, once established, is implicitly understood by its own elites as a static reality dependent on functional equilibrium, then a threat to any of its parts (including its self-generated history) is a threat to its very existence. Related to the equilibrium model is the image of the nation as an integral collective. (Boyarin 1992:118)

It is necessary to challenge such static functional conceptions of cultural groups (whether they be ethnic, national or Europe-wide), and their selfgenerated histories, in order to explore the possibility of a plurality of histories and identities. Ethnicity is not constituted by the historical legacy of a primordial, essentialist identity; rather, the formation and transformation of ethnicity is contingent upon particular historical structures which impinge t h e m selves on human experience and condition social action. As Devalle (1992: 18) points out, ethnicity is an historical process, as 'time provides the necessary ground o n which ethnic styles are maintained (recreated) and collective identities formulated' providing such identities with substance and legitimation. However, Being firmly grounded in the concrete history of a particular social reality, an ethnic style cannot be simply understood as the immutable and intangible 'essence' of a given people, or as a fixed sociological idealised type. (Devalle 1992: 19)

Archaeologists have tended to utilise such immutable 'essentialised' (Conkey 1990: 113) categories of ethnicity, leaciing to the projection of a m o d e r n classificatory framework o n t o all of h u m a n history. Instead, we need to develop theoretical frameworks that allow us to explore the ways

Copyrighted Material

76

Sian Jones

in which ethnicity is manifested in particular historical contexts, and to explore multiple associations between kinds of identity and notions of time and place. Frameworks which will facilitate analysis of the multiple, twisted and discontinuous histories of the ' N e w Europe', rather than attempt to impose a linear, continuous and h o m o g e n e o u s past.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to Andrew Crosby, Clive Gamble, Paul Graves-Brown, Claire Jowitt, Tony Kushner, Y v o n n e Marshall, Stephan Shennan, Cris Shore, Julian T h o m a s and Peter U c k o for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. O f course any errors or deficiencies remain my o w n .

NOTES 1 The term discourse is being used here to refer to a clustering of ideas, an ideological configuration, which structures knowledge and experience in a particular domain, in this case in the construction of group identity. 2 Further expressions of this basic principle can be found in Childe (1929: v—vi and 1956: 2), Hawkes (1940: 1) and Piggott (1958: 88). 3 This kind of temporal framework is what Fabian (1983: 23) identifies as 'typological time'. 4 The argument, that the representation of human groups as the bearers of bounded, monolithic cultures is a product of post-Enlightenment discourses of identity (in particular those associated with nationalism), is clearly supported by studies of cultural identity in the context of European colonialism (e.g., see Comaroffand Comaroff 1992; Fardon 1987). However, 1 do not support the related theory that ethnicity is an entirely modern phenomena. Instead I suggest that different forms of ethnicity are produced in different socio-historical contexts, and the nationalist conflation of political and cultural units (and the associated concept of culture as homogeneous, bounded and spatially contiguous) cannot be assumed to be a universal form of socio-cultural organisation. In fact, there are many examples to the contrary today (see Enksen 1993), as there are in Medieval Europe (see Greengrass 1991) and other areas of the world prior to European colonisation (see Comaroffand Comaroff 1992). 5 Throughout the first half of the twentieth century a number of anthropologists expressed concern about both abstract and pragmatic definitions of the 'cultural' or 'tribal' entities which constituted the objects of their research (for example, see Fortes 1940). By the 1950s and 1960s critiques of the concept of tribe had emerged challenging the traditional assumption that social, cultural and political boundaries are commensurate with the boundaries of the tribe (for example, Leach 1954). Others indicated the pejorative connotations of the concept of tribe and suggested that the category, as well as its socio-cultural referents, were constructs of colonial regimes (for example, Colson 1968, Fried 1968). Sociologists also became increasingly aware of problems with the conceptual frameworks which dominated their

Copyrighted Material

Discourses of identity

77

discipline. In particular, the pre-supposition that continuous cultural contact would lead to acculturation and homogenisation was challenged by the persistence of cultural difference and ethnic self-consciousness amongst minority groups. It is important to note that these critiques were connected in a plurality of ways with processes of colonisation and decolonisation in the 'third' world, as well as the increasing political salience of minority voices in 'western' countries. 6 If this argument is extended to national identity it contradicts Foster's suggestion that national culture and identity is 'doxic' in nature (1991: 240). In fact, Foster's own discussion of the contested and negotiated nature of many national identities and culture suggests that his use of Bourdieu's concept of "doxa" is inappropriate, as does Eriksen's (1992: 3) analysis of Mauritian and Trinidadian nationhood, in which he states that in these two cases nationhood belongs to 'the sphere of opinion, not to that of doxa'.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barth, F. (1969) 'Introduction.' In F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Croups and Boundaries.: 9-38. Boston: Little Brown. Bcntley, G.C. (1987) 'Ethnicity and practice.' Comparative studies in society and history 29: 24-55. Blackmore, C , M. Braithwaite and I. Hodder (1979) 'Social and cultural patterning in the Late Iron Age in Southern Britain.' In B.C. Burnham and J. Kingsbury (eds), Space, Hierarchy and Society. Interdisciplinary Studies in Social Area Analysis.: 93-112. Oxford: B.A.R.. Bond, G.C. and A. Gilliam (1994) 'Introduction.' In, G.C. Bond and A. Gilliam (eds), Social Construction of the Past. Representation as Power.: 1—22. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyarin, J. (1992) Storm from Paradise. The Politics ofJewish Memory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Chapman, M., M. McDonald and E. Tonkin (1989) 'Introduction.' In E. Tonkin et al. (eds), History and Ethnicity.: 1—33. London: Routledge. Childe, G.V. (1929) Tlie Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1940) Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles. London: W. and R. Chambers. (1956) Piecing Together the Past: the Interpretation of Archaeological Data. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Clifford, J. (1988) Tlie Predicament of Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Cohen, A. (1974) 'Introduction: the lesson of ethnicity.' In A. Cohen (ed.), Urban Ethnicity.: ix—xxiv. London: Tavistock Publications. Cohen, R. (1978) 'Ethnicity: problem and focus in anthropology.' Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 379-403. Colsen, E. (1968) 'Contemporary tribes and the development of nationalism.' In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the Problem of Tribe.: 201—6. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Comaroff, J. and J. Comaroff (1992) Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder: Wcstview Press.

Copyrighted Material

78

Sian Jones

Conkey, M.W. (1990) 'Experimenting with style in archaeology: some historical and theoretical issues.' In M.W. Conkey and C.A. Hastorf (eds), The Uses of Style in Archaeology.: 5-17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Danforth, L. (1993) 'Competing claims to Macedonian identity: the Macedonian question and the breakup of Yugoslavia.' Anthropology Today 9, 4: 3-10. Daniel, G. (1978 [1950]) One Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology. London: Duckworth. Devalle, S.B.C. (1992) Discourses of Uthnicity. Culture and Protest in Jharkhand. London: Sage Publications. Eriksen, T.H. (1991) 'The cultural contexts of ethnic differences.' Man 26: 127-44. (1992) Us and Them in Modern Societies. Ethnicity and Nationalism in Mauritius, Trinidad and Beyond. London: Scandinavian University Press. (1993) Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Pluto Press. Fabian, J. (1983) Time and the Other. How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Colombia University Press. Fardon, R. (1987) '"African ethnogcnesis": limits to the comparability of ethnic phenomena.' In L. Holy (ed.), Comparative Anthropology.: 168—87. London: Basil Blackwell. Fortes, M. (1969 [1945]) The Dynamics of Clanship Among the Tallensi. Being the First Part of an Analysis of the Social Structure of a Trans-Volta Tribe. London: Oxford University Press. Foster, R.J. (1991) 'Making national cultures in the global ecumene.' Annual Review of Anthropology 20: 235—60. Francis, E.K. (1947) 'The nature of the ethnic group.' American Journal of Sociology 52: 393-400. Fried, M.H. (1968) 'On the concepts of "Tribe" and "Tribal Society".' In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the Problem of Tribe.: 3—20. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Gifford, J . O (1960) 'The type variety method of ceramic classification as an indicator of cultural phenomena.' American Antiquity 25, 3: 341—7. Greengrass, M. (1991) 'Introduction: conquest and coalescence.' In M. Greengrass (ed.), Conquest and Coalescence. The Shaping of the State in Early Modem Europe.: 1—24. London: Edward Arnold. Haaland, G. (1969) 'Economic determinants in ethnic processes.' In F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries.: 58—73. London: George Allen and Unwin. Handler, R. (1988) Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Hastrup, K. (1992) introduction.' In K. Hastrup (ed.), Other Histories.: 1-13. London: Routledge. Llawkes, C.F.C. (1940) The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe. To the Mycenean Age. London: Methuen. Hodder, I. (1982) Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, S. (1994) Ethnicity and Archaeology: Constructing Identities in the Past and the Present. University of Southampton: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Just, R. (1989) 'Triumph of the ethnos.' In E. Tonkin et al. (eds), History and Ethnicity.: 71—88. London: Routledge.

Copyrighted Material

Discourses of identity

79

Kimes, T., C. Haselgrove and I. Hodder (1982) 'A method for the identification of the location of regional cultural boundaries.' Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 113—31. Kohl, P. (1993) 'Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology in Soviet Transcaucasia.' Journal of European Archaeology 1, 2: 181—8. Kristiansen, K. (1993) 'The strength of the past and its great might: an essay on the use of the past.' Journal of European Archaeology 1: 3—33. Leach, E. (1964 [1954]) Political Systems of Highland Burma. A Study in Kachin Social Structure. London: G. Bell and Sons. Llobera, J. (1989) 'Catalan national identity: the dialectics of past and present.' In E. Tonkin et al. (eds), History and Ethnicity.: 247-61. London: Routledge. Malina, J. and Z. Vasicek (1990) Archaeology Yesterday and Today, lire Development of Archaeology in the Sciences and Humanities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, D. (1985) Artefacts as Categories. A Study in Ceramic Variability in Central India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moerman, M. (1965) 'Who are the Lue?' American Anthropologist 67: 1215-30. Olsen, B. (1986) 'Norwegian archaeology and the people without (pre-)history: or how to create a myth of a uniform past.' Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5: 25-42. Patterson, O. (1975) 'Context and choice in ethnic allegiance: A theoretical framework and Caribbean case study.' In N. Glazer and D.P. Moymhan (eds), Ethnicity: Theory and Experience.: 305—49. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Piggott, S. (1958) Approaches to Archaeology. London: Adam and Charles Black. (1965) Ancient Europe. From the Beginnings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Postone, M., E. LiPuma and C. Calhoun (1993) 'Introduction: Bourdieu and social theory.' In C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma and M. Postone (eds), Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives.: 1—13. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ringer, B.B. and E.R. Lawless (1989) Race, Ethnicity and Society. London: Routledge. Rowlands, M J . (1982) 'Processual archaeology as historical social science.' In C. Renfrew, M J . Rowlands and B.A. Seagraves (eds), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology.: 155—74. London: Academic Press. Sahlins, M. (1985) Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shennan, SJ. (1989) 'Introduction.' In SJ. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.: 1-32. London: Unwin and Hyman. Shibutani, T. and K.M. Kwan (1965) Ethnic Stratification. A Comparative Approach. New York: The Macmillan Company. Shore, C. (1993) 'Inventing the "People's Europe": critical approaches to European Community cultural policy.' Man 18, 4: 779-800. Spencer, J. (1990) 'Writing within. Anthropology, nationalism, and culture in Sri Lanka.' Current Anthropology 31, 3: 283—300. Tonkin, E., M. McDonald and M. Chapman (eds) (1989) History and Ethnicity. London: Routledge. Trigger, B.C. (1978) Time and Traditions. Essays in Archaeological Interpretation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Copyrighted Material

80

Sian Jones

(1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ucko, PJ. (ed.) (1995) Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective. London: Routledge. Wailerstein, I. (1960) 'Ethnicity and national integration in West Africa.' Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines 1, 3: 129-39. Wallman, S. (1977) 'Ethnicity research in Britain.' Current Anthropology 18 (3): 531-2. Wiessner, P. (1983) 'Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari San projectile point.' American Antiquity 48: 253-76. (1989) 'Style and changing relations between the individual and society.' In I. Hodder (ed.), Tlie Meanings of Things.: 56-63. London: Unwin and Hyman. Wolf, E.R. (1982) Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER FIVE

ALL T H I N G S B R I G H T A N D BEAUTIFUL? Species, ethnicity and cultural dynamics PAUL

GRAVES-BROWN

This chapter takes as its fundamental premise that what we term 'biology' and 'culture' are inseparable as components of h u m a n life. M y aim, based o n this premise, is to produce an operational definition or description of the construction of identity which will be equally applicable to species and ethnic groups, and to the recognition of ethnicity in the archaeological record. This might seem a somewhat controversial project. In a world where 'ethnic cleansing' is never out of the news, and memories of the Nazi's 'eugenics' are fresh, to claim a relationship between the species and the ethnic group is, apparently, to offer support to racist ideology. However, the real issue, as will b e c o m e apparent, is not the proposed relationship between cultural and biological parameters. Rather, the fault lies with those all too many attempts to apply biological concepts to h u m a n affairs in a simplistic fashion, and here I am specifically thinking of the recent (and continuing) sociobiology debate. In the first part of the chapter then, I attempt to develop what I consider an adequate characterisation of what a species is and why, indeed, there are such things. In particular, this account will consider the i m p o r tance of history and context in Darwin's theory of natural selection. I shall then review the concept of ethnicity in this light and hence suggest h o w ethnic identity is manifested in the archaeological record. T h r o u g h o u t , I argue that we require a conceptual framework of dialectic and dynamic, rather than one of fixture and stasis.

SOME ROOTS If Maynard-Smith (1986) is to be believed, most h u m a n societies can agree on the basic divisions within the living world. Taxonomy, in some form or another, is ubiquitous. In the 'Western' tradition we trace the

Copyrighted Material

82

Paul Graves-Brown

origins of our taxonomic ideas to two major (but unsurprising) roots; the classical Greek philosophers and the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. According to Plato, the world we inhabit derives from a pre-existing domain of 'universals'; each object and creature is an instantiation of an archetype (see Hospers 1967) which exists in that domain. Such universals formed the basis on which Plato's student Aristotle assigned living things to his Scala Naturae. This classical account, as with the Bible, is essentially static; order is either derivative of a domain of archetypes or it is as created by God. Moreover, as Foucault (1970) describes, this Order of Things is all embracing; it does not necessarily divide the domain of living 'nature', from that of society or inanimate matter. T h u s , even in the early nineteenth century, treatises such as Lovejoy's Great Chain of Being classified everything from stones, to humans, and ultimately to angels and God, in a unitary way (Costall pers. c o m m . ) . However, Foucault himself seems to underrate the importance of religion in this process (see Tester 1991), for clearly it is generally 'God's O r d e r ' that has been applied to all created things; The The God And {All Things

rich man in his castle, poor man at his gate made them high or lowly ordered their estate Bright and Beautiful, hymn, C.F. Alexander, 1880s)

Nevertheless, at the time w h e n these extremely revealing words were written, the work of Darwin, Wallace and their contemporaries was beginning to show that all things were not bright and beautiful. Indeed, the fundamental heresy of Darwinism was its insistence on a dynamic and radically materialist conception of natural 'order', which rejected 'higher' and 'lower' status, disposed of metaphysical causes and repudiated the possibility of objective 'progress'.' Here, as Foucault's (1970) insight again shows, Darwin's work can be situated in an episteme which had its origins in the late eighteenth century. T h e world was no longer analysed in terms of external resemblances; it was, both literally and metaphorically, to be dissected in search of internal patterns of order. Similarly, process was n o w seen to be driven by internal causes rather than divine ordination (and hence the living world obeyed a different order to that of inanimate nature). Thus, for example, Adam Smith and his contemporaries framed their economics in terms of the goals and actions of individuals, in what we are n o w supposed to call the 'market place'. Darwin, w h o had read Adam Smith during his voyage on the Beagle, was clearly influenced by this economic theory (Bowler 1984; Young 1985); the origin of species was to be found in the results of competitive actions in the struggle for existence. 2 For o u r present purposes two main points need to be made. First, in terms of the dynamic of natural selection, the species was n o longer the

Copyrighted Material

All things bright and beautiful?

83

essentialist entity conceived by Linneus or Aristotle. For, as Darwin (1971|1859|: 191) put it, 'the law of conditions of existence is the higher law; as it includes, through inheritance of former variations and adaptations, that of unity of type', Unity of type was subsumed under an historical process (the origin of species), so that species, whilst they did inherit 'variations and adaptations', were only what Hull (1982; 1984) terms 'historical entities'. Second, we must bear in mind that Darwin struck a delicate balance between the agent and other forces. Whilst organisms, are indeed portrayed as actors in their own right, and in a sense the authors of their o w n selection (see Costall 1991; Graves forthcoming), they are n o n e the less subject ultimately to the 'conditions of existence'. Hence, and somewhat contra Foucault's analysis, the causative process is not exclusively that of the internal motivations and mechanisms of actors, but rather one of a dialectic between the organism as actor and the totality of its environment. T h e theory of natural selection, then, did not discard the pre-Classical world of resemblances in favour of internal causes. Indeed, one reason for the later eclipse of Darwinism was its lack of an effective theory of heredity, of internal cause (Bowler 1984). As we shall see, this has crucial consequences.

LANDSCAPE A N D

CONTEXT

Taxonomy is necessarily about defining boundaries between things. Whilst Darwin provided the dynamic to explain h o w b o u n d e d entities could exist w i t h o u t metaphysical causes, he was somewhat vague as to the actual mechanisms involved. This may be excusable given that, as just noted, he did not have access to a theory of heredity which could explain the 'unity of type'. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that Darwin's theory necessitates variation within a species, and hence that species boundaries do not exist simply because all members are 'the same'. Moreover, given that perpetuation of species is a matter of heredity, the 'unity' of the species must be maintained by reproduction. 3 Species boundaries, then, are set by the criteria through which each individual chooses its mate or mates from amongst a variable 'population'. As Bateson (1978) suggests, there is an optimal balance to be struck here. O n the one hand, we know that inbreeding has negative and often disastrous consequences for offspring, not to mention the fact that it curtails the variation upon which natural selection operates. O n the other hand, breeding out eventually becomes hybridisation, which can mean either that n o offspring arise, or that those offspring are themselves infertile ('non-viable'). Clearly, then, the species cannot be conceived as a circumscribed, closed set, but should rather be seen as a more or less b o u n d e d zone or peak within a landscape of variation (Wright 1984). This having been said, some paradoxes remain to be resolved. Consider, for example, two populations of birds, one in China the other in Britain,

Copyrighted Material

84

Paul Graves-Brown

which represent the only members of a particular 'species'. O n one definition, 'a population of interbreeding individuals' (Maynard-Smith 1986: 42), these populations are not of the same species even if they could, in theory, interbreed. T h u s , the definition must be revised to include 'a group of actually or potentially interbreeding populations' (Maynard-Smith 1986: 42, my emphasis). However, we are then left with an abstraction; the species is only a unitary entity in theory. Conversely, it is argued, hybridisation between 'species' does not compromise their identity. T h u s , as Maynard-Smith describes; 'most ducks belonging to the genus Anas (e.g., mallard, pintail, gadwall, teal) will hybridise in captivity, and produce fertile hybrids. But they do not d o so in the wild, so the species remain distinct'. In other cases, a socalled 'hybrid zone' between species does indeed exist in the wild (see e.g., Kummer, Goetz and Angst 1970; Lamb and Avise 1986; Nagel 1971; Phillips-Conroy and Jolly 1986). But what are we to make of these seeming paradoxes? O n the one hand, creatures that could never practically interbreed are said to be members of the same species, whilst o n the other hand those that do interbreed and produce viable offspring are said to be of different species? This seems to be a reversion to the preformationist, Platonic theory that a species is an expression of a universal archetype. Perhaps the answer is to consider the matter of context. As Darwin says, the conditions of existence are the higher law. T h u s , one might insist that in a given context two organisms may be members of the same species, but in another context they are not. In other words, as Ingold (forthcoming) has recently suggested, our definition of species must be context dependent. At the same time, however, we must consider that context is a dynamic property; the species and its environment are indivisible, yet both are essentially historical p h e n o m e n a . T h u s , one might argue that two isolated populations remained members of the same species on the grounds of a c o m m o n history, whereas, for example, duck species remain separate despite their behaviour in captivity as a consequence of their history in 'the wild'. However, history does not preform organisms such that, for example, hybrid offspring will revert to separate species, or that geographically isolated populations of a species will necessarily interbreed in the future! Rather, it is necessary to consider what actually causes speciation.

REINFORCEMENT A N D

RECOGNITION

Arguments about the causes of speciation often centre on the question of allopatry versus sympatry; w h e t h e r populations need to be isolated in order to speciate. Such arguments tend to obscure the more direct issue, which is why speciation occurs in the first place. Here there are two alternative theories (see Paterson 1982a and b; 1985). T h e first, popularised by Mayr

Copyrighted Material

All things bright and beautiful?

85

and Dobzhansky, suggests that speciation is promoted by reinforcement; that population A will be better adapted to environment a if it speciates from population B, which is adapting to environment b, since each environment requires different adaptations. This might seem a plausible argument, but it assumes that each population knows in advance that its best advantage is served by speciation, and clearly this cannot be the case. A second, more reasonable, theory is that speciation is an effect of natural selection (sensu Williams 1966). T h a t is to say that as a result of other processes of selection, organisms in populations A and B n o longer recognise each other as members of the same species (Paterson 1982). T h u s , for example, the history of African antelope can be explained in terms of a Specific Mate Recognition System (SMRS) based on the shape of their horns (Vrba 1984). As selection caused slight variations in the form of these, so, as an effect, the n u m b e r of distinct antelope species increased. T h e recognition concept, then, is dynamic, in that it allows for both history and context. O n the one hand speciation is seen as a consequence of an historical process, rather than as an essential drive (and likewise for species unity). O n the other hand there will be contexts in which organisms are more disposed to recognise each other as potential breeding partners than others. This may explain why, in the above examples, duck species interbreed in captivity, and w h y there are hybrid zones between species. Moreover, the concept of S M R S also acknowledges the role of external resemblance (cf, Foucault 1970) in shaping the internal order. T h e selection of an organism's genetic make up is, in Sober's (1984) terms, a product of selection for external properties.

SPECIES A N D E T H N I C I T Y : I D E N T I T Y I N LIFE A species, then, is a somewhat Protean being; it is an historical entity which consists of those individuals w h o will reproduce together in a given context or contexts. Are, then, the species and the ethnic group different in kind or arc they simply different aspects of the same dynamic process? T h e prevailing anthropological/sociological view is that an ethnic group 'should be sharply distinguished from a race in the sense of a social group that is held to possess unique hereditary biological traits' (Smith, 1991: 21). Leaving aside, for a m o m e n t , the question of w h e t h e r there is such a thing as a race, this sociological analysis claims that ethnic groups are largely 'subjective' entities. However, this subjectivist view can be interpreted in several ways. From the relativist—rationalist point of view which predominates a m o n g post-structuralists, subjectivity seems to be a denial of 'objective' correlates altogether. 4 Conversely, subjectivism can simply mean that ethnic identity is defined from an emic point of view where actors decide their own ethnicity. This latter position seems reasonable, as it does not deny that real, tangible factors are involved in the construction of identity

Copyrighted Material

86

Paul Graves-Brown

(S. Jones, pers. c o m m . ) . However, there is still a tendency to reiterate a duality between culture and biology; to separate the reproduction of cultural values from the biological reproduction of persons. In the process, as Marx (1961 [ 1845]: 71) said, 'the relation of man to nature is excluded from history and in this way the antithesis between nature and history is established'. And, mutatis mutandis, history is excluded from nature. T h e subjectivist representation of ethnicity arises from a false dichotomy between our biological origins (as 'anatomically m o d e r n humans'), and subsequent history, as if, once we had b e c o m e ' m o d e r n humans' we had transcended the processes of life (Ingold forthcoming). In fact, as we have seen, there can be n o identity except in life; a species does not exist except as a dynamic, historically and physicallysituated entity. Identity, in any true sense, can only be a property of living things, since to decompose or dissect a living entity is to destroy it irreversibly, a fact that is not true of molecules or, as yet, of machines. Likewise, the ethnic group is not an abstraction, a subjective experience, but rather something that is tangible in b o t h a biological and a cultural sense; ethnicity is not thought up but lived. And if one were to doubt this it would only be necessary to consider the extent to w h i c h ethnic identity affects the biological composition of populations and vice versa (see S.Jones 1989). In fact it is the biological concept of race, and its abuse by h u m a n ethologists, sociobiologists and others, that lies at the root of our problem. For such a notion insists that the biological and cultural diversity of the h u m a n species can be artificially divided into distinct, b o u n d e d and preformed entities. Indeed, the h u m a n ethologist Konrad Lorenz went so far as to suggest that the formation of races was a kind of 'pseudospeciation', where outsiders were recognised in the same m a n n e r as the body responds to disease (Barker 1978; 1981; Lorenz 1973). This may seem far fetched, and yet more recent sociobiological accounts of race and racism only differ substantially in their rejection of the group selectionist assumptions of human ethology (Barker 1981). Rather, sociobiology sees consciousness of race as an extension of the principle of kin selection; the predisposition to give aid to those w h o are most closely (genetically) related to oneself. Here, according to Dawkins (1976: 100) 'racial prejudice could be interpreted as an irrational generalisation of a kin selected tendency to identify with individuals physically resembling oneself. Similarly, Barash remarks: Physical similarity is . . . a function of genetic relatedness, and human racial prejudice, directed against individuals who look different, could have its roots in this tendency to distinguish in-group from out-group. (Barash 1978: 310-11) From my previous discussion it is apparent that these assertions apply neither to the species nor ethnicity. For clearly they invoke a preformed

Copyrighted Material

All things bright and beautiful?

87

identity based on inate schemata (human ethology) or selfish genes (sociobiology). This is underlined by Barash's statement (1978: 278, my emphasis) that 'Sociobiology deals with biological universals that may underlie h u m a n social behaviour, universals that are presumed to hold cross culturally, and therefore cross—racially as well.' Such universals are claimed, on the one hand, to buttress the unity of humanity; ' W h a t better antidote for racism than such emphasis o n the behavioural commonality of our single species?' (Barash 1978: 278). But at the same time excuses must then be made for the continued existence of racism; the 'suggestion of an evolutionary basis for human racial prejudice is not intended to legitimise it. . . . Behaviour patterns that may have been adaptive under biological conditions are inappropriate and even dangerous under the cultural conditions of today' (Barash 1978: 311). O r else racism is a 'culturally nurtured' distortion of, 'biologically meaningful institutions of hunter-gatherer bands and early tribal states' (Wilson 1978: 92). As Silverman (1989: 215) observes 'theorists tend to be uncharacteristically inconsistent' on the subject of race. Perpetuating the antithesis between nature and history, they can only tell us that contemporary humans do not live under 'biological conditions', whatever that means. T h r o u g h their adherence to a preformationist conception, the human ethology and sociobiology accounts of race perpetuate a series of false propositions. First, they assume that genetic relatedness can be perceived directly from outward appearance; that the ' p h e n o t y p e ' is simply the expression of the g e n o m e . Yet, as Silverman (1989) remarks, 'biological' explanations of this kind overlook the fact humans have evolved a flexibility of appearance and action which is simply too variable to be subject to 'biological universals' and stereotypes. Second, these accounts accept the false logic of speciation by reinforcement; they assume that h u m a n groups gain by genetic isolation; that they can thereby enhance the adaptive 'fitness' of their kin. Again this assumes a teleological power of reasoning; an ability to predict such advantages generations ahead; but more dammngly for sociobiology the emphasis on kin group b o u n d e d ness contradicts the critique of group selection. Moreover, of course, survival depends on a capacity to avoid inbreeding and maintain variability. Thus, and finally, there is no way to define the race biologically as a b o u n d e d entity within the h u m a n species (Silverman 1989). All human beings must by definition be able to interbreed and hence no biological characteristic can be essential or exclusive to any 'race'. O n the other hand, however, we must account for the ubiquity of ethnic alliances and enmities. T h e r e have, for example, been some 280 wars since 1945, m o r e than seventy per cent of which have been civil wars and twenty-three per cent wars between neighbouring nations. Clearly such hostilities cannot be explained in terms of 'kin selection' since in most cases combatants have been members of the same or closely related ethnic groups. Rather, intergroup enmity must be seen as an effect

Copyrighted Material

88

Paul Graves-Brown

of culturally/biologically necessary processes of recognition and identification, in the same sense that speciation is an effect of natural selection. T h a t 'ethnic' causes of war are often cited represents post hoc rationalisation; extant differences are co-opted to 'explain' p h e n o m e n a which are not rationally explicable. In this sense ethnic groups and species are in n o way qualitatively different, since each arise as necessary consequences of mechanisms of conspecific recognition within a variable and varying population. However, I emphasise, neither entity owes its existence to a predetermined boundary; b o t h the species and the ethnic group are situationally defined; conflicts between neighbouring groups, nations etc. occur, in the main, for n o other reason than that they are neighbours. How, then, does culture play a part in this process? Both preformationist and subjectivist accounts consider cultural and biological processes as separate. It is clear that sociobiologists, for example, regard culture as a pathology which distorts 'natural' tendencies to identify with genetic kin. Conversely, the subjectivist account describes an ethnicity where the physical construction of identity is hazy; consisting in abstract references to 'deep structures', Bordieu's 'habitus' or cultural myths of c o m m o n origin etc. (cf., Bentley 1987; Eriksen 1992; Smith 1991 - for a different view see S. Jones 1994; chapter 4). Rather, I suggest, ethnic identity is constructed through the education of attention.5 Within the dynamics of ontogeny, the inseparable processes of learning and development continually construct and reconstruct identity (see Vygotskii 1986 [1934]). At one level the ability to recognise others is the product of a reality in which people are inherently distinctive objects; a fact about the world that may be directly perceived (see Gibson 1979). In this sense, ethnicity is not purely subjective. But at the same time exactly what we pick out from the world is a product of educated development in a cultural context. It is a learned skill since, as Silverman says, the highly flexible nature of h u m a n culture and action precludes preformed and stereotyped modes of recognition. Here, ethnicity is implicate in the biological, for clearly reproduction and ontogeny are biological processes. But at the same time biology is implicate in culture, in that socially constructed choices will in their turn change the structure of variation within the human species.

ETHNICITY A N D MATERIAL

CULTURE

Identity at any level is not a static essence or universal, but a property of dynamic, living systems. This has obvious implications for the archaeological study of ethnicity, since it is ostensibly the case that the archaeological record is something static and dead. O f course this problem is central to the history of archaeological research. T h e ' N o r m a t i v e ' approaches which preceded ' N e w Archaeology' took static cultural

Copyrighted Material

All things bright and beautiful?

89

markers or 'fossil directors' to represent ethnic groups; m o d e r n humans, Beaker Folk, Celts, or whatever (see other papers, this volume). This approach was almost, sensu Foucault (1970), pre-Classical in its inclination to treat the animate and inanimate as typologically equivalent (see above pp. 82—3 and Hides, chapter 2) and ' N e w archaeology' quite rightly criticised its assumptions. In any case the objectives of the 'processual' approach were quite different; '[t]he challenge that archaeology offers . . . is to take contemporary observations of static material things and, quite literally, translate t h e m into statements about the dynamics of past ways of life' (Binford 1983: 20). This essentially functionalist reanimation was, as we all know, to be accomplished by something called Middle Range Theory, which would establish uniformitarian principles. However, functionalist processual archaeology has never tackled ethnicity as a serious issue and, I suggest, this is because it cannot. As H o d d e r (1991: 121) says 'there can be n o universal cultural relationship between statics and dynamics'. Cultures are necessarily specific in space and historical time. Uniformitarian principles, in effect a form of Platonic universal, negate the possibility of different identities in different times and places. 6 Moreover, and paradoxically, uniformity also precludes cultural dynamics beyond a kind of automatic obedience to ubiquitous 'laws' of behaviour (cf, Graves 1994; H o d d e r 1989). Should we, then, return to a revised normative approach, as H o d d e r (1991) seems to suggest? Before doing so, perhaps one should reconsider first principles; are cultural dynamics really inaccessible in a more direct way? D o we actually need to consider transformations from statics to dynamics? Clearly the archaeological record is static in the sense that it is n o longer alive. But this is not to say that it is simply a collection of discrete entities; of 'finished artefacts' or unconnected events (see Graves 1994; Graves-Brown 1995). T h e concept of a record implies a track or trace of events or processes, and indeed this notion of sequence is the philosophical root of Leroi-Gourhan's (1964) use of the chaine operatoire concept. T h e 'artefact' is subsumed within a series of gestures or actions and hence we are not simply concerned with final form, but with the modality (sensu Pelegrin 1986) of which the artefact is the outcome. 7 From this perspective, the 'record' constitutes an embodied dynamic where n o artefact can have meaning archaeologically except as part of such a process; for clearly different modalities could generate the same 'end product', and the meaning of an artefact could only be considered in relation to its modality of production (and similarly, the same modality could produce different products). C a n this dynamic concept of chaine operatoire and modality serve to identify ethnicity? I believe that it can, but in order to d o so we must establish if a n d / o r w h y ethnicity is embodied in material culture. R a w material constraints, isochrestic factors, 8 and, especially, expressive motives are said to determine the material culture style particular to an

Copyrighted Material

90

Paul Graves-Brown

ethnic group. However, in my view, deeper socio-cultural causes underlie these parameters. For example, a knife is always an artefact with a sharp edge, but its functioning can be accomplished in a n u m b e r of ways. T h u s , in the Indian sub-continent, knives are often made to b e held rigidly o n the floor whilst the material to be cut is pressed o n t o the edge (Sigaut 1991). This practice, which reverses our o w n in w h i c h the tool itself is moved, is widespread in Indian culture (Valentine R o u x , pers. c o m m . ) . Is this simply a matter of idiosyncrasy, of isochrestic choice? In the sense that either solution is valid, it is. But in the context of a specific culture one or other option constitutes what is 'appropriate' (Van Esterick 1985; W y n n 1991). T h e artefact is one of a series of'collapsed acts' (Mead 1934) in which, progressively, choices have been embodied such that form becomes conventional. We don't have to think of what kind of tool we want every time we need to cut something, or h o w to use that tool; these decisions are embodied in the artefact in terms of the conventions of our culture. Material culture conventions can be factored into two basic c o m p o nents. Artefacts with a similar function will be expected to be congruent with one another; we are educated to attend to certain basic patterns for knives and screwdrivers. Similarly an artefact is expected to be coherent, b o t h in terms of its internal structure and its articulation with the user. T h u s a knife, in 'Western' culture, is expected to be something linear with a blade and a handle (congruence), it is expected to have a hard cutting edge and a handle firmly attached to the blade (internal coherence) and it is expected to sit comfortably in the hand (coherence with the body). In this sense convention is not simply normative, for it is essential to the dynamic and dialectic of a culture; it acts as the articulation between the actions of people, as the nexus of joint action (sensu Leudar 1991). If we make a knife, buy a knife, use, b o r r o w or lose a knife, we share in a c o m m o n understanding. We participate in an operational chaine whose modality is like a dynamic signature specific to our ethnicity. T h e c o m m o n notion that style is primarily expressive is homologous with the reinforcement model of speciation; as if the primary use of material culture was to reinforce ethnic boundaries. Here again matter and life are treated as typologically equivalent; the artefact becomes a property of a society rather than something that is part of the life of society; artefacts are treated as 'phenotypic' expressions of a preformed identity (see e.g., Foley 1987). And yet, if we consider, for example, the fact that British drivers drive on the left, it is clear that this convention is not primarily intended to express the uniqueness of Britain. Rather, cultural convention should be equated with the recognition systems discussed above. Thus, and archetypally w h e n we consider mutual recognition, languages are not different in order to express our national identity. O f course, style is used to express identity, but convention is effectively the vocabulary from which expressive style is drawn; that we do speak

Copyrighted Material

All things bright and beautiful?

91

different languages can be co-opted into the expression of identity. As suggested above, the expressive c o m p o n e n t of ethnic identity, like the boundedness of species, may be said to be an effect derivative of other factors. But our primary archaeological concern should be to determine the conventional modalities u p o n which such expressive stylistic differences, if they exist, are based, and where no expressive difference exists between cultural groups, it may still be the case that the dynamics of convention differentiate ethnic boundaries. O f course, one might counter, individual elements do pass from one culture to another. But, I suggest, these are subordinated to congruence and coherence. As M u r d o c k (1959) points out, some cultural 'traits' are more structurally e m b e d d e d than others. Thus, for example, it would be disastrous if individuals suddenly decided to change which side of the road they drove on (like the old lady w h o thought Britain could convert 'gradually' to driving on the right). But the colour or make of car they drive, provided it conforms with our driving conventions, is not structurally embedded. I suggest, then, that ethnic identity represents a kind of dynamic polythesis. Cultures are not monothetic, because they do share cultural attributes (cf., Clarke 1978). But these shared attributes are integrated into different societies in different ways. And hence we find that cultural identities are not singular but multifaceted. Thus, simply seeking artefacts as markers of cultural identity will not do, for clearly artefacts can pass from one culture to another, and it is here that the concept of a chaine opcratoire is vital. For what we are concerned with is not so much what people do; what kinds of pots they make, what shape of houses they build; but the way in which they go about it. O n e culture may copy the artefacts of another (e.g., the imitations of Samian/Aretine ware made in Britain during the R o m a n period) but such copies, as Van Esterick (1985) suggests, are produced in terms of different conceptions of appropriateness which express themselves as different technical approaches; chaines operatoires. W h a t appears on the surface to be a widespread cultural identity, in terms of some ubiquitous artefact form, may turn out to be something more complex if we consider h o w this artefact is situated within the chaines opcratoire of different groups.

C O N C L U S I O N : SAFETY I N

NUMBERS?

As suggested at the outset, I see n o useful purpose in a distinction between the biological and the cultural. This division has gained prominance in the h u m a n sciences as a reaction against the claims of biology, and particularly in the debate surrounding sociobiology. However, in my view, the biology—culture duality is counter productive, since the real problem lies not with the facts of h u m a n biology, but rather with the way they are interpreted within the dominant natural science paradigm.

Copyrighted Material

92

Paul Graves-Brown

This chapter has been an attempt, in T i m Ingold's (1992: 803) phrase, 'to rescue the biology of our species from the biologists'. And, thus, I have tried to show that far from reducing h u m a n ethnicity to the simplistic ideas of sociobiologists, we are better served by a more complex conception of the species which is compatible with h u m a n agency and the contingent, historical nature of identity. Most importantly, 1 have sought to argue that identity is fundamentally a matter of recognition; that the formation of groups or species depends o n recognising the similarity of others, before deciding w h o m to exclude. T h e c o m m o n conception that identity is simply about dividing 'us' from ' t h e m ' overlooks that fact that we must first have some conception of ourselves before deciding on the difference of others. Whilst ethnic groups, nations, and for that matter 'continents' such as Europe, define themselves in antithesis to other entities, they build their enmities in opposition to their own communities of practice. And hence the concept of style has been mobilised as the archaeological correlate of selfexpression, rather than in its more fundamental role as the nexus of j o i n t activity; of c o m m o n , shared understanding. To say that cultural identity is something that we share, rather than something that sets us apart, may seem rather idealistic. But, I believe, this is a fact which is elementary to an understanding of h o w we got here in the first place.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This article arises from numerous discussions with Michael Chazan, Alan Costall, Jean-Claude Gardin, Sian Jones, Jacques Pelegrin, Valentine R o u x , my uncle H e n r y and a cast of thousands. But at the end of the day it's all my fault. M y ideas have been irrevocably altered by a year spent in Paris, for which I must thank the Fondation Fyssen.

NOTES 1 All of which, no doubt, explains why Marx admired Darwin, even if the feeling doesn't appear to have been mutual (Bowler 1984; Young 1985). 2 The usual assumption that Darwin developed his theory from Malthus is questionable, not least because Malthus believed that demographic processes maintained a fixed social order (see Young 1985; Bowler, 1976). 3 Here 1 refer only to sexually reproducing species. In asexual reproduction there is a kind of tree structure relationship between individuals (see Hull 1982; Maynard-Snnth 1986) where one might not wish to talk of'species' in any true sense. 4 I should emphasise that I don't espouse an objectivist point of view, but rather a realist stance where what constitutes an object is therefore 'objective' as determined by the relationship between actors and reality. 5 A term borrowed from the psychologist Gibson (1979). 6 And umformitanan principles are redolent of sociobiology's 'biological universals' mentioned above.

Copyrighted Material

All things bright and beautiful?

93

7 Although, of course, the production modality is only a part of the total chaine of production, use and discard. 8 The idiosyncratic choice between equally valid designs which is not in itself expressive (see Sackett, 1982).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barash, D. (1978) Sociobiology and Behaviour. London: Heinemann. Barker, M. (1978) 'Racism: The new inheritors.' Radical Philosophy 9: 2—17. (1981) 'Biology and the New Racism.' In The New Racism. London: Junction Books. Bateson, P. (1978) 'Sexual imprinting and outbreeding.' Nature 273: 659—60. Bentley, G.C. (1987) 'Ethnicity and practice.' Comparative Studies in Society and History 29: 24-55 Binford, L.R. (1983) In Pursuit of the Past. London: Thames and Hudson. Bowler, P.J. (1976) 'Malthus, Darwin and the concept of struggle.' Journal of the History of Ideas 37: 631—50 (1984) Evolution: The History of an Idea. Oxford: Blackwell. (1986) Theories of Human Evolution: A Century of Debate. Oxford: Blackwell. Carr, S.M., S.W. Ballinger, J.N. Derr, L.H. Blankenship and J.W. Bickham (1986) 'Mitochondrial DNA analysis of hybridisation between sympatric white-tailed deer and mule deer in West Texas.' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 83: 9576-80. Clarke, D.L. (1978) Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen. Costall, A.P. (1991) 'The "meme" meme.' Cultural Dynamics 4, 3: 321—35. Darwin, C. (1971 [1859]) The Origin of Species. London: Dent. Dawkins, R. (1976) Ihe Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eriksen, T.H. (1992) Us and Them in Modern Societies. London: Scandinavian University Press. Foley, R.A. (1987) 'Hominid assemblages and stone tool assemblages. How are they related?' Antiquity 61: 380-98. Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge. Gibson, J.J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Graves, P.M. (1994) 'Flakes and ladders. What the archaeological record cannot tell us about the origins of language.' World Archaeology 26, 2: 158—71. Graves-Brown, P. (1995) 'Fearful symmetry.' World Archaeology 27. (forthcoming) 'In search of the watchmaker. Agency in natural and cultural selection.' In H. Maschler (ed.), Darwinian Archaeologies. Hodder, I. (1989) 'This is not an article about material culture as text.' Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 250—69 (1991) Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hospers, J. (1967) An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hull, D.L. (1982) 'The naked meme.' In H. Plotkin (ed.), Darning, Development and Culture. London: Wiley. (1984) 'Historical entities and historical narratives.' In C. Hookway (ed.), Minds, Machines and Evolution.: 17—43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Copyrighted Material

94

Paul Graves-Brown

Ingold, T. (forthcoming) '"People like us": The concept of the anatomically Modern Human.' Pithecanthropus Centennial Congress. Leiden, The Netherlands, 26th June-1 st July 1993. Jones, J.S. (1989) 'A tale of three cities.' Nature 339: 116-17. Jones, S. (1994) Archaeology and Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and the Present. Southampton: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Southampton. Kummer, H., W. Goetz and W. Angst (1970) 'Cross species modification of behaviour in baboons.' In J. Napier and P. Napier (eds), Old World Monkeys. London: Academic Press. Lamb, T. and J.C. Avise. (1986) 'Directional introgression of mitochondrial DNA in a hybrid population of tree frogs: The influence of mating behaviour.' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 83: 2526—30. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964) Le Ceste et la Parole. Paris: Albin Michel. Leudar, I. (1991) 'Sociogenesis, coordination and mutualism.' Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 21, 2: 197—220 Lorenz, K. (1973) Civilised Man's Eight Deadly Sins. London: Methuen. Marx, K. (1961 [1845]) 'The German ideology.' In T.B. Bottomore and M. Rubel (eds), Karl Marx. Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy: 27-9. Harmondsworth: Pelican. Maynard-Smith, J. (1986) The Problems of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Murdock, G.P. (1959) 'Evolution in social organisation.' In B.J. Meggers (ed.), Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal. Washington, D.C.: The Anthropological Society of Washington D.C.. Nagel, U. (1971) 'Social organisation in a baboon hybrid zone.' Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Primates 3: 48—57. Paterson, H. (1982a) 'Darwin and the origin of species.' South African Journal of Science 78: 272-5. (1982b) 'Perspective on speciation by reinforcement.' South African Journal of Science 78: 53—7 (1985) 'The recognition concept of species.' In E.S. Vrba (ed.), Species and Speciation.: 21-9. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum Monograph 4. Pelegrin, J. (1986) Technologic Eithique: Une Methode Applique a I'etude de deux Series du Pcrigordien Ancien. Thesis: University of Paris X. Phillips-Conroy, J.E. and C.J. Jolly. (1986) 'Changes in the structure of the baboon hybrid zone in the Awash National Park, Ethiopia.' American Journal of Physical Anthropology 71: 337-50. Sigaut, F. (1991) 'Un couteau ne sert pas a couper, mais en coupant. Structure, foncionnement et fonction dans l'analyse des objets.' In C. Perles (ed.), 25 Ans D'Etudes Technologiques en Prehistoire. Juin—Les—Pins: Editions APDCA. Silverman, I. (1989) 'Race, race differences, and race relations: Perspectives from psychology and sociobiology.' In C. Crawford, M. Smith and D. Krebs (eds), Sociobiology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues and Applications.: 205—21. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sober, E. (1984) The Nature of Selection. Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Eocus. Boston: MIT Press. Tester, K. (1991) Animals and Society. Tlie Humanity of Animal Rights. London: Routledge.

Copyrighted Material

All things bright and beautiful?

95

Van Esterik, P. (1985) 'Imitating Ban Chiang pottery: Toward a cognitive theory of replication.' In J. Docherty (ed.), Directions in Cognitive Anthropology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Vrba, E. S. (1984) 'Patterns in the fossil record and evolutionary process.' In M.W. Ho and P. Saunders (eds), Beyond Neo-Darwinism.: 115—42. London: Academic Press. Vygotskii, L.S. (1986 [1934]) Thought and Language. Boston: MIT Press. Williams, G.C. (1966) Adaptation and National Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wilson, E.O. (1978) On Human Nature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Unversity Presss. Wright, S. (1984) 'Theories of group selection.' In R.N. Brandon and R.M. Burian (eds), Genes, Organisms, Populations. Controversies Over the Units of Selection.: 4 0 - 1 . Boston: MIT Press. Wynn, T. (1991) 'Tools, grammar and the archaeology of cognition.' Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1, 2: 191—206. (n.d.) 'Two developments in the mind of early Homo.' Young, R.M. (1985) Darwin's Metaphor. Nature's Place in Victorian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER SIX

I M A G I N I N G THE NEW EUROPE: IDENTITY A N D HERITAGE IN EUROPEAN C O M M U N I T Y DISCOURSE CRIS

SHORE

European identity is the result of centuries of shared history and common culture and fundamental values. But awareness of it can be strengthened by symbolic action, consciousness-raising campaigns and the growing convergence of European ambitions. (Commission of the European Communities 1988: 5) Talk of a new 'European' identity currently abounds. Yet, just what is meant by such an expression is largely taken for granted, not least because it permits some awkward questions to be sidestepped. We need to stand back and engage in a little critical reflection. (Schlesinger 1989: 1) As these comments suggest, the idea of a 'European identity' has gained increasing currency in media and European C o m m u n i t y (EC) discourses. 1 This has occurred less because of any general consensus about the emergence of a new, cosmopolitan, or uniquely 'European' identity, 2 than because the notions of a c o m m o n European homeland and a shared cultural heritage have a functional utility for supporters of European integration. Indeed, far from providing evidence that a n e w Europe, confident of its role in the world, is finally c o m i n g of age, such c o m m e n t s are arguably indicative of the dilemmas confronting Europe today. As Mercer (1990: 43) observes, 'identity only becomes an issue w h e n it is in crisis, w h e n something assumed to be fixed, coherent and stable is displaced by the experience of d o u b t and uncertainty'. Several factors have contributed to this uncertainty, most notably G e r m a n reunification,

Copyrighted Material

Imagining the new Europe

97

the collapse of the Soviet U n i o n , the decline of the old established nation-states, and increasing migration, globalisation, deindustrialisation, u n e m p l o y m e n t and recession. Since 1989 Europe has been forced to re-establish its boundaries and its sense of self. It is within this broader context that discourses on European identity must be understood. This chapter explores some of the ways in which the 'new Europe', as conceived by E C politicians and officials, is being created in the fields of culture and communication, and the role played by notions of European history and cultural heritage in this process. In particular, it examines some of the issues raised by E C discourses concerning 'European identity' and 'culture', and their political implications. I argue that the 'European identity' being forged through E C policies and cultural initiatives reflects not only the EC's attempt to acquire legitimacy, but more importantly, the ideal of constructing a 'European consciousness' that will transcend national consciousness and lay the foundations for a new, post-nationalist, European order. 'European identity' is thus both an 'imagined c o m m u n i t y ' (Anderson 1983) and a 'discourse of power' (Foucault 1978). M y questions are what kind of Europe is being 'imagined'? W h o s e 'images' prevail and from whence are these images drawn? And h o w are these representations made authoritative?

EC DISCOURSES A N D THE C O N S T R U C T I O N OF EUROPE O n e point repeatedly stressed in fieldwork interviews with officials of the European Commission and Parliament 3 was the need, as they saw it, for greater E C intervention in the domain of culture. This view is emphasised in numerous recent EC reports calling for more active policies in the 'cultural sector' - which in E C discourse includes the arts and media, information, education, tourism, sport and heritage (cf. A d o n n i n o 1985; C E C 1988; EP 1993). 4 Two reasons for this emphasis on culture are typically cited. First, because 'culture' has b e c o m e a major area of commercial activity, and therefore falls increasingly within the Community's sphere of legal competence over e c o n o m i c and industrial policies. Second, and more significantly, because the notion of culture itself has slowly come to be recognised as a key dimension of European integration. As a recent European Parliament report notes, 'the cultural dimension is b e c o m i n g an increasingly crucial means of giving effect to policies seeking to foster a union of the European peoples founded on the consciousness of sharing a c o m m o n heritage of ideas and values' (Barzanti 1992: 5). This statement echoes the view, c o m m o n a m o n g E C officials and European federalists, that European integration is not simply a t e c h n o cratic enterprise for creating a bigger market. Rather, it is a cultural and psychological process involving a 'rapprochement' a m o n g the peoples of Europe, and thus part of a wider, historical project for bringing about

Copyrighted Material

98

Cris Shore

social cohesion a m o n g fellow Europeans, hitherto divided by national chauvinism and war (Fontaine 1991; Taylor 1983). As one Commission d o c u m e n t states, in language echoing Durkheim: The success of various symbolic initiatives has demonstrated that Europe's cultural dimension is there in the collective consciousness of its people: their values are a joint cultural asset, characterised by a pluralist humanism based on democracy, justice and liberty. The European Union which is being constructed cannot have economic and social objectives as its only aim. It also involves new kinds of solidarity based on belonging to European culture. (CEC 1988: 3) This emphasis on culture as an integrative mechanism marks a fundamental shift in official E C discourses o n Europe. This t h e m e is worth elaborating as it underlies m u c h of the rationale behind attempts to create the European U n i o n and will help to situate the discussion in a wider political and theoretical context. Although traditionally defined as a c o m m o n market and an association of sovereign states, the E E C was always seen by its 'founding fathers' as a prelude to a deeper federal union in Western Europe. As the 1957 Treaty of R o m e put it, the EEC's political aim was to 'establish the foundations of an ever closer union a m o n g the European peoples' and, beyond this, to substitute for age-old rivalries the merging of their essential interests; to create, by establishing an economic community, the basis for a broader and deeper community among peoples long divided by bloody conflicts; and to lay the foundations for institutions which will give direction to a destiny henceforth shared.5 (CEC 1983a: 113) Yet despite frequent references to 'peoples of E u r o p e ' little attention was paid to the cultural dimensions of European integration (Smith 1992: 57). T h e idiosyncratic behaviour of real people was largely ignored by the architects of European unification and appeared to have little connection with the integration process. 'Building Europe' was perceived primarily in terms of dismantling barriers to the free movement of goods, services and labour, and this was a task for economists and lawyers. This perspective reflected the traditional technocratic bias which dominated approaches to European integration from the 1950s to the 1970s, epitomised by the so-called 'neofunctionalist' theory of integration (George 1985; Haas 1958). This theory saw integration as a rational process 'arising from the harnessing of pressures produced by the competing interest groups in society' (Taylor 1983: 4), and from a 'spillover' effect in which rationalisation and harmonisation in one area would generate pressure for harmonisation and integration in others. Economic

Copyrighted Material

Imagining the new Europe

99

integration would therefore lead inexorably towards integration in the political domain (Smith 1983; Taylor 1983). 6 As the French statesman Jean M o n n e t — one of the venerated 'founding fathers' of the European C o m m u n i t y — saw it, a federal Europe would emerge through the steady, cumulative effect of small incremental steps. This strategy would also avoid any head-on confrontation with national governments, which would willingly surrender control to the C o m m u n i t y . At first this would happen because nation-states would not feel threatened by their loss of authority in apparently innocuous spheres of activity, and because of the economic advantages to be gained by j o i n i n g a larger market. But later, as more areas of control were ceded, individual nation-states would b e c o m e incapable of independent action until 'one day, the national governments would awaken to find t h e m selves enmeshed in a "spreading web of international activities and agencies" from which they would find it almost impossible to extricate themselves' (George 1985: 20). A similar scenario was presented by President Delors in his speech to the British Trades U n i o n Congress in 1988, w h e n he told the E C nations to 'wake u p ' to the seepage of national sovereignty and predicted that in ten years time eighty per cent of economic and social decision-making would have passed from national parliaments to Brussels (Usborne 1988). As Wallace describes it: This was political institution-building as a strategy: to promote economic integration, in the expectation that social integration would accompany it, that the interests and loyalties of elites - at least — would thus be progressively transferred from each nation-state to the broader institutionalised community, which would in turn 'lay the foundations' for an eventual political union. It was a process which implied a beginning and an end: from and beyond the nation-state to the eventual achievement of European union. (Wallace 1990: 1) I venture this brief digression into early discourses on European integration because they provide a useful background to understanding current approaches to European unification. Indeed, most E C officials that I interviewed accepted that neo functionalism had reached its limit, and that the E C therefore needed to adopt a more proactive stance towards promoting greater awareness of the C o m m u n i t y and of Europe's shared cultural heritage. Encouraging people to see themselves as Europeans was also regarded as part of a wider strategy for tackling the EC's lack of popularity (which is part of the EC's 'democratic deficit'), and for combating Europe's divisive legacy of nationalism which, some argued, is preventing the conditions for a truly 'European consciousness' to arise. P r o m o t i n g 'European identity' has thus b e c o m e a central plank of the project for building an ever-closer union a m o n g the peoples of Europe.

Copyrighted Material

100

Cris Shore I N V E N T I N G EUROPE: EC I N I T I A T I V E S I N THE C U L T U R A L SECTOR

To achieve integration in the sphere of culture, the E C has embarked u p o n a n u m b e r of initiatives in the fields of media and information policy, to promote what it sees as 'European identity'. This effectively began in the early 1980s with the publication of two documents: the Tindemans' Report on European Union ( C E C 1976) which developed the new catchword o f ' C i t i z e n ' s Europe', and the 1983 Solemn Declaration on European Union signed by the European Council in Stuttgart ( C E C 1983b). This introduced the idea that European cooperation should extend to cultural cooperation, which was to be pursued not for its o w n sake but 'in order to affirm the awareness of a c o m m o n cultural heritage as an element in the European identity' (cited in D e Witte 1987: 136). This emphasis on consciousness raising as a strategy for making Europe more visible and 'closer to its citizens' signalled a n e w departure in E C approaches to culture ( C E C 1992b). Calls for intervention were reinforced by the disappointingly low t u r n - o u t in the 1984 European Parliament elections. T h e European Council meeting shortly afterwards therefore agreed to establish an ad hoc C o m m i t t e e for a People's Europe, whose task was to suggest measures 'to strengthen and promote the Community's identity and its image b o t h for its citizens and for the rest of the world' (Adonnino 1985: 5; C E C 1988: 1). T h e C o m m i t t e e , chaired by the Italian MEP, Pietro Adonnino, produced two reports the following year. Its recommendations covered various topics not strictly confined to the cultural domain, including the simplification of border-crossing formalities, minting a European coinage, increasing duty-free allowances, providing reciprocal recognition of equivalent diplomas and professional qualifications, and giving rights to those living abroad to participate in local and European elections in their country of residence. T h e report stressed, however, that it is 'through action in the areas of culture and communication, which are essential to European identity and the Community's image in the minds of its people, that support for the advancement of Europe can and must be sought' (Adonnino 1985: 21). Several areas perceived to possess popular appeal were identified as sites for the promotion of the 'European idea'. 7 These included proposals for a Europe-wide 'audiovisual area' with a 'truly European' multilingual television channel ('in order to bring the peoples of Europe closer together' (Adonnino 1985: 21—4)); a European Academy of Science ('to highlight the achievements of European science and the originality of European civilization in all its wealth and diversity' (Adonnino 1985: 21—4)); and a Euro-lottery whose prizemoney would be awarded in E C U and a n n o u n c e d throughout the C o m m u n i t y ('to make Europe c o m e alive for the Europeans' (Adonnino 1985: 21—4)). T h e C o m m i t t e e also called for

Copyrighted Material

Imagining the new Europe

101

the formation of European sports teams; the transmission of more factual information about C o m m u n i t y activities and their significance for European citizens (including 'the historical events which led to the construction of the C o m m u n i t y and which inspire its further development in freedom, peace and security and its achievements and potential in the economic and social field' (Adonnino 1985: 21—4)); the inauguration of school exchange programmes and voluntary work camps for y o u n g people; and the introduction of a stronger 'European dimension' in education (including 'the preparation and availability of appropriate school books and teaching materials' and 'confirming 9 May as the annual date of Europe Day' (Adonnino 1 9 8 5 : 2 1 - 4 ) ) . These populist, nation-building measures were designed to enhance European consciousness and 'Europeanise' the cultural sector. However, the C o m m i t t e e went further and argued that to transform the E C into a 'People's E u r o p e ' also required a new set of symbols for communicating the principles and values u p o n which the C o m m u n i t y is based. As the Commission noted: symbols play a key role in consciousness-raising but there is also a need to make the European citizen aware of the different elements that go to make up his [sic] European identity, of our cultural unity with all its diversity of expression, and of the historical ties which link the nations of Europe. (CEC 1988: 9) In short, ordinary Europeans were seen as lacking sufficient consciousness of their European heritage and identity, and the Commission intended to remedy this. To this end the C o m m i t t e e r e c o m m e n d e d various 'symbolic measures' for enhancing the C o m m u n i t y ' s profile. Foremost a m o n g these was the creation of a new E C emblem and flag — which was hoisted for the first time outside the Commission headquarters in Brussels at a formal ceremony on 29 May 1986. T h a t flag, adopted in J u n e 1985, was taken from the logo of the Council of Europe: a circle of twelve yellow stars set against a blue background. T h e rationale for this emblem, as the Council of Europe described it, was because: Twelve was a symbol of perfection and plentitude, associated equally with the apostles, the sons of Jacob, the tables of the Roman legislator, the labours of Hercules, the hours of the day, the months of the year, or the signs of the Zodiac. Lastly, the circular layout denoted union. (Forum, 3/89, p. 8, cited in Loken 1992: 6) For the Commission, this was therefore 'the symbol par excellence of European identity and European unification' ( C E C 1988: 5). A m o n g the other symbolic vehicles for communicating the 'Europe idea', the C o m m i t t e e also proposed the creation of European postage stamps bearing portraits of E C pioneers such as R o b e r t Schuman and Jean M o n n e t , and c o m m e m o r a t i n g key m o m e n t s in the evolution of the Community, such

Copyrighted Material

102

Cris Shore

as the accession of Spain and Portugal; the European passport, driving license, and car number-plates, and a European anthem, taken from the fourth movement of Beethoven's ninth symphony — the ' O d e to Joy' — which the C o m m i t t e e r e c o m m e n d e d be played at all suitable ceremonies and events. O t h e r 'high profile initiatives' to boost the Community's image included 'public awareness' campaigns, EC-sponsored sporting c o m p e t i tions and awards, the formation of an ' E C Youth Orchestra' and 'the conservation and restoration of the Parthenon' ( C E C 1992b: 3). Further areas of E C patronage include the 'Charlemagne Peace Prize', the 'European W o m a n of the Year Award', and 651 'Jean M o n n e t Awards' to create new university courses and lectureships in European integration studies. T h e aim of these funds, as the Commission described it, is to contribute to the 'Europeanizing' of university teaching ( C E C 1993: 2). T h e Commission also attempted to re-structure the ritual calendar by creating n e w celebratory calendric markers, such as festive 'European Weeks', 'European months of culture' (to accompany the 'European city of culture' initiative), and a series of 'European years' dedicated to the promotion of certain EC-chosen themes (such as the 'European Year of C i n e m a ' , or the 'European Year of the Environment'). It also proposed n e w C o m m u n i t y - w i d e public holidays c o m m e m o r a t i n g decisive m o m e n t s in the history of European integration — such as the Schuman declaration and the birthday of Jean M o n n e t . T h e political aim behind these initiatives was ambitious: to reconfigure the symbolic ordering of time, space, information, education and the media in order to reflect a 'European dimension' and bolster the legitimacy and prestige of E C institutions.

R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S OF ' E U R O P E A N I N EC I C O N O G R A P H Y

CULTURE'

Most of these proposals were adopted at the European Council meeting in Milan in J u n e 1985 and have since been implemented. My concern, however, is not to analyse the mechanics of h o w they were implemented so m u c h as h o w we might 'read' these discourses for clues about the epistemology and rationality underlying E C cultural initiatives and the images of European culture upon which they rely. In short, what kind of Europe is being imagined? In this respect, three immediate points can be made concerning these initiatives. First, far from reflecting the thinking of a n e w age in h u m a n history, they seem to reveal a current of nineteenth-century social evolutionist thinking prevalent a m o n g E C policy-makers and officials. Within these discourses the E C is typically portrayed as a logical development of the Enlightenment: a force for progress inspired by science, reason, rationality and humanism (the ideals which supposedly inspired Beethoven's ' O d e to Joy'). These discourses also tend to portray the European Parliament and Commission as heroic

Copyrighted

Material

Imagining the new Europe

103

agents of change, o n the side of history, leading Europe forward in search of its supposed 'federal destiny'. Second, despite the EC's claim to be forging a new entity that 'transcends' the nation-state and beckons the dawn of a n e w era of Europeanism, the n e w Europe is being constructed on precisely the same symbolic terrain as the old nation-states. Flags, anthems, passports, trophies, maps and coins thus all serve as icons for evoking the presence of the emergent state, only instead of 'national sovereignty', it is the legitimacy of E C institutions that is being emphasised and endorsed. This raises an interesting dimension to debates about national sovereignty and w h e t h e r European and national levels of identity and authority are compatible or antagonistic. It also challenges the EC's claim to be forging a political entity that 'goes beyond' the nation-state. Critics such as Galtung (1973: 16) and Nairn (1977: 306-28) have argued that the E C in fact continues the nationalistic project of colonialism - only this time it is an imperialistic attempt to achieve collectively what the individual empires of Europe's nation-states failed to do alone: namely, a dominant position in the world e c o n o m i c system. According to this perspective, the E C does not herald the end of the nation-state so m u c h as the beginning of a 'super-nation-state founded on European chauvinism' (Nairn 1977: 317). 8 Third, the ambiguous way that E C discourses treat the notion of 'European culture' indicates that there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the EC's approach to culture. Europe's cultural heritage is depicted, on the one hand, as a well-established and static 'object': an organic p h e n o m e n o n arising naturally from Europe's rich diversity and centuries of shared history (and hence, as something strong, proud, distinctive and unambiguous). O n the other hand, however, European culture is portrayed as fragile and vulnerable; something that needs to be nurtured and protected from dangerous — and presumably 'contaminating' — foreign influences. A m o n g the greatest perceived threats to European culture are Japanese and American audio-visual products. 9 As Schlesinger (1991: 141) points out, these problems of the Eurocrats have b e c o m e the preoccupations of academics and consultants. For example, Anthony Pragnell's study of Television in Europe speaks of European fears that; heavy viewing of programmes from other countries (particularly from the United States . . .) would over time erode the culture, values and proper pride in their own traditions of the countries of Europe. The fear is also that an undue use of US material would have a similar effect on that common sense of identity in Western Europe as a whole which already exists to a significant extent and which it is the aim of European institutions to foster. (Pragnell 1985, cited in Schlesinger 1991: 142) These discourses combine contradictory representations of European identity that appear at one and the same time to be both essentialist yet

Copyrighted Material

104

Cris Shore

also instrumentalist: European identity already exists in the 'collective conscience of its peoples', yet bureaucratic intervention is needed to 'defend' it from assault and to make Europeans 'more aware' of their cultural identity. Further ambiguity towards the idea of culture is reflected in Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty, which established for the first time the EC's legal competence in the cultural sector. This declares that the Community 'shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore' (CEC 1992a: 13). Just how this flowering of cultures is to be 'cultivated', to extend the gardening metaphor, is not made explicit, although the instrumental measures suggested by Adonnino (1985), Oostlander (EP 1993) and De Clercq (1993) provide some clues to the approaches likely to be adopted. 10 Similar contradictions occur frequently in EC discourses. According to the Commission, the function of EC cultural initiatives is to turn 'the technocrats' Europe into a 'People's Europe' (CEC 1988: 1). In other words, they aim to popularise the Community and counter its image as the enterprise of a remote, bureaucratic elite. Yet ironically, it could be argued that the invention of a people's Europe actually involves far greater intervention by technocrats and experts, such as PR and media specialists, advertising agencies, statisticians and opinion poll analysts, a task force of bureaucrats to oversee the allocation of EC programmes and resources for educational exchanges, and an entire General Directorate ('DC 10') devoted to media, culture and information. The emancipatory ideals espoused by the People's Europe campaign are therefore juxtaposed against an increasing tendency towards bureaucratic state intervention at a European level. The entire population of the Community thus becomes a new object of bureaucratic knowledge and power under the managerial gaze of anonymous specialists, marking a new phase in what Foucault (1978) calls the regime of 'biopower'. Again, these points are epitomised in competing EC discourses on Europe. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) point out, metaphors play a pivotal role in shaping the social construction of reality and the concepts we use to make sense of the world. The way Europe is conceptualised through metaphor is particularly revealing. Two basic idioms of representation prevail. The first, popularised in media discourse (and by EC officials), portrays the Community in terms of metaphors denoting movement or process. As McDonald (1994) notes, these include frequent references to Europe as a 'high-speed train', or locomotive (with a 'slow track' and 'fast lane'), and to the Commission as the 'engine of integration'. These metaphors draw primarily on industrial imagery, ironically given the characterization of our era as 'post-industrial', yet simultaneously recall the 'journey' motif familiar to many myths. The second idiom is that of a house or construction (as in 'building Europe' and 'laying firm

Copyrighted Material

Imagining the new Europe

105

foundations'). Unlike neofunctionalist discourses, whose flow-diagrams tended to portray European integration as a blind hydraulic process, this imagery depicts the Community as an architectural wonder: a great feat of human engineering and ingenuity. Both idioms, however, also draw upon a rather fixed and stereotypical set of images of Europe's past and invoke the Neolithic, the Bronze Age, the Celts, and — in particular — Classical Greece and Rome as the foundation stones of European culture. I M A G I N I N G EUROPE: THE ROLE OF H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y So far it might appear that EC attempts to construct a European identity through calculated cultural initiatives have been relatively unproblematic. However, like all identities (sexual, political, ethnic or national), 'European identity' is a contested arena: a battleground for competing interests and discourses. Part of the problem here is that there is still no real agreement on where Europe begins or ends. The notion of a single Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals has obvious appeals, but it hardly begins to address the problem of defining Europe's eastern or southern borders. As Wallace (1990: 7—8) argues, Europe (like other geo-political constructs) is an imagined space, whose boundaries 'are a matter of ideology and politics' rather than cartography. But as Anderson (1983) and Cohen (1985) contend, all communities are imagined and symbolically defined. Boundaries are essentially a matter of conceptual ordering and the hegemony of particular cultural classifications. Central to this process is the mobilisation of history and memory. For this reason, some EC officials now also stress the importance of re-writing European history from a 'European' perspective (Brugmans 1987; De Clercq 1993). According to EC historiography, European identity is something organic and rooted in the past; the contours of which already exist and which give rise to a fairly fixed and bounded European persona. History, however, is always partial: a matter of selective forgetting as much as remembering. In evoking the idea of'European heritage', certain episodes from the past - particularly those pertaining to 'European prehistory' (including Homo Erectus, megalithic civilisation, the neolithic revolutions and the Bronze Age), Classical antiquity and the Renaissance — become palimpsests for Europe's cultural identity. As Michael Dietler (1994) notes, some politicians (including former President Mitterrand) have also appealed to an ancient Celtic past as the basis for pan-European unity (see also Fleury-Ilett, chapter 13)." The choice of 'SOCRATES' and 'ERASMUS' as acronyms for the two major EC-backed education exchange programmes is one small example of this appeal to the ancient roots of our 'common European ancestry'. Another is the targeting of the Acropolis and Mount Athos as the two largest EC-funded projects within its 'conservation of Europe's architectural heritage' initiative (CEC

Copyrighted Material

106

Cris Shore

1992b: 4—7). This notion emerges more clearly in the preface to a recent EC-sponsored history b o o k which declares: L'idee europeenne a une histoire aussi ancienne que celle de notre continent. L'Europe, de 1'antiquite greco-romaine a la civilisation judeo-chretienne, de la Renaissance au 'siecle des lumieres' et a la Revolution francaise, a progressivement forge son identite. L'homme europeen existe depuis que sur 'L'extreme cap de l'Eurasie' ont emerge des valeurs devenues ensuite universelles, faisant prevaloir la liberte sur la soumission, l'esprit sur la matiere, les droits de l'homme sur l'absolutisme. Le miracle europeen a bien eu lieu. (Pflimlin 1987: 9). European identity is thus portrayed as the end product of a progressive ascent through history — albeit a highly selective history — from the wisdom and scholarship of Ancient Greece and the law and architecture of Classical R o m e through the spread of Christian civilisation to the scientific revolution, the Age of Reason and the triumph of m o d e r n liberal democracy: this is what Pflimlin calls 'the European miracle'. These themes of cultural continuity, moral ascendancy and unity in diversity are echoed in H e n r i Brugram's (former rector of the College d'Europe) essay, appropriately entitled: 'Europe: a c o m m o n civilisation, a destiny, a vocation' (Brugmans 1987: 11). T h e idea that European cultural unity is founded u p o n a shared ancient civilization is attractive to the architects of political integration and informs m u c h of their campaigning work. Yet anthropologists and others would question the notion of cultures as h o m o g e n e o u s , discrete, b o u n d e d , wholes. As Wolf (1982: 387) argued long ago, 'the concept of a fixed, unitary, and b o u n d e d culture must give way to a sense of the fluidity and permeability of cultural sets'. E C discourses fail to acknowledge this and tend to reproduce the traditional and uncritical idea of culture (and 'identity') as something organic, unitary and pure. Implicit in this is a refusal to accept the processes of hybridisation that have occurred throughout European history, and particularly since 1945. As Pieterse (1991: 5) suggests, 'what is being recycled as "European culture" is nineteenth-century elite imperial myth formation' — except that where once Europe symbolised empire and expansionism, 'the new idea of Europe is about retrenchment: "the Europeanization, not of the rest of the world, but . . . of Europe itself" (Susan Sontag, cited in Morley and R o b i n s 1990: 3). Constructions of European history as a series of evolutionary stages, or what Wolf (1982: 5) calls a 'genealogy' proclaiming its 'moral success story' are commonplace in Western thought, even though they are increasingly challenged (cf. Gilroy 1987; Amin 1989). E C politicians and image-makers, however, continue to draw on 'classical' images in their quest to identify the essential elements of European culture, and show little sensitivity towards post-colonial criticisms of the orientalist and supremacist ideologies of Western civilisation.

Copyrighted Material

Imagining the new Europe

107

As noted, the E C actively encourages the re-writing of history books to reflect a 'European perspective', and in order to combat the hegemony of nationalist ideology, which it views as an obstacle to European union. T h e result, however, is that nationalist ideology is simply substituted for a n e w ideology o f ' E u r o p e a n i s m ' . Evidence of this abounds. For example, the E C 'information' booklet written by Francoise Fontaine (Monnet's former chefde cabinet and Director of the Commission's Information Office in Paris) charts the progress of the 'European ideal': in the nineteenth century, it was an inspiration for poets and romantics, only to be distorted by conquerors seeking to justify their lust for power. It did not come to full expression in practical form, however, until a handful of courageous, visionary statesmen determined to put a stop to the loss of life that seemed to be the inevitable outcome of conflicts between nation-states. (Fontaine 1991: 5) T h e true saviours of Europe are thus not the leaders of the Resistance or the Allies, but M o n n e t , Schuman, D e Gaspari and Adenauer: these 'visionary statesmen' are re-classified as the ancestors and guardians of the 'European ideal'. T h e message is that Europe stands for peace and prosperity while nation-states create conflict and war. To complete this heroic myth of itself, the E C has also produced a series of films and videos for general distribution. These include 'Jean M o n n e t , Father of Europe'; 'A European J o u r n e y ' ('the j o u r n e y of a y o u n g boy and his grandfather. Thanks to the y o u n g lad's curiosity we learn about the various stages, the achievements and the future of European integration'); ' T h e Tree of E u r o p e ' ('[a]n original feature which will make all E u r o peans aware of the c o m m o n roots of their past'); and 'After Twenty Centuries', which surveys 2,000 years of European history and features Europeans' 'shared experiences at political, intellectual and cultural levels' ( C E C 1991: 1-5). Jean Baptiste Durosselle's (1990) volume, Europe. A History of Its Peoples represents an even more ambitious attempt to re-configure history. This 416-page magnum opus — part textbook, part manifesto — reflects the historiography implicit in E C discourses o n culture. Despite acknowledging the dangers of reductionism and Euro-jingoism the b o o k reinforces the eurocentric bias discussed earlier. Chapter one thus opens with the image of rape of the Greek Goddess 'Europa', and proceeds to discuss the geographical complexity and uniqueness of the continent (sic) of Europe — whilst failing to emphasise that Europe's continental status is itself a G r e c o - R o m a n myth (cf, J o r d o n 1973).' 2 Chapter three describes the Celts and Teutons as the first Indo-Europeans. Chapter four proceeds under the heading 'Classical Antiquity: Greek W i s d o m , R o m a n Grandeur'. Chapter five ('The First Four Centuries An in the West') is devoted exclusively to the expansion of Christianity. Chapter seven is a lengthy discussion of w h e t h e r Charlemagne's empire marks the

Copyrighted Material

108

Cris Shore

'beginnings of Europe'? Chapter eight ('Europe U n d e r Siege') opens with a vivid image of banner-waving Saracens on horseback — 'European civilisation' thus being equated unequivocally as C h r i s t e n d o m defending itself against the resurgent forces of Islam. T h e b o o k continues in a similar vein until chapter seventeen ('The R o a d to European Disaster') which deals with nationalism, chapter eighteen ('Europe Destroys Itself) which covers the period of 1914—45, and finally chapter nineteen ('Europe's R e c o v e r y and Resurgent Hopes'), which focuses on the 'makers of Europe' and the 'building of Europe in the face of Gaullism'. Many of these ideas are s u m m e d up in the epilogue written in collaboration with Frederic Delouch, the book's publisher. Attributing m u c h of Europe's history of violence to 'nationalistic instincts' the writers conclude that: The only remedy is to build a Europe which at first will be confederal and later federal, while maintaining freedom and democracy. This project is natural, realistic and legitimate, because there has long been a community of Europe — embryonic at first, but growing with time, despite centuries of war and conflict, blood and tears. Every culture in Europe enriches the whole. . . . We are the product of many civilizations — megalithic, Iberian, Ligurian, Celtic, Italiot, Germanic and Viking; we have been influenced by ancient Greece, by Judaism, and by Christianity. Megaliths, Roman roads and monuments, local autonomy, Romanesque art, the cathedrals, the universities, the explorers, the Industrial Revolution, human rights: these and many more elements are of the essence of Europe. (Duroselle 1990: 413) This highly selective re-reading ot the past — which systematically excludes Europe's less benign episodes (particularly those pertaining to the m o d e r n period of European history) — is c o m p o u n d e d by the authors' contradictory assertions that, while not wishing to endorse any 'absurd notion of supposed intellectual or moral superiority', n o n e the less 'Europe and its outposts are where tolerance and liberty first saw the light and gradually developed' (Duroselle 1990: 414).

P O L I T I C A L I M P L I C A T I O N S OF EC DISCOURSE For all its campaigns the EC's attempts to capture the loyalty of Europe's citizens have not proved particularly successful, though this may change over time. R e c e n t setbacks to the integration process have not led to critical reflection o n the part of the Commission (as Schlesinger suggested), but rather to an intensification of existing strategies and to the adoption of marketing techniques to 'sell' Europe to the public as a brand product (De Clercq 1993). From the foregoing discussion, several general points can be made concerning the wider political implications of E C discourses on European identity. First, its notion of contributing to the flowering of culture in

Copyrighted Material

Imagining the new Europe

109

the frontier-free Europe through 'concrete measures', clearly reflects a bureaucratic, t o p - d o w n , dirigiste and essentially French approach to culture: one that sees 'culture' largely in terms of haul couture, the consciousness of which can s o m e h o w be injected into the masses by enlightened European leaders with the help of media technologies and communications experts. However, this elitist and instrumental view of culture is increasingly being challenged by more commercial thinking. This is clearly conveyed in the Commission's claim that 'the demand for culture is constantly increasing as a result of progress in education' ( C E C 1992b: 7). Second, the n e w European 'culture-area' frequently referred to in official E C resolutions and documents echoes the old culture-area concept in early anthropological writing; the idea of a distinctive, b o u n d e d region set apart from others by race, religion, language and habitat. In this case, Europe is also conceived as a 'civilisation' set apart from (and above) others by Christianity, science, the Caucasian race and the Indo-European family of languages. Elements of what Gilroy (1987) calls 'cultural racism' are implicit in the discourse and policies of many Western European leaders and E C officials (cf. Thatcher 1988). As Kofman and Sales (1992: 29) argue, this new European identity 'makes invisible the contribution of people of n o n - E u r o p e a n origin to the economic, cultural and social life of Europe, so that non-Europeans are viewed as intruders'. Most attempts to define Europe 'from a cultural perspective' are laden with ethnocentric and elitist assumptions about what constitutes Europe's 'cultural' heritage'. Promoting 'European' identity by pitting Europe competitively and hierarchically against its supposed rivals, commercial (as with America and Japan) or conceptual (as with Africa, Asia and Islam), also fuels xenophobia and makes racism more respectable. T h e easiest way to p r o m o t e a sense of European identity is to manipulate fears of Europe being invaded by enemy aliens. This is what the Papacy did during the period of the Crusades, what many of Europe's liberal and Christian Democrat governments were able to do with the Cold War and the Soviet threat (cf. Shore 1990: 59—69), and what some claim the right-wing press throughout Europe is doing over the issue of immigrants and 'asylum cheats' (Woolacott 1991). W h i p p i n g up a moral panic about fortress Europe besieged by barbarians is one strategy, but as Alibai points out: A more sophisticated way, though, is to assert the existence of a shared European ethnic identity, emanating from a common Greco-Roman tradition. This is the current talk of many right wingers who claim that the core culture which runs through the backbone of Europe needs to be nurtured and protected from alien influences. (Alibai 1989: 23) Perhaps a third point to be gleaned is that creating the 'European identity', as conceived by E C discourse, entails a degree of exclusion of

Copyrighted Material

110

Cris Shore

the Other. Identity formation, as Evans-Pritchard (1940) pointed out over half a century ago, is essentially a dualistic process involving fission and fusion as n e w boundaries are created to distinguish categories of ' U s ' and ' T h e m ' . 'European identity' tends to b e c o m e meaningful only w h e n contrasted against that which is not European. As Europe consolidates and converges, and as the barriers between European nation-states are eliminated, so the boundaries separating Europe from its Third World ' O t h e r s ' have intensified — and Islam (particularly 'fundamentalism') has replaced c o m m u n i s m as the key marker for defining the limits of European civilisation (Hall 1991: 18). T h e problem with this approach to identity, however, is its absolutism: its failure to see cultures as composite and hybrid entities. Culture is not a matter of fixed essences, but of labile forms and multiple influences: as Strathern (1992: 2—3) notes, it consists in the limits of what can be thought or brought together from different domains. It is, by definition, heterogeneous, ' i m p u r e ' and constantly changing. Similarly, identity is always fluid and contextual: it is a process, 'an always open, complex and unfinished game — always under construction. . . . It moves into the future by a symbolic detour through the past' (Hall 1991). However m u c h E C architects and purists may balk at the suggestion, American television, Japanese electronics and c o m p u t e r games, Indian and Chinese cuisine, clothes manufactured in South-East Asia and Afro-Caribbean music are all n o w aspects of everyday 'European' culture. Just as the global influences on European culture cannot be annulled by E C discourses, neither, I suspect, can those of the nation-state or nationalist consciousness. T h e European C o m m u n i t y was created by independent European nation-states and, I suspect, is unlikely to supersede t h e m as the basis for popular allegiance and identification, regardless of the merits or otherwise of a greater European U n i o n . As I have tried to show, the EC's attempt to create its o w n repertoire of post-nationalist symbols are largely pale imitations of nationalist iconography, and in themselves are unlikely to win for the C o m m u n i t y the title deeds upon which national loyalties are claimed. Moreover, any serious discussion of divisions within Europe based o n religion or language (two of the most crucial, yet exclusive, mediums through which culture is communicated and embedded) is conspicuously absent in E C discourses on European culture. T h e E C has been described as a Tower of Babel which requires a small army of translators and interpreters to function. A single language is arguably a rational accompaniment to a single market and a major step towards the 'ever closer union' a m o n g the peoples of Europe. However, as recent attempts by the French governm e n t to ban the use of certain 'foreign' words from the French language suggest, this remains a particularly sensitive aspect of national identity. Finally, the E C appears to have misunderstood the fluid and ambiguous nature of symbols. All those symbols it has laid claim to or created as

Copyrighted Material

Imagining the new Europe

111

'representative of the European idea' could equally be appropriated and repatriated by the nation states (i.e., Beethoven was G e r m a n , Aristotle Greek, Erasmus Flemish). Mrs Thatcher's Bruges speech used similar eurocentric images w h e n she spoke of Europe's 'civilising influence' over the rest of the world, only to follow these remarks with a pointed reminder that it was Britain that liberated Europe from the yoke of Nazism and kept alive the noble European ideals of freedom and justice (Thatcher 1988). T h e reaction in Britain to the discovery of the halfmillion-year-old h u m a n fossil remains in a Sussex gravel pit in May 1994, illustrates the contested nature of European symbols even more clearly. While some archaeologists were hailing this 'Boxgrove M a n ' as the 'oldest European', The Times was clear about its significance: The discovery of the Ice Man in an alpine glacier has given both Italy and Austria, who lay claim to him, a sense of their own history. The 19th-century discoveries of Neanderthal Man in France and Germany has tended to suggest that Britain, lying on the edge of Europe, was also peripheral to its history. Boxgrove man gives the lie to that. A moment like this is not one for chauvinism. But every Englishman may walk a little taller in the recognition that he is descended from such a striking creature. (The Inner. Editorial, 18 May 1994) For The Times, it seems, the oldest European was in fact an Englishman. W h e t h e r the discourse is nationalist or Europeanist, 'heritage' is always a fickle entity constructed through discourses of power in order to mobilise consent for particular political interests. Discourses on 'European identity' and culture tell us little about the values and behaviour of ordinary European people. However, as I have tried to show, they reveal a great deal about the ideologies of those w h o promote such notions. T h e y also provide a focus for exploring wider questions concerning nationalism and state-formation in Europe. As Hobsbawm (1983) pointed out in his study of'mass-producing traditions' in pre-1914 Europe, the invention of 'heritage' is central to both of these processes: it is a key element not only in the construction of social identity but also in the legitimation of systems of power and authority. Heritage therefore functions simultaneously both as a mechanism for defining cultural boundaries and marking out social differences, and as an instrument of government. As Orwell s u m m e d it up it in his bleak description of the one-party state in Nineteen Eighty Four, whoever controls the past also controls the future. W r i t i n g on the growth of the m o d e r n heritage industry in Britain (and in particular, on museums), Walsh (1992: 2, 176) states that '[s|ince the nineteenth century representations of the past have, perhaps unwittingly in most cases, contributed to a form of institutionalized rationalization of the past'. These standardised representations, he claims, are uncritical, jingoistic and n u m b our ability to understand and communicate with

Copyrighted Material

112

Cris Shore

other nations (Walsh 1992: 1). In many respects the same can be said about the EC's attempts to mobilise heritage for the cause of E u r o pean federalism. In this case, however, the jingoistic representations of European cultural identity (and the sanitised re-writing of history from a European perspective provided by Duroselle and his colleagues) have been constructed deliberately, often with the support of P R and marketing professionals. However, underlying these representations is another kind of'institutionalised rationalization'; namely, the conviction of E C policyprofessionals that European identity is the missing ingredient in the integration process, and that the creation of such an identity requires that a more distinctive sense of 'European heritage' be impressed u p o n the public imagination. T h e E C has taken the first steps towards creating such a heritage: it remains to be seen w h e t h e r its representations or 'vision' will acquire more widespread legitimacy in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the editors for inviting me to contribute to this volume, and in particular, Sian Jones and Paul Graves-Brown for helpful editorial comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this chapter.

NOTES 1 Since the Maastricht Treaty came into force on 1 November 1993, the 'European Community' (EC) has been superseded by the 'European Union' (EU). However, for the sake of clarity I shall continue to use the more established term, except where otherwise specified. 2 Although this may indeed be happening, see Shore and Black 1994. 3 This paper is based on a review of EC literature and fieldwork which 1 carried out among EC staff in Brussels between March and April 1992, and April and July 1993. I would particularly like to thank the Nuffield Foundation for supporting this research. 4 These areas all fall within the remit of the Commission's General Directorate Ten (DG X), and the European Parliament's Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport. The discourses on European culture explored in this chapter are drawn largely from the reports and activities of these and other associated agencies. 5 Preamble to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (clause five) CEC 1983a: 15. 6 For a more detailed exposition of this theory, see Haas (1958), Taylor (1983) and George (1985). 7 For a more detailed analysis of these proposals see De Witte (1987) and Shore (1993). 8 Alan Milward (1992) goes further and argues that the EC has not only preserved the nation-states of Europe it has also, paradoxically, regenerated them. Indeed, Milward claims that the national governments of Western Europe devised the Community precisely in order to enhance their own sovereignty.

Copyrighted Material

Imagining the new Europe

113

9 The fear of Europe being swamped by US television programmes is a theme echoed in Baget-Bozzo (1986) and other European Parliamentary Reports. 10 For an explanatory statement on what 'contributing to the flowering of culture in the frontier-free area' entails, see CEC (1992b) and Shore and Black (1994). 11 As Dietler (1994: 596) demonstrates, this Celtic vision of European identity has been emphasised both in recent archeological exhibitions and by French and Breton politicians. Significantly, appeals to a Celtic vision of European heritage also coincide with the popular French nationalist myths about 'our ancestors the ancient Gauls'. Thus, when Mitterrand declared, in his speech at Bibracte (the site where Vercingetorix was defeated by the Romans), that this was the place where the 'first act of our history took place' and one of the 'great sites of Celtic civilization' he was not, as some might think, distancing France's historical trajectory from the rest of Europe, but laying claim, symbolically, to the foundations of European identity and heritage. As Dietler (ibid.) explains it: 'If the history of Europe begins with the Celts' and the Celts are the 'First Europe', then one can easily imagine how the nation that claims Vercingetorix as a personification of its national character might perceive itself as the heart of that new and old Europe'. 12 As Jordon (1973) points out, the idea of Europe as a land mass separated from Asia and Lybia (i.e., Africa) was first propounded by the ancient Greeks. This notion of the world divided into three continents was passed on from the Romans to the monks and scholars of medieval Europe and given a theological interpretation by the Catholic Church. With the rise of science, the geographical and cultural frontiers of Europe were drawn with greater precision, yet the myth of Europe's continentality persisted. Western cartographers for the past four hundred years have tried to resolve this by drawing an eastern border across the expanses of Russia - roughly following the line where medieval scholars believed the dividing isthmus lay. This contrived 'Uralian border' running from the Black Sea to the Caspian and then bending northwards along the Ural river, represents as 'mountains' what are, in effect, hills which in no sense constitute a significant barrier. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adonnino P. (1985) 'A People's Europe: Reports from the Ad Hoc Committee.' Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 7/85. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Community. Alibai, Y. (1989) 'Community whitewash.' Guardian, 23 January. Amin, S. (1989) Euroccntrism. London: Zed Books. Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Baget-Bozzo, G. (1986) Report on the Information Policy of the European Community (Doc A—111). Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Community. Barzanti, R. (1992) New Prospects for Community Cultural Action (Draft Report). Brussels: European Parliament. Brugmans, H. (1987) 'L'Europe: Une Civilisation Commune, un Destin, une Vocation.' In H. Brugmans (ed), Europe. Rcve-Avcriture-Realitc. Brussels: Elsevier.

Copyrighted Material

114

Cris Shore

Cohen, A.P. (1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Routledge. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1976) 'Tindemans Report on European Union.' Reprinted in Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 1/76. (1983a) Treaties Establishing the European Communities (abridged edn). Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Community. (1983b) 'Solemn Declaration on European Union.' Reprinted in Bulletin of the European Communities 6, 24. (1988) 'A People's Europe: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament. C O M (88) 331 /final.' Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement No. 2, Luxembourg. (1991) Eilms of the European Communities Available for Non-Commercial Distribution. Brussels: DGX. (1992a) Treaty on European Union Signed at Maastricht on 7 Eebruary. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Community. (1992b) New Prospects for Community Cultural Action, COM(92) 149 final. Brussels (29 April): Office of Official Publications of the European Community. (1993) 'Action Jean Monnet: European Integration in University Studies.' UKRHEEO Bulletin 07/93 (Ref 29). De Clercq W. (1993) Reflection on Information and Communication Policy of the European Community. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. De Witte, B.(1987) 'Building Europe's Image and Identity.' In A. Riijksbaron, W. Roobol and M. Weisglas (eds), Europe Emm a Cultural Perspective.: 121-31. The Hague: UPR. Dietler, M. (1994) '"Our ancestors the Gauls": archeology, ethnic nationalism, and the manipulation of Celtic identity in modern Europe.' American Anthropologist 96, 3: 584-608. Duroselle, J.B. (1990) Europe. A History of Its Peoples. London: Viking. EP (European Parliament) (1993) Draft Report on the information and communication policy of the European Community (Rapporteur A. Oostlander), D O C EN\PR\227\227207. Brussels: Office of Official Publications of the European Community. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1940) The Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fontaine, P. (1991) A Citizen's Europe. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities. Foucault, M. (1978) The History of Sexuality. Volume One. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Galtung, J. (1973) The European Community: A Superpower in the Making. London: Allen and Unwin. George, S. (1985) Politics and Policy in the European Community. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gilroy, P. (1987) There Ain't No Black in the Union jack. London: Hutchinson. Haas, E. (1958) The Uniting of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, S. (1991) 'Europe's other self Marxism 'Today (August): 18-19. Hobsbawm, E. (1983) 'Mass producing traditions: Europe, 1870-1914.' In E. Llobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds), The Invention of 'Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jordan, T. (1973) The European Culture Area. London: Harper Row.

Copyrighted Material

Imagining the new Europe

115

Kofman, E. and R . Sales (1992) ' T o w a r d s fortress E u r o p e ? ' Women's Studies International Forum 15, 1:29—39. Lakoff, G. and M . J o h n s o n (1980) Metaphors We Life By. Chicago: University of C h i c a g o Press. Loken, K. (1992). ' E u r o p e a n identity. W h a t about us?' The New federalist 5—6: 6-7. M c D o n a l d , M . (1994) ' U n i t y in diversity: moralities in the construction of Europe.' Paper presented to the European Association of Social Anthropologists C o n f e r e n c e , Oslo, 25 J u n e . Mercer, K. (1990) ' W e l c o m e to the j u n g l e . ' In J. R u t h e r f o r d (ed), Identity. L o n d o n : Lawrence and Wishart. Milward, A. (1992) The European Rescue of the Nation-State. L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e . Morley, D . and K. R o b i n s (1990) ' N o place like heimat: images of (home)land in European culture.' New formations 12: 1—24. Nairn, T . (1977) The Break-Up of Britain. L o n d o n : N e w Left Books. Pflimlin, P. (1987) 'Preface.' In H . Brugmans (ed.), Europe: Reve-Aventure-Realite. Brussels: Elsevier. Pieterse, J . N . (1991) 'Fictions o f E u r o p e . ' Race and Class 32, 3: 3 - 1 0 . Schlesinger, P. (1989) 'Imagining the N e w E u r o p e ' New European 2, 3 (Autumn): 4-7. (1991) Media, State and Nation. Political Violence and Collective Identities. L o n d o n : Sage. Shore, C. (1990) Italian Communism: the Escape from Leninism. L o n d o n : Pluto. (1993) ' I n v e n t i n g the "People's E u r o p e " : critical perspectives on European C o m m u n i t y cultural policy.' Man. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 28, 4: 7 7 9 - 8 0 0 . and A. Black (1994) ' "Citizens' E u r o p e " and the construction of European identity.' In V. G o d d a r d , J. Llobera and C . Shore (eds), The Anthropology of Europe: Identities and Boundaries in Conflict.: 278—98. Oxford: Berg. Smith, A . D . (1992) 'National identity and the idea of European unity.' International Affairs 68, (1): 5 5 - 7 6 . Smith, G. (1983) Politics in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Aldershot: Gower. Strathern, M . (1992) Reproducing the future. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Taylor, P. (1983) The Limits of European Integration. L o n d o n : C r o o m H e l m . T h a t c h e r , M. (1988) Text of speech given by the Prime Minister on Europe in Bruges, Belgium. L o n d o n : Prime Minister's Office. Usborne, D . (1988) ' E C nations warned to " w a k e u p " to loss of sovereign p o w e r . ' Independent, 1 July. Wallace, W . (1990) The Transformation of Western Europe. L o n d o n : Pinter. Walsh, K. (1992) 'The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post Modern World. L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e . Wolf, E. (1982) Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Woolacott, M . (1991) ' C r y of a lost C o m m u n i t y . ' Cuardian, 15 N o v e m b e r .

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER SEVEN

O N E EUROPE PAST? LI LI A N A J A N I K

AND

HANNA

ONE ZAWADZKA

T h e past is our international heritage. T h e perceived borders of prehistoric Europe vary in different periods and publications. In the era of C o m m u n i s t control, Europe was divided into East and West. T h u s political changes in Europe associated with the disintegration of the Eastern Bloc and the collapse of the Soviet U n i o n have given a n e w dimension to the question of the identity of Europe, as the East—West distinction is being gradually transformed into members and n o n members of the European U n i o n . In this paper we will discuss what impact these developments are having on perceptions of Western Europe by Eastern Europeans and vice versa. We would also like to examine h o w these developments are affecting the practice of archaeology and archaeological understanding of the past. We will explore two themes in the course of the paper to see h o w far the definition of Europe needs to be expanded in this p o s t - C o m m u n i s t age. First, we will consider the general contemporary perception of European identity. Second, we will look at the way archaeology reflects these perceptions. These themes need to be addressed so that both the history and prehistory of Eastern European countries can b e c o m e an inherent part of the Eastern European past. In archaeology, the 'Iron Curtain' has still not been fully drawn back. Innovative Western European theoretical perspectives will take some time to be digested and appropriately applied in the East, just as time will be required for the achievements of Eastern European archaeology to be integrated into Western frameworks. An important part of this process of digestion and integration will be the reappraisal of perceptions on both sides. T h e political events of 1989 were unforeseen and their effects remain to be resolved. T h e speed with which these events occurred mean that today we have still to come to terms with a n e w situation and to assess the legacy of the C o m m u n i s t era. T h e present bleak political and economic outlook in all the countries of the former Eastern Bloc is readily apparent and is not the primary concern of this paper, although it has an

Copyrighted Material

One Europe - one past?

117

impact o n the practice of archaeology in these countries. R a t h e r we will turn to the first issue we wish to address, the current perceptions those in Eastern and Western Europe have of each other.

EAST MEETS WEST? In the past few decades the situations in East and West have been represented by the west as two opposing conditions. O n the one hand, life in Eastern Europe was seen as a continuous struggle against state oppression, while on the other hand Western Europe was seen as the place where people were free and able to do whatever they chose or desired. This duality gave rise to the notion or impression that there were in fact two different Europes. Western Europe was the region of high economic, political and cultural development while Eastern Europe was underdeveloped economically, politically oppressed or unstable, and had very little to offer culturally. In effect, the culture of Eastern Europe was d a m n e d along with its political system. This might sound too harsh for some, especially to those in the West w h o claim to be experts on, or are involved in projects within Eastern Europe. But even some of these experts perpetuate the assumption that the East is 'another' Europe, because they lack knowledge of languages and culture, and do not u n d e r stand the context in which Eastern European archaeologists work. T h e most influential general perceptions of Europe are naturally those created by the Western mass media. W h a t kind of information and images has the media presented to us? T h e political changes and economic struggle are most often covered by the mass media, to the exclusion of contemporary culture in the East, the historical background of those countries and their ties with present-day Western Europe. This media bias is closely related to the general geographical and cultural concepts of Europe to which we n o w turn. In our view Europe is a geographically distinct continent, which stretches from insular Britain in the west to the Ural mountains in the east, which constitute a border with Asia. From Scandinavia and the long coast of Russia in the north, it extends to the Mediterranean Sea in the south. While the n o r t h e r n , western and southern boundaries are clearly defined by natural features, the definition of the eastern boundary has caused some difficulties. For a long time there was ongoing discussion as to the precise line between Europe and Asia. Finally, in 1958 Russian geographers proposed to draw the boundary along the eastern slopes of the Ural Mountains, from the northern shore of the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea. In this way the Caucasus Mountains, which were often counted as part of Europe, were included as part of Asia. This proposal was endorsed by the Soviet government and recognised internationally. Despite this however, particularly in the West, the geographical b o u n d aries of Europe are not clear for the general public. T h e i r perceptions are

Copyrighted Material

118

Liliana Janik and Hanna Zawadzka

very m u c h restricted and coloured by political and e c o n o m i c alliances and influences, as well as available holiday destinations. T h u s Western Europe is seen as the core of Europe, while Eastern Europe is seen as of less importance and its eastern geographical boundary, as defined by Soviet geography, remains largely u n k n o w n . In this context Eastern Europe is implicitly presented as if it were the 'other' Europe, as a marginal or liminal zone. This conceptualisation does not just reflect geographic location, but effectively creates two different and separate Europes. Even today, with Eastern Europe open to all kinds of contact and a greater deal of media coverage of the politics and economies of the region, this false geographical concept of two Europes prevails. As a particular example, the cultural concept of Europe perpetuated by the British mass media involves, in our view, only that part of Europe that was invaded by the R o m a n s . This has b e c o m e the foundation for the general British perception of a c o m m o n European cultural heritage. Large areas of Europe that were not under direct R o m a n control are excluded from this view of the heritage. Striking examples of this view can be found in a n u m b e r of television programmes and publications about the cultural development of Europe and what constitutes its heritage. In addition to this view, not surprisingly, the border of Europe has been drawn at the m o d e r n political divide between East and West. At least ten centuries of cultural heritage and close links with presentday Eastern Europe are excluded in such presentations. O n the other hand, Eastern Europeans have always seen Europe as one geographical entity and do not doubt that they share a c o m m o n cultural heritage with the West. In the mass media, education and popular perception, the distinction within Europe was based only on different e c o n o m i c systems which did not affect the feeling of a shared c o m m o n cultural and historic heritage. This feeling was derived from the fact that state censorship was usually concerned only with recent history, politics and literature rather than with the more distant past. T h e degree of censorship of historical events varied from country to country and generally applied as m u c h to the West as to Eastern European historical events or ideas. Eastern European contemporary writers, philosophers and historians have been seen by many governments as dangerous, being influenced by supposedly subversive ideas from the West. T h a t these governments were to some extent justified in this view was demonstrated by the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. This collapse was promoted by internal pressure to change the system, rather than by any direct intervention from outside, and was based on the intellectual potential of particular East European countries. In this context, the concept of ' O n e Europe' prevalent in Eastern Europe was in a way strengthened by the very fact that government censorship was applied on both sides of the Iron Curtain. T h e ambiguity created around the boundaries of Europe has several absurd spins-offs; Israel is included in the military strategies of Western

Copyrighted Material

One Europe - one past?

119

power structures and is even included in the Eurovision Song Contest! Conversely, Turkey remains a liminal state on the boundaries of both Europe and Asia. At one level Turkey is included in European military, economic and political entities, even if it has been denied membership of the European U n i o n . Yet its cultural position is ambiguous. In archaeology it is linked with the introduction of agriculture into Europe, but culturally and in terms of political history, the influence and role of Turkey is associated more strongly with the O t t o m a n Empire and a Muslim culture which has strong ties with Asia. So it is then that although politically, economically and militarily Turkey is in many ways part of contemporary Europe, it is excluded from some Western archaeological publications concerning the prehistory of Europe, and its cultural heritage is linked with Asia rather than with Europe (see e.g. C h a m p i o n , Gamble, Shennan and Whittle 1984).

EUROPE I N A R C H A E O L O G I C A L

PUBLICATION

T h e political division between Western and Eastern Europe has existed for around forty-five years and it is more than four years since political changes started sweeping throughout Eastern Europe. H o w has research into European prehistory and archaeology been affected by these processes? A good example of h o w the borders of prehistoric Europe varied in different periods is shown in Prehistoric Europe (Champion, Gamble, Shennan and Whittle 1984) which has b e c o m e a major undergraduate textbook used widely in archaeology courses throughout Britain. T h e authors claim to address a prehistoric Europe which extends to the geographical boundaries we have defined, as all of the maps presented in the book clearly indicate. However, w h e n we look through the maps of Europe at different periods, we can clearly see h o w variable and vulnerable the coverage of the eastern part of Europe is, and the n u m b e r of principle sites in Eastern Europe m e n t i o n e d in the text is much smaller than those representing the western part of Europe (see Table 7.1). T h e b o o k is focused around several themes, including the study of settlement, subsistence, technology, exchange and social organisation, but Eastern Europe is very poorly represented. O n e might think that nothing important happened there, or that events east of the Berlin Wall had n o relation to prehistoric Western Europe. But this is not true and is in fact a misleading point of view. Defining chronological periods and the presentation of such a vast and complex topic as European prehistory is always problematic. But, even bearing this in mind, it is difficult to justify omitting large parts of eastern and northern European prehistory and failing to treat Eastern European prehistory on equal terms with the Western European past. T h e most sympathetic explanation for this misrepresentation is that it is due to lack of knowledge of Eastern European languages and a difficulty of access to publications from n o n English speaking areas; although this does not seem to have been a

Copyrighted Material

120

Liliana Janik and Hanna Zawadzka Total Principal Sites

Principal Sites in Eastern Europe

Early humans in Europe

44

11

Subsistence and society in Palaeolithic Europe

32

3

Chapter

Post glacial developments: Hunters, gatherers and beyond

35

Early farming societies: seventh to fourth centuries BC

21

63

Settlement, expansion and socio-economic change: 3200-2300 BC

26

Prestige, power and hierarchies: 2 3 0 0 - 1 4 0 0 BC

39

8

The rise of the state in Mediterranean Europe

35

0

Competition and hierarchy in temperate Europe

23

10

Town and state in temperate Europe

30

9

327

76

Grand Totals

(Source: Champion, Gamble, Shennan and Whittle 1984) Figure 7.1 Principal sites mentioned in Prehistoric maps at the head of each chapter.

Europe

as shown in

problem with Western Europe. The authors maintained, in this way, a division of Europe based on modern political differences and gave an impression that the 'other' part of Europe was poorly developed in the prehistoric past. Whatever the reasons, though, one of the most popular student text books on European archaeology can be shown to have created a concept of different Europes. A further example is the later publication, The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe (Cunliffe 1994). Eastern Europe is again poorly represented. For example, in the Mesolithic chapter, only eight of the principal Mesolithic sites mentioned in the text are from Eastern Europe, as opposed to thirty from Western Europe, although many more sites than this are known in the East. While the introduction of pottery to fishing, gathering and hunting communities in Western Europe receives considerable attention, no indication is given of such

Copyrighted Material

One Europe - one past?

121

events in Eastern Europe, despite the fact that they took place at almost the same time. However, we do not think that Western European archaeologists deliberately exclude Eastern European archaeology. But rather, by writing in a particular political, military and economic context, without a critical understanding of the discipline, they create the 'other' Europe in the past. It is important to remember that it is not only up to politicians to break down boundaries, but that archaeologists themselves can work to ensure equality for Eastern and Western Europe in their creation of the past in the present. H o w the archaeology of Europe is perceived differently by Eastern Europeans is best illustrated by some of the archaeological books published there, such as Cultures and Communities of the Past Europe (Kozlowski 1981). It covers Europe from Britain and Portugal to the Urals, and from Scandinavia to the Balkans, with a time span from the Palaeolithic to the Early Medieval period, around A D 1000. T h e approach of this b o o k at first sight appears more traditional than that of Prehistoric Europe. Kozlowski's b o o k is a culture-historical account of European prehistory rather than specific issues concerning prehistory. T h e r e are, however, n o n e of the white gaps o n the map of Europe which characterise Prehistoric Europe, and the same issues discussed in that work are dealt with by Kozlowski, the difference being that he sets them in the context of particular cultures, rather than abstracting them. Spain, Britain and Poland, and all the other areas of the geographical Europe are represented equally despite political divisions. THE

INFLUENCE

OF THE

WEST

After the recent political changes some effort was made to increase the a m o u n t of information available about Eastern European prehistory and archaeology. At present, however, Antiquity is the only archaeological journal which has attempted to present Eastern European archaeology. O t h e r journals present only very selective articles. Unfortunately the articles which have so far appeared in Western European journals are written by the scholars w h o represent academic structures which remain from before the political changes and hence by n o means reflect the diversity of thought and research represented by less established scholars. Younger East European archaeologists continue to find it difficult to be published in the West.' T h e y are either not invited to contribute, or their papers are rejected o n the grounds that their points of view are 'not appropriate' because they differ from those represented by establishment Eastern European reviewers appointed by the Western journals. We have to r e m e m b e r that those reviewers are a part of the old structure, and that it is in their o w n interests to monopolise or to restrict access to publication in Western journals. In this way, new ideas from Eastern Europe are not k n o w n to Western European archaeologists.

Copyrighted Material

122

Liliana Janik and Hanna Zawadzka

N o w Eastern Europe is also open to a wide range of theoretical approaches developed in the last three decades in Western archaeology. In Eastern Europe, as elsewhere on the continent, classificatory traditions are very strong. It was easy to incorporate this tradition into historical materialism to various degrees depending o n the country. T h e combination of the pre-war archaeological tradition of typology typical of continental Europe and the post-war official state ideology of historical materialism created the background for archaeological practice and interpretation for scholars from Eastern Europe. This background laid stress on the importance of material culture, its analysis and typology, which added to the perceived value of archaeology. However, despite the stress on material culture and its typologies and chronologies, there were developments in thought aimed to change or diversify the existing interpretative frameworks. It should be pointed out that much official theoretical discussion in the past c o n c e n trated o n the cognitive status of archaeology as a discipline, the role of the archaeological record and n e w analytical methods, rather than providing new ways of explaining the processes that took place in the past. It is also essential to realise that the way the past has been interpreted by Eastern European archaeologists is the product of the constraints of socio-political situations in individual countries. Each European country has its o w n culture and history, although C o m m u n i s m attempted to blur these differences by the imposition of an alien but shared symbolism of C o m m u n i s t ideology. T h e countries of the ex-Eastern Bloc have not only been linked by e c o n o m i c and military pacts but also by the experiences of living generations w h o share the horrific memories of Stalinism, oppression, uprisings and the symbolic expressions which unite them. R e d flags, sculptures of Lenin, socio-realisin in art and so on were alien symbols for culturally different states. In addition to this we have to r e m e m b e r the underlying cultural context of archaeological practice, which is often unconsciously expressed, but nevertheless becomes part of the prevailing theoretical framework. T h e theoretical development of Western archaeology (starting from the N e w Archaeology and finishing with more contemporary trends such as structuralism, cognitive archaeology, gender archaeology, ecological approaches or post-modernism) has not been addressed coherently in Eastern Europe, if it has been dealt with at all. For example, in Poland we encounter several attempts at incorporating some aspects of the N e w Archaeology into interpretations or at least a discussion of its writings. But there is n o attempt at a thorough explanation of the background to theoretical developments, nor is there consideration of the implications w h e n applying a given theory to Polish material (Kobylinski 1981; Urbanczyk 1981; Kobylinski and Tomaszewski 1980). T h e diversity of theoretical thought in archaeology is not presented and publications related to more recent developments in Western theoretical approaches are also scarce. This is due to several factors, including a lack of academic

Copyrighted Material

One Europe - one past?

123

contacts, limited access to Western publications and similar problems of access to technical methods. 'Western' interpretations of the past have been highly regarded in Eastern Europe. Ideas have often been copied without proper u n d e r standing and critiques of these imported approaches are not widely k n o w n . This situation has been caused in part by the general underlying belief on the part of Eastern European archaeologists that the West, due to its technological development, could offer a better explanation of the past. Lack of access to Western debate on the background to, and evaluation of, trends in these developments has also played a major role in the way in which these ideas have been embraced.

C O N C L U S I O N : PLUS CA CHANGE? T h e upheavals of the early 1990s have not in fact brought positive changes either for most of the ordinary citizens nor for archaeology in Eastern Europe. T h e West has not provided the expected and hoped-for answers to economic, political or academic problems. Therefore, Western interpretations of the past are beginning to be viewed more critically by some. It should be pointed out and stressed that despite political changes the academic establishment in Eastern Europe has not changed. Those w h o created a Marxist past n o w create a so-called Democratic past. T h e m o d e of thought and the methods adopted, however, have not changed very m u c h . While it is true that more young scholars are c o m i n g to Western Europe than ever before, we have to r e m e m b e r that access to publications and the way archaeology is taught are controlled by the very same people w h o were in positions of authority under C o m m u n i s m . So, what is published and w h o goes where depends very much on personal relationships with senior academics. T h e y are the people w h o have contacts abroad, access to information and the power to take decisions within their discipline. Those w h o have different ways of seeing the past are mostly u n k n o w n in the West, with the result that any theoretical discourse carried on outside the establishment remains u n k n o w n to Western archaeologists. This is only a very brief account of the problems which all of us face in the interactions between Western and Eastern Europeans, as well as w h e n dealing with the interpretations of the past in present-day transforming Europe. T h e issues addressed in this paper, from misrepresentation of what constituted Europe in prehistory to the monopolisation of access to publication by the old order in the East, need to be taken into consideration in order to create ' O n e Europe' and one, albeit diverse, past.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like thank Simon Kaner for discussing the ideas in this paper with us and for his constructive criticism of earlier drafts.

Copyrighted Material

124

Liliana Janik and Hanna Zawadzka NOTE

1 Although, admittedly, this also applies to younger western scholars.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Champion, T., C.S. Gamble, S.J. Shennan and A. Whittle (1984) Prehistoric Europe. London: Academic Press. Cunliffe, B. (ed.) (1994) The Illustrated Prehistory of Europe. London: BCA. Kobylinski, Z. (1981) 'Badania etnoarcheologiczne a nomotetyzacja archeologii.' Archeologia Polski 26, 1: 7-41. and A. Tomaszewski (1980) 'Antropologiczna idealizacyjna teoria nauk: Przypadek archeologii.' Czlowiek i Swiatopoglad 5: 99-110. Kozlowski, S.K. (ed.) (1981) Kultury i Ludy Daumej Europy. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Urbanczyk, P. (1981) ' O mozliwosciach poznawczych archeologii.' Przeglad Archeologiczny 29: 5-52.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER EIGHT

P R E H I S T O R Y A N D THE I D E N T I T Y OF EUROPE or, Don't let's be beastly to the Hungarians COLIN

RENFREW

T h e occasion of the first Euro!AG seemed at first sight a suitable occasion for using the information available to us from prehistory to reach a clearer definition of Europe itself. T h a t might indeed, with its celebratory overtones, seem a proper undertaking at such a meeting. But the meeting instead veered to a different and perhaps more realistic sentiment as discussion continued. Already in the first, plenary, session there were calls from the postmodernist tendency for a prehistory that would be of relevance to Europe and to our time. But I expressed then my o w n view that there were indeed staring us in the face issues of urgent topicality which involved themes which should be very much within our o w n competence. In the former Yugoslavia, factions were at that time (as indeed they are n o w at the time of writing, some eight months later) carrying out slaughter, rape and destruction in an undertaking which has c o m e to be k n o w n under the new name o f ' e t h n i c cleansing'. Populations of large areas have been expelled, massacred or assaulted in the name of this concept. First introduced by the Serbs, it would seem, under the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic, the notion has been employed in an attempt to give legitimacy to an expansion in the territorial extent of what was formerly the province of Serbia within the nation of Yugoslavia, and is n o w claimed (in c o m m o n with the other provinces of the former Yugoslavia) as an independent nation-state. 1 suggested that since the early history, and sometimes the prehistory of nations, or supposed nations, or would-be nations, is often cited in support of arguments involving ethnicity, these were ideas and notions which archaeologists have a responsibility to investigate and clarify.

Copyrighted Material

126

Colin Renfrew

Moreover, the archaeologist must shoulder the responsibility for the continuing currency of such terms and concepts, which were in frequent archaeological use, at any rate in some circles, during the 1930s and 1940s, but which have not subsequently been adequately analysed or clarified, despite the dreadful cruelties and hardships during World War II, some of them associated with the catastrophe now widely known as the Holocaust, to which they undoubtedly contributed. If these are not relevant issues of urgent application to our own time it is difficult to see what would be. To be more specific, the National Socialists of Germany during the time of Hitler and the Third Reich developed a notion of Aryan supremacy, in which it was held that culturally, racially and linguistically there had existed, and existed still, a group of people of superior merits and qualities. These people, it was held, could be contrasted with other, supposedly inferior, groups, for instance Semitic peoples, and that it was in the public interest to advance the superior group at the expense of the inferior. This policy was argued, and then executed to what was felt to be its logical extreme, the attempted extermination of the various inferior groups (as so defined) including Gypsies and Jews. Since World War II it has been recognised that the writings of various archaeologists and prehistorians in Germany before the war, notably of Gustav Kossinna, laid part of the intellectual basis for these ethnic distinctions, even if they did not advocate the practical conclusions or consequences which Hitler and his colleagues inferred and implemented. Since the War these issues have in large measure been abandoned, on the very reasonable grounds that aspects of the subject had become abhorrent, and it is only recently that issues of ethnicity and of ethnic origins have been debated with any vigour in the West. It has, however, come as a shock to us all over the past two years to find that concepts of ethnicity not so far different, it would seem, from those employed by the Nazis, have been formulated in Serbia, and among the Serbs of Bosnia, and indeed more widely in the former Yugoslavia. A similar retreat to ethnicity underlies the hostilities in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the same could indeed be said of the Irish question (see Collis, chapter 11). Moreover, these concepts have once again laid the intellectual groundwork for active policies which have resulted in barbarities and atrocities sometimes as repellent and, one would have thought, as irrational as those carried out by the National Socialists in World War II. This is an extraordinary state of affairs. And it would seem that we archaeologists and prehistorians have some unfinished business to conduct in finally grasping the nettle more formally, and deciding precisely and more clearly which aspects of concepts of ethnicity and identity it may be that lead to such abhorrent conclusions. For few outside observers would agree that there are very significant racial differences among the conflicting groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina today, nor are the linguistic differences particularly

Copyrighted Material

Prehistory and the identity of Europe

127

great. There are indeed religious differences, and once again conflict between world religions (or factions within world religions) seem a powerful source of seemingly irrational violence, founded upon bigotry. Yet should our abhorrence at these perversions practised in the name of ethnicity necessarily prevent our asserting that there are sometimes virtues in a sense of national identity? While patriotism may be the last refuge of the scoundrel, does it necessarily follow that loyalty to a nation or to a group is an inappropriate feeling? Moreover there was at TAG some considerable sentiment in favour of the European ideal. In the months which have elapsed since the TAG meetings, such sentiment may have cooled in ardour somewhat after the longueurs of the debates surrounding the ratification process of the Maastricht treaty on European Union. But even if we have all heard rather too much recently about 'convergence' and 'subsidiarity', not to mention 'cohesion', and even if 'transparency' has been a goal all too rarely attained, many of us still look, in a general way (and without too fervent an aspiration) towards a European ideal. It is indeed something which can be set against what may sometimes be a tiresome chauvinism at national or indeed regional level. Yet it is perhaps more readily realisable in some senses, and less vague, than universal notions of world peace and the brotherhood of humankind. So to what may we then, reasonably and with decency aspire, if we are to avoid the extremities propounded by Nazi, Serbian or Croatian leaders each with their own particular concepts of ethnicity? OF LANGUAGES A N D

'NATIONS'

My own interests in such issues as an archaeologist was long ago caught by the impact upon archaeological thinking of the concept of 'Indo-European'. Although at that time the notion of Indo-European was rarely discussed at length, it was, notwithstanding, quite a powerful influence under the surface. This was not, I think, because of any hidden agenda, or any inclination to think in terms that were ethnic, still less in racist terms. On the one hand, the subject had gone out of fashion, as a result, as noted above, of the distaste for the areas and consequences which earlier discussions had led to. But, on the other hand, since these matters had not been fully discussed and analysed, some of the consequences of the underlying concepts could not be escaped. The existence in Western Europe of a group of languages that linguists agreed to call 'Celtic' seemed, for the prehistorian, to make a 'Coming of the Celts' an inevitable and unproblematic event. The topic may not have been a fashionable one for research, but no one seriously doubted (or doubts today) the general validity of the linguistic concept of the Celtic family of languages. So the archaeology of Britain and of Ireland was saddled with the necessity of an incursion of Celtic-speaking peoples at some point, even though the archaeology of Ireland offered

Copyrighted Material

128

Colin Renfrew

no convenient evidence for such an incursion and the Iron Age archaeology of Britain was increasingly interpreted in non-invasionist terms (e.g., Hodson 1964). Precisely the same reservations applied to the Indo-European question. Most of the languages of Europe were described by linguists as 'IndoEuropean', and there seemed good arguments for such a classification. So there must have been a 'Coming' of the Indo-Europeans, which had initially been set by Childe at the beginning of the Bronze Age (although he later abandoned this view; see Childe 1950), and which the best informed and most widely read recent authority, Marija Gimbutas (1970), put at the same period. Yet increasingly, to European prehistorians, the evidence for any hiatus at that time seemed doubtful; the battle axe and beaker phenomena were increasingly being discussed in terms of the emergence of prestige associated with newly emerging concepts of the individual (Renfrew 1974), and the establishment of new networks of communication (Shennan 1986), rather than of the incursion of groups of invaders from the east. The archaeological evidence no longer seemed to many to make such an incursion a very likely event, but the concept of 'Indo-European', whose linguistic merits have been doubted by few (but see Demoule 1980), seemed to entail it. In a moment I shall argue again, as others have done recently (e.g., Merriman 1987), that 'the Celts' never existed in any meaningful sense, although it is perfectly reasonable for us to discuss and analyse the extent to which languages which we would classify as Celtic were spoken at any given time. Similarly, it is clear, I think, that there was never an ethnic unit that could properly be called 'Indo-European', unless at a very early period indeed, and outside of Europe. For I think those commentators (e.g., Childe 1929: v—vi) who have frequently tended to equate language with ethnicity (an equation which on many occasions is a perfectly valid one) have overlooked one very important principle, which is worth enunciating clearly. Individual languages and ethnic units, including nation-states, are very often broadly equivalent. That is to say that, if you look at the distribution in space of the speakers of a particular language, and then you look at the distribution in space of social units, there is frequently what approximates to a one to one correlation, although there are many exceptions in the modern world, and probably more earlier. Very often nation-states today are associated with a single language, and the same is true also in many cases of tribal units, and indeed such other organisational units as chiefdoms. But my point is that this observation emphatically does not hold for language families. The sense of identity which speakers of a single language may share is rarely to be seen when one is dealing with several languages, and with their speakers, even when linguistic analysis shows those languages to be related. Only a few examples are needed for one to see the general truth of this principle. Hebrew and Arabic both belong to the Semitic language

Copyrighted Material

Prehistory and the identity of Europe

129

family, yet the hostility between the Arabic-speaking states and Israel is very marked. Two of the principal protagonists in World War II were Britain and Germany. Yet our languages are not only both members of the Indo-European family (or superfamily), they also belong together within the Germanic family or sub-family. Statistically this is not a surprising generalisation, for hostilities break out most frequently between nations or social groups w h o are neighbours. And of course the speakers of the various languages within a language family generally tend to be clustered spatially. It follows from this argument that there is never likely to have been a 'Celtic nation', if that t e r m implies an association of populations speaking different Celtic languages and possessing some coherently-unified social organisation. Certainly there is no archaeological evidence for such an association. T h e notion springs entirely from the erroneous view that where there is a familial linguistic relationship between languages there is likely to be a social relationship between populations and polities. O f course the argument does not exclude the possibility that at an earlier stage, before the Celtic languages became differentiated one from another, there was a group of people speaking a language which we may t e r m 'proto-Celtic', which is perfectly possible, and that they had some shared identity or social unity, which I very m u c h doubt. In the same way, it is highly unlikely that there was ever any kind of Indo-European social unity in Europe. By the time that populations speaking dialects or languages which we might classify as Indo-European had b e c o m e sufficiently differentiated in their speech that these were recognisably different languages, it may be assumed that they were socially differentiated also. T h e i r relations were more likely to have been of hostility than of unity. This observation tallies well with the view advanced by many linguists that linguistic differentiation is the active product of social differentiation: that different languages emerge to allow social groups to assert and reinforce their o w n social identity and individuality. T h e r e is thus emphatically n o basic presupposition that family relationships a m o n g languages are likely to be accompanied by social b o n d i n g a m o n g communities. ON

ETHNICITY

T h e concept of ethnicity is one which has been m u c h discussed and much misunderstood. Herodotus (VII. 144) summarised the matter well (with reference to the Greeks) w h e n he spoke of: 'the kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in c o m m o n , and the likeness of our way of life'. H e deals with the genetic, linguistic and cultural aspects upon which most commentators have focused. His implicit definition of ethnicity comes close to that of the m o d e r n anthropologist:

Copyrighted Material

130

Colin Renfrew

Ethnos . . . can be defined as a firm aggregate of people, historically established on a given territory, possessing in common relatively stable particularities of language and culture, and also recognising their unity and differences from other similar formations (self-awareness) and expressing this in a self-appointed name (ethnonym). (Dragadze 1980: 162) This definition rightly emphasises one crucial feature: ethnicity in the full sense is something which is determined by the people in question. In the jargon of the social anthropologist, it is an ' e m i c ' rather than an 'etic' category. A true ethnic group will have an e t h n o n y m , and it will be an e t h n o n y m which they have given to themselves. N o r should it be assumed that all communities have a clearly defined ethnicity. Jack G o o d y has described the case of the LoWiili in Africa (Goody 1967) w h o have never found it necessary to organise themselves into tribes or other social units larger than the household. T h e i r name and apparent unity was imposed upon them from outside for administrative purposes during the colonial era. T h e ethnography of such communities is often in part an imposed one, as are the categorical ascriptions of ethnicity which accompany it. It is important to realise that ethnicity is a matter of degree. Ethnicity may thus be seen as based u p o n a n u m b e r of factors, working together (see Dragadze 1980: 162): 1 o n shared territory, or land; 2 o n c o m m o n descent, 'blood', as we, like the ancient Greeks t e r m it: i.e. on genetic relationship; 3 on a shared language; 4 o n a c o m m u n i t y of customs, or culture; 5 o n a c o m m u n i t y of beliefs, or religion; 6 on a name, an e t h n o n y m , to express the identity of the group; 7 on self—awareness, self identity: ethnicity is what the people in question believe it to be. T h e r e is also, as Jonathan Hall has pointed out to me, often a further factor not entirely implicit within the preceding list: 8 o n a shared history, or myth of origin. Self-awareness is, I believe, the key ingredient here. And in general an important ingredient of the self-awareness is a perception of the 'otherness' of the others, the outsiders, the barbarians, those w h o are not 'us'. A sense of ethnicity is, therefore, sharpened by conflicts between territorial social groups, conflicts which help further to define the nature of the groups themselves and to heighten group awareness. T h u s while wars may often be the product of ethnic tension that is to say of hostility between adjoining social groups it is clear in some cases that ethnicity, or at least a more p r o n o u n c e d ethnicity, is often itself partly the product of war.

Copyrighted Material

Prehistory and the identity of Europe

131

It is my suspicion, and the point is naturally a difficult one to establish, that ethnicity, in this well defined sense, was something which in Europe became particularly marked only with the development of the Iron Age, and with the emergence of those chiefdoms which clearly laid emphasis upon martial prowess, as d o c u m e n t e d by the burial of great panoplies, veritable stores of arms, in what are often rightly described as 'warrior graves' (Renfrew 1994b). In Europe such militaristic chiefdoms were often associated with m o u n t e d warfare, dependent u p o n horse riding and on various aspects of what we have come to call a 'heroic society'. In some areas we can d o c u m e n t such behaviour already during the Bronze Age. Mycenaean Greece is certainly a case in point — I am thinking here of the great displays of weapons in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae, and in the rather later 'warrior graves' in Crete, often ascribed to Mycenaean influence. Here at Mycenae horses were, admittedly, not yet ridden, but their association with the hunt and with warfare is d o c u m e n t e d by illustrations of the t w o - w h e e l e d chariot. Certainly we can find instances of what may be described as 'warrior graves' in some areas earlier in the Bronze Age, in, for example, the Leubingen type burials of N o r t h Germany. Admittedly in using the term 'ethnicity' in relation to such cases I am perhaps using just one or two factors to suggest the possible existence of others from Dragadze's list, which are not yet clearly d o c u m e n t e d . But I believe that further analysis would allow for the case to be presented more clearly that chiefdom societies — where prestige is stressed by military displays, and where riding and drinking form an important part of the prevailing aristocratic ethos — are the communities where warfare is deliberately used in the aggressive assertion of ethnicity. ETHNICITY

AMONG

THE

CELTS

There is no contradiction in denying, as I have d o n e earlier, the existence of Celtic ethnicity, yet in recognising the importance of ethnicity a m o n g those w h o m we call the Celts. T h e r e were clearly, in Iron Age n o r t h western Europe, militaristic chiefdoms which, in some cases (see Nash 1978), might reasonably be regarded as state societies. T h e y certainly could lay claim to most of the factors which Dragadze stresses (see above), including the existence of an e t h n o n y m often recorded for us by Classical geographers and narrators (including Julius Caesar). T h e i r self-awareness was often given expression by the production of a coinage which in a few cases actually itself, in inscriptions, documents the tribal e t h n o n y m . T h e r e can be n o d o u b t about the high degree of ethnic awareness in many parts of late Iron Age Europe. W h a t is in question here, however, is whether there was any awareness of unity or solidarity beyond the local level. There can be little doubt that terms like Keltoi and Galatae were externally imposed by Greek and

Copyrighted Material

132

Colin Renfrew

R o m a n geographers (see Renfrew 1987, chapter 10). Tierney (1960) has shown convincingly h o w Greek geographers liked to divide the barbarian world into four quarters: Ethiopians and Persians to south and east, Celts and Scythians to west (or north-west) and north (or north-east). These were geographical designations made with the broadest brush, and say nothing of the social structure or organisation of the areas in question. T h e r e is n o reason to suppose that the groups w h o m the Greeks or R o m a n s may have called Keltoi or Galatae thought of themselves as related in any way, or called themselves Celts. Precisely this point has been eloquently made by Anne Ross (1974: 33): ' T h e r e is n o evidence that the inhabitants of Britain ever called themselves Celts, and Caesar only reports Celtae in one third of France.' In relation to Ireland, H e n r i H u b e r t (1934: 24) wrote in similar terms: 'It is extremely doubtful w h e t h e r the inhabitants of Ireland ever gave themselves a name of this kind.' And the Celtic linguist David Greene (1964: 14) further comments: 'Indeed we do not k n o w what Keltoi and Galatae meant originally, but there is n o evidence that they are Celtic words, or that any Celtic-speaking peoples ever called themselves by those names.' T h e r e can be little doubt that the concept of 'the Celts' is one constructed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries AD, taking as a starting point a loose geographical t e r m (or externally imposed ethnonym) rather arbitrarily assigned to the people of north-western Europe by Greek geographers. O n l y with the linguistic researches of scholars like Edward Llwyd, whose Archaeologica Britannica Glossography (Llwyd 1707) first defined the field of Celtic linguistics, was a n e w element introduced. A further dimension was added with the recognition a century ago of the La T e n e art style. But in reality there is no necessary association between the linguistic and artistic concepts, and n o necessary correlation with the Keltoi and Galatae as conceived by the Greek and R o m a n geographers. In a very real sense 'the Celts' are a m o d e r n myth and one which has considerably hampered the understanding of the p r e - R o m a n Iron Age of Europe. To say this does not mean that it is inappropriate to ask what the inhabitants of north-western Europe may have had in c o m m o n during the period in question, nor to ask what may have been the geographical extent of shared religious beliefs or artistic styles. W h a t has been so confusing and thus damaging to good archaeological research has been the tendency to treat the inhabitants of north-western Europe as if they were in some sense a single 'people', a 'Celtic nation', and thus in some real sense an ethnic unit. It is quite clear that they were not. It may be that there is nothing seriously w r o n g in referring to 'the art of the Celts', if by that one simply means the 'art of the inhabitants of north-western Europe in the second and first centuries BC:'. T h a t might be regarded as a convenient shorthand. But in reality the notion of 'the

Copyrighted Material

Prehistory and the identity of Europe

133

Celts' has been a source of so m u c h confusion that it would surely be better to abandon it altogether, and to restrict the t e r m to its m u c h m o r e closely defined meaning in historical linguistics, designating a language family. SOCIAL

REALITY

AND

'THE

I N D O E U ROPE A N S'

Closely comparable arguments apply w h e n one discusses the social realities underlying the linguistic unity implied by the notion of an I n d o European language family. T h e t e r m ' I n d o - E u r o p e a n ' has adequate meaning only in the strictly linguistic sense: it is a construct in the field of historical linguistics. I d o not believe that there has ever been a social or ethnic unit which could properly be described as 'the I n d o Europeans'. As indicated earlier, the geographical extent of populations speaking Indo-European languages precludes any underlying social or ethnic unity. O f course, if we go further back in time, before the Indo-European languages as we k n o w them today were formed, we may well postulate an ancestral population from whose speech, which we might call 'proto Indo-European', all subsequent Indo-European languages may have descended. T h a t is what Marija Gimbutas does with her 'kurgan' c o m m u nities north of the Black Sea at the beginning of the Bronze Age (Gimbutas 1970). And that too is what I do with the hypothetical early farming population in central Anatolia, which may have been ancestral to many of the first farmers of Europe. But the idea that those early farmers thought of themselves as a well-defined ethnic group is highly doubtful. Moreover, even if we follow the Gimbutas view, and a fortiori if we follow mine, it is difficult to see in these early societies anything of the heroic Indo-European societies with their tripartite conceptual structures as conceived by Georges Dumezil (1958). It is of course perfectly reasonable to ask what social and ideological features the early farming societies of Europe may have shared, and this is a question which Ian H o d d e r (1990), following Jacques Cauvin (1987), has very fruitfully asked. However, the answer they offer has little in c o m m o n with that p r o p o u n d e d by Dumezil, or by those like Mallory (1989) w h o follow, however cautiously, in his footsteps.

THE

EUROPEAN

BACKGROUND

T h e idea of a Celtic nation and that of a fundamental Indo-European unity or essence can both be refuted without hesitation. This does not, however, mean that the question of the origin of the Indo-European languages is without interest or importance to the historian. Their wide and relatively h o m o g e n e o u s distribution is clearly the product of social

Copyrighted Material

134

Colin Renfrew

a n d / o r e c o n o m i c processes of considerable power and significance, if their results are so marked and so very evident down to the present day. 1 have suggested that the principal underlying process was that of the initial spread of farming to Europe many thousands of years ago. But it is worth reflecting, for a m o m e n t , what, if anything, that implies for the Europe of today (Renfrew 1993; 1994a). W h a t it does not imply is any essentialist view of the languages t h e m selves or of the mental powers of their speakers. I try to make the point by the subtitle of this article. It is well k n o w n that Hungarian is not an Indo-European language, generally being assigned to the F i n n o - U g r i a n family. But does that mean that the Hungarians are in their life, culture or indeed religion any less 'European' than their neighbours? Anyone w h o has visited Budapest will certainly view it as a European city as m u c h as Prague or Vienna or Warsaw, and certainly more cosmopolitan than Belgrade. This is not to deny that there are special elements in Hungarian culture which may be assigned to the eastern origin of the Magyars. But they are Europeans despite that. There are certainly also genetic issues underlying these historical reconstructions. T h e demic diffusion model for the spread of agriculture across Europe carries genetic implications for which good evidence has been adduced through statistical study of gene frequencies (Sokal, O d e n and Wilson 1991). T h e r e are even clines in gene frequency distributions which may result from demographic effects associated with the c o m i n g of the first speaker of the Hungarian language (Barbujani and Sokal 1990). T h e r e is m u c h to learn about the genetic composition of the population of Europe and the causes of the diversity which is seen. But that need not lead us to some simplistic classification in terms of racial or ethnic units: current approaches through molecular genetics are much more data rich than that and in consequence m u c h more subtle also. T h e identity of Europe cannot be encapsulated by laying emphasis upon just one or two factors. All the matters which we have been discussing are a m o n g the ingredients for any well-informed view of the European past, and for any proper definition of European identity. But the important lesson, as I see it, is that the past does not offer us any ready-made formula for constructing or extracting such an identity. It is up to us, as w o u l d be Europeans, to undertake that task. Ethnicity in this, as in other cases, is a current reality, dependent above all upon our o w n present awareness of w h o we are and of w h o we want to be. In that sense there is n o a priori European identity available to us which might persuade us that we should want to be 'Europeans'. But there are indeed abundant ingredients for the construction of such a European identity: linguistic, genetic, cultural, religious and in terms of shared history from which a c o m m o n myth may be created. T h e identity of Europe, then, will be what we as Europeans or as would-be Europeans shall construct it to be, through our own awareness

Copyrighted Material

Prehistory and the identity of Europe

135

of ourselves, of Europeans as a group, and from our understanding of these mainly historical ingredients. And it is this awareness, if I am right, which we need as archaeologists, prehistorians and anthropologists to disseminate: that we are responsible, to a large extent, for what we are, and to a m u c h greater extent for what we shall b e c o m e . T h a t is what gives us not only the right, but the responsibility to criticise so severely those in the Balkans w h o seek to misuse their shared past to legitimise or to give plausibility to the largely fictitious and seemingly inauspicious present which they are seeking to construct. T h e history and prehistory of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina can be used just as readily to warrant multi-ethnic societies in those nations, or to support a unified Yugoslavia, as it can to p r o m o t e ethnically-based states of the kind advocated by Milosevic and Karadzic on a model not so very far from that conceived by Hitler for a Third R e i c h unsullied by non-Aryan impurity. N o t h i n g in European prehistory or history entails the merits of a policy of ethnic purity. T h e r e are two morals, it would seem, to be drawn from this somewhat homiletic exegesis apart from the initial injunction against discourtesy to the Hungarians. First, we as actors in the m o d e r n world, must not allow looselyformulated concepts of race or ethnicity to be used on the supposed authority of archaeology (or history or prehistory) to give guidance as to appropriate action in the world of today. Proper understanding of the past can indeed offer us self-awareness and a broad perspective. It cannot with propriety be used directly to prescribe what we should do. Second, as archaeologists and prehistorians we should exercise a proper scepticism w h e n using such terms as 'race' and 'ethnicity' in our r e c o n struction of the past. T h e y need careful analysis, and in approaching questions of h u m a n diversity we must be willing to discard old if convenient modes of thought w h e n they b e c o m e misleading. Let me conclude by remarking that I do indeed believe that it is the analysis and the data which should lead us to form a view about the past, rather than simply a preference as to h o w we would personally like the past to be. T h a t is, of course, intended in the first place as a modest salvo against the 'past as wished for' which I believe to be advocated by several of the self-styled 'post-school', including Shanks and Tilley (1987; see Renfrew 1989), and to have been implied by John Barrett in his remarks during the EuroTAG plenary session. But it is also an admission that if we were indeed to find abundant evidence throughout Europe for m o u n t e d warrior horsemen of 'kurgan' type at the beginning of the Bronze Age, we might yet be led to accept the arguments of Gimbutas and Mallory about Indo-European origins perhaps even to acquiesce in the views of Dumezil. T h e ultimate arbiter in matters of this kind should not be personal preference, but the archaeological record, insofar as we are able to recover or reconstruct it.

Copyrighted Material

136

Colin Renfrew BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barbujani, G. and R. Sokal (1990) 'Zones of sharp genetic change in Europe are also linguistic boundaries.' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 87: 1816-19. Cauvm, J. (1987) 'L'appantion des premieres divinites.' La Recherche 194: 1472-80. Childe, V.G. (1929) The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1950) Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. Oslo: Aschehoug. Demoule, J.P. (1980) 'Les Indo—europeens ont ils existe?' L'Histoire 28: 109-20. Dragadze, T. (1980) 'The place of "ethnos" theory in Soviet anthropology.' In E. Gellner (ed.), Soviet and Western Anthropology.: 161—70. London: Duckworth. Dumezil, G. (1958) L'Ideologie Yripartie des Indo-Europeens. Bruxelles: Berchen Latomus. Gimbutas, M. (1970) 'Proto Indo-European culture: the Kurgan culture during the 5th to the 3rd millenium BC.' In G. Cardona, H.M. Hoenigswald and A. Senn (eds), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans.: 155-98. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goody, J. (1967) Tlie Social Organisation of the LoWilli. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greene, D. (1964) 'The Celtic languages.' In J. Raftery (ed.), The Celts.: 9-22. Cork: Mercier Press. Hodder, I. (1990) The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. Hodson, F.R. (1964) 'Cultural groupings within the British pre-Roman iron age.' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30: 99—110. Hubert, H. (1934) The Rise of the Celts. London: Kcgan Paul, Trench and Trubner. Llwyd, E. (1707) Archaeologia Britannka, I. Glossography. London. Mallory, J.P. (1989) In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson. Merriman, N. (1987) 'Value and motivation in prehistory: the evidence for "Celtic spirit".' In I. Hodder (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings.: 111—16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nash, D. (1978) Settlement and Coinage in Central Gaul, c.200-50 BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, Supplementary Series 39. Renfrew, C. (1974) 'Beyond a subsistence economy: the evolution of social organisation in prehistoric Europe.' In O B . Moore (ed.), Reconstructing Complex Societies.: 69—84. (Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 20) Renfrew, C. (1987) Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. (1989) 'Comments on archaeology into the 1990s.' Norwegian Archaeological Review 22: 33-41. (1993) The Roots of Ethnicity: Archaeology, Genetics and the Origins of Europe. Rome: Unione Intemazionale degli Istituti di Archeologia, Storia e Storia dell'Arte in Roma. (1994a) 'The archaeology of identity.' In G.B. Peterson (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 15.: 283—348. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Copyrighted Material

Prehistory and the identity of Europe

137

(1994b) 'The identity of Europe in prehistoric archaeology.' Journal of European Archaeology 2, 2: 153-73. Ross, A. (1974) Pagan Celtic Britain. London: Cardinal. Shanks, M. and C. Tilley (1987) Social 'Vheory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press. Shennan S. (1986) 'Interaction and change in third millenium BC western and central Europe.' In C. Renfrew and J.F. Cherry (eds), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change.: 137—58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sokal, R.R., N.L. Oden and A.C. Wilson (1991) 'New genetic evidence supports the origin of agriculture in Europe by demic diffusion.' Nature 351: 143-4. Tierney, J J. (1960) 'The Celtic ethnography of Posidonius.' Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 60, C: 189-275.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER

NINE

EUROPEAN O R I G I N S 'CIVILISATION7 AND 'BARBARISM' KRISTIAN

KRISTIANSEN

It may be taken as a sign of the increasing theoretical maturity of the discipline of archaeology that it is beginning to see itself as a product of the forces of history. Over the last ten to fifteen years there has been a shift from an internal understanding of archaeology as an objective and value-free practice towards a broader understanding that situates archaeology in its social and political context. T h e following essay contributes to this development through an analysis of the ways in which European myths of origin have been manifested in, and constructed through, archaeological discourses.

MYTHS OF O R I G I N Myths of origin have a strong hand in shaping our conceptions of the past, thereby giving order and meaning to the present. In Europe the Classical dichotomy between 'Civilisation' and 'Barbarism' has dominated myths of origin, and played a major role in shaping the political ideology of European nation-states, thereby also implicitly influencing research objectives and interpretations in archaeology (Larsen 1989; Rowlands 1989). This dichotomy reflects an almost universal ethnocentric categorisation of the dominated by the dominant (Harbsmeier 1985), and has produced two dominant European myths of origin: (l) T h e first emphasises the importance of cultural transmission from the so-called centres of'Civilisation' in the origins of Europe, focusing on the barbarian destruction of Classical R o m e and the subsequent revitalisation of 'Classical Civilisation' from the Renaissance onwards, (ii) In contrast, the second stresses the indigenous nature of European origins and situates 'Barbarism' as the original source of uncorrupted freedom providing a vital alternative to the despotism of the Classical empires.

Copyrighted Material

European origins

139

According to the myth of the triumph of civilisation over barbarian destruction, the flame of civilisation was carried along from the N e a r East, via Greece to R o m e , where it was destroyed by barbarians and only revived after the Renaissance. T h e industrial empires of England and France saw themselves as the successors of civilisation, and nineteenthand twentieth-century excavations of N e a r Eastern Classical and Biblical civilisations, with subsequent exhibitions in Europe, can be seen as part of this historical mission (Larsen 1988). At times these explorations took on the character of a race between nations. For instance, during the 1840s France and England competed in their attempts to locate and appropriate treasures from what they b o t h believed was ancient Nineveh. In the wake of such archaeological imperialism the leading European nations established archaeological institutes in the Mediterranean and the Near East, most of which still exist today. T h e historical and anthropological disciplines were partly shaped by the civilising venture of European imperialism during the late nineteenth century. Social anthropology responded to a need to understand the 'primitives' according to their perceived position on the historical and e c o n o m i c periphery (see Stocking 1968; 1987). Archaeology and ancient history were used to demonstrate the successful evolution of civilisation from the Stone Age, through the Iron Age, and ultimately the Industrial Age with its climax in nineteenth-century Europe. Comparison between the European O l d Stone Age and the material culture of existing n o n western peoples further supported the claim that successful evolution leading to the development of civilisation had only taken place in certain regions in the world (cf, Zvelebil, chapter 10). Social Darwinian principles (not to be confused with Darwin's theory of evolution) were employed to account for, and legitimate, the superiority of Europe and its domination of the rest of the world (Trigger 1989). At a similar time, the myth of indigenenous barbarian origins developed in Middle Europe, especially in Germany, which regarded barbarian Europe as the original source of uncorrupted freedom, maintaining individualism and freedom, as opposed to the despotism of Classical empires. W i t h the aid of historical linguistics, 'Volkskunde' (the study of traditional culture), and archaeology, which by this time had laid down the fundamental chronological and cultural framework of European prehistory, a national—historical framework was constructed to legitimate the expanding G e r m a n nation. Direct ethnic links were postulated between the prehistoric past and the present on the basis of ethnic explanations of archaeological cultures (e.g., see Kossinna 1911; for further discussion see Eggers 1959, chapter 4; Trigger 1989, chapter 5). This framework proved so successful that it was adopted in most European countries. It later served as a platform for racist constructions of a Germanic 'Urvolk' rooted in Indo-European tradition, which were adopted and transformed to serve the Nazi regime (Veit 1989).

Copyrighted Material

140

Kristian Kristiansen

As a consequence of this construction of barbarian roots as a vitalising element in the formation of European dynamics, emphasis on the myth of European oriental origins was toned d o w n . Assumptions about the static nature of oriental despotism were also partly responsible for a decline in the emphasis on oriental origins at a time w h e n industrialism celebrated innovation, the free market, and individualism. O f the Classical and Oriental civilisations, only Greece was redeemed from the disrepute of despotism by the discovery of its Indo-European, that is European origins, although this shift was also clearly ideologically laden (see Bernal 1988). By the end of the century barbarism had been recontextualised and rehabilitated through the combined efforts of linguistics, history, and not least archaeology (see Rowlands 1989). T h u s , the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries formed the great period of the 'invention of traditions' in which history and archaeology quite openly served ideological functions, often constructing national and international myths of origin and civilisational superiority (as discussed above; see also H o b s b a w m and R a n g e r 1983; Kristiansen 1993). O n e need not go through many books, newspapers or other popular literature of the time to realize the fundamentally racist outlook of these historical constructions. However, the past was also used to support claims to basic civil and h u m a n rights, as well as aggression, expansion and warfare, as legitimate features of the European tradition. T h e barbarian element in European history also had contradictory implications. As argued above, some national identities were tied in with myths of indigenous barbarian European origins, but paradoxically the internal class contradictions and conflict which nationalism attempted to channel into external aggression, were also seen to be derived from the barbarian tradition. T h e ideology of national self-determination underlying the rise of the nation-state raised yet another dilemma, since all people could rightly make claims to such rights. In this situation history, archaeology and anthropology were employed to reinforce the idea that such rights had been achieved through a l o n g - t e r m civilisational process culminating in European capitalism. T h e rest of the world had to learn and earn the virtues of civilisation, and the rights that these endowed, through imperial and colonial salvation. It was only after the collapse and transformation of traditional colonialism following World War II that academic interests switched to a concern with the historical forces underlying this global transformation, and the role of archaeology, anthropology and history in colonial and imperial enterprises (Ekholm and Friedman 1980; Trigger 1984). ORIGINS

REDEFINED

D u r i n g the m i d - to late twentieth century, archaeological approaches emerged which focused on larger scale socio-economic, historical and

Copyrighted Material

European origins

141

evolutionary frameworks (e.g., Childe 1936; 1958; Clarke 1939; 1952) in contrast to the nationalist-oriented culture history. However, the overriding question of European origins still governed attempts to understand the transformation of Europe from a static prehistoric periphery into the industrial centre of the world. T h e genesis of European industrialism, and the question of its uniqueness, had long been a major area of debate a m o n g historians, but Childe was the first archaeologist to trace the entrepreneurial European spirit back to the Bronze Age (Childe 1930; see also 1958). H e argued that Europe received basic technological i n n o vations from the civilisations of the Near East through processes of diffusion, whilst at the same time opposing state formation and oriental despotism. As a result a n e w social dynamic developed in Europe: Among the Early Bronze Age peoples of the Aegean, the Danube Valley, Scandinavia and Britain, we can recognize already these very qualities of energy, independence and inventiveness which distinguish the western world from Egypt, India and China. (Childe 1930; cited in Rowlands 1984: 149) In this work, Childe discarded ethnic and national interpretations, but rooted the basic social and economic components of later European history in prehistory. This tradition of an a u t o n o m o u s and unique European development was updated in the 1970s primarily by Renfrew (1973), and established as the dominant paradigm of European prehistory. Renfrew (1973) argued that this indigenous European tradition extended further back into the Neolithic: The basic links of the traditional chronology are snapped and Europe is no longer directly linked, either chronologically or culturally, with the early civilisations of the Near East. (Renfrew 1973: 116) H e extended this view even so far as to include the origins of civilisation on Crete and on the Greek mainland: I believe, indeed, that the first European civilisation was very much a European development, and that most of its features can be traced back, not to the admittedly earlier civilisations of the Near East, but to antecedents on home ground, and to processes at work in the Aegean over the preceding thousand years. (Renfrew 1973: 211-12)

In such work, the Indo-Europeans have been replaced by a u t o n o m o u s social and e c o n o m i c development, and migration and warfare by peaceful mechanisms of exchange and innovation; processes which are much more appropriate to the origin myths of welfare society. But, the basic outlook was, and still is, well suited to the ideological emphasis on a special European tradition. As Larsen has pointed out:

Copyrighted Material

142

Kristian Kristiansen

It is difficult to avoid linking this interpretation of the early 1970s with the political realitites of the time, and especially with the strong desire felt in Europe to understand the subcontinent as an entirely autonomous entity. (Larsen 1989: 235) In his most recent b o o k , Archaeology and Language, Renfrew (1987) has placed greater emphasis on national—historical traditions within this framework of indigenous European origins: These lands have been our lands, and those of our forefathers, for thousand of years longer than is widely thought. Many of the features, then, which define the Irishness of the Irish, or the Spanishness of the Spanish, or the Britishness of the British, go back very much deeper. . . . This, I think, is a fundamental change in perspective, and one which carries many interesting implications with it. (Renfrew 1987: 6) I would replace 'interesting' with 'dangerous' and, although this is not the overall tone of the book, it demonstrates once again the interaction between myth, theory and interpretation. Renfrew's Archaelogy and Language was followed, perhaps not incidentally, by the publication of Hodder's (1990) important b o o k on The Domestication of Europe, which, from the perspective of contextual archaeology is concerned with the cultural construction and domestication of early Europe. Although it takes archaeological interpretation beyond the established schemes of the Renfrew paradigm, Hodder's b o o k still adopts a position of understanding European history from 'within', regardless of w h e t h e r Europe or Culture is the dominant theme. In the meantime the European U n i o n has c o m e into being, including article 128 introduced by the 'Maastricht Treaty', which states that 'the c o m m u n i t y shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the M e m b e r States, while respecting their national and regional diversity, and at the same time bringing the c o m m o n European heritage to the fore' (see Foster 1992: 337). T h e potential contradictions inherent in this formulation reflect the realities of our time, with the growth of regional and ethnic traditions alongside increasing supra-national integration. This is most violently demonstrated in former eastern Europe, where the explosion of ethnic and national movements, legitimising themselves with various historical constructions, has once again set the scene for a period of historical manipulation and the re-invention of national traditions. Experience has already taught us that such manipulations are difficult to counteract with academic arguments, a difficulty which is exaggerated if disciplines are isolated institutionally and nationally (Kohl 1993; Slapsak 1993). T h e formation of the E u r o p e a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f A r c h a e o l o g i s t s and the associated Journal of European Archaeology can be seen as a reaction to, and c o u n t e r - m o v e m e n t against, such disruptive developments.

Copyrighted Material

European origins

143

CONCLUSION T h e old problems of the distinctiveness of Europe and nationalism arcthus very m u c h still with us, as are their underlying ideologies. Archaeological and historical research is ideologically biased from top to b o t t o m , from its disciplinary divisions (infrastructure) to its basic interpretative terminology (superstructure) (and see Diaz-Andreu, chapter 3; Hides, chapter 2; Jones, chapter 4). If we are to u n w r a p this constraining ideological clothing, it is necessary to engage actively in a critical historical analysis of its origin and use, as well as attempting to develop n e w theoretical and academic frameworks for research. Concepts such as 'Civilisation' and 'Barbarism' e m b o d y culturally determined preferences and value judgements that may deprive us of the ability to understand so-called civilised and barbarian societies. For instance, such conceptual confinement is evident insofar as the concept of civilisation defines the relationship between prehistory and history through the occurrence of script and the survival of written evidence. In this way prehistory is maintained beyond the expanding frontier of civilisation, defining arbitrary borderlines of historical research and explanation. Although archaeology, history, anthropology and classical philology are increasingly employed in a synthetic study of b o t h ancient and more recent history, the institutional reorganisation demanded by this theoretical integration of disciplines has only been accommodated at a few universities. As long as institutional structures, which themselves are the o u t c o m e of the ideological categorisations such as civilisation and barbarism, are still dominating research, our ability to transcend these ideological barriers and reach n e w levels of historical understanding will be severely hampered. It is also necessary to consider the broader political realities of academic research: at a time w h e n history is entering a n e w period of national and ethnic use and misuse, the historical disciplines should stand united to critically address and deconstruct attempts at political and ideological manipulation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bernal, M. (1988) 'Black Athena denied: the tyranny of Germany over Greece and the rejection of the Afroasiatic roots of Europe 1780—1980.' Comparative Criticism 8: 3—69. Childe, V.G. (1930) The Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1936) Man Makes Himself. London: Watts. (1958) The Prehistory of European Society. I larmondsworth: Penguin. Clarke, J.G.D. (1939) Archaeology and Society. London: Methuen. (1952) Prehistoric Europe: the Economic Basis. London: Methuen. Eggers, H.-J. (1959) Einfuhrung in die Vorgeschichte. Munich: Piper Verlag. Ekholm, K. and J. Friedman (1980) 'Towards a global anthropology.' In L. Blusse, H. L. Wesseling and G. D. Winius (eds), History and Underdevelopment. Essays on Underdevelopment and European Expansion in Asia and Africa.: 61—76.

Copyrighted Material

144

Kristian Kristiansen

Paris: Leiden Centre for History of European Expansion and Edition de la Maison Sciences de l'Homme. Harbsmeier, M. (1985) 'On travel accounts and cosmological strategies. Some models in comparative xenology.' Ethnos 3—4: 273—312. Hobsbawm, E.J. and T. Ranger (eds) (1983) Tlie Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, I. (1990) Tlie Domestication of Europe. Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Jensen, J. (1988) 'Ur-europaeren.' In H. Boll-Johansen and M. Harbsmeier (eds), Europas Opdagelse. Historien om en Ide.: 38-60. Copenhagen. Kohl, P. (1993) 'Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology in Soviet Transcaucasia.' Journal of European Archaeology 1, 2: 181—8. Kossinna, G. (1911) Die Herkunft der Gcrmanen. Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchaeologie. Mannus-Bibliothek 6. Wiirzburg: Kabitzch. Kristiansen, K. (1993) 'The strength of the past and its great might, an essay on the use of the past.' Journal of European Archaeology 1 , 1 : 3—33. Larsen, M.T. (1988) 'Europas lys.' In H. Boll-Johansen and M. Harbsmeier (eds), Europas Opdagels. Historien om en Ide.: 9—37. Copenhagen. (1989) 'Orientalism and Near Eastern archaeology.' In I). Miller, M. Rowlands and C. Tilley (eds), Domination and Resistance.: 229—39. London: Unwin Hyman. Renfrew, C. (1973) Before Civilisation: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. London: Jonathan Cape. (1987) Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. Rowlands, M. (1987) '"Europe in prehistory": a unique form of primitive capitalism?' Culture & History 1: 63-78. — (1989) 'European barbarism and the search for authenticity'. In M. Harbsmeier and M.Trolle Larsen (eds), The Humanities between Art and Science. Intellectual Developments 1880-1914.: 225-40. Kobenhavn: Akademisk Forlag. Slapsak, B. (1993) 'Archaeology and the contemporary myths of the past.' Journal of European Archaeology 1, 2: 191-5. Stocking, G.W. Jr. (1968) Race, Culture and Evolution. Essays on the History of Anthropology. London: Collier-Macmillan. (1987) Victorian Anthropology. New York: The Free Press. Trigger, B. (1984) 'Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist.' Man 19: 355-70. (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Veit, U. (1989) 'Ethnic concepts in German prehistory: a case study on the relationship between cultural identity and archaelogical objectivity.' In S.J. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.: 35-56. London: Unwin Hyman.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER TEN

FARMERS O U R ANCESTORS AND THE IDENTITY OF EUROPE MAREK

ZVELEBIL

INTRODUCTION In this paper, I would like to address the notion of farmers as our ancestors: one of the less obvious, but pervading claims t o national and European identity. I argue that m o d e r n perceptions of prehistoric farming communities form a key element in ethnic and national self-definition and also serve as o n e of the defining features of the European society. These perceptions arose from the social evolutionary notions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and resulted in the privileged treatment of the evidence for the early farming, 'Neolithic' societies to the detriment of the earlier hunter-gatherers. I conclude that the contribution of indigenous hunter-gatherer societies to the diversity and differentiation evident in the Neolithic has been obscured by the desire to appropriate farming as o n e of the constituent elements of the European identity.

FARMERS OUR ANCESTORS Even though not immediately apparent, the theme of 'farmers o u r ancestors' can be found in literature, in historical writing, in popular and educational films, and, of course, in archaeology. T h e obvious reason for such usage is that farming communities and their lifestyle have p r e d o m inated in Europe as the most c o m m o n way of life for millennia. T h e significance of this 'peasant' heritage has been enhanced by the sociopolitical developments of the last 200 years (see below pp. 146—7), and re-presented in the service of nationalism or supra-national identity as the situation demanded. I would like to stress three contextual reasons for this enhancement. First, contacts between Europeans and m o d e r n foraging societies in the

Copyrighted Material

146

Marek Zvelebil

sixteenth to seventeenth centuries led, more often than not, to a climate of prejudice towards hunter-gatherer societies, which was used to justify the widespread persecution and genocide of these societies. This story is n o w well d o c u m e n t e d , most recently in a special section in Antiquity (Gamble 1992). Prejudice towards hunter-gatherer societies also led to the elevation of farming societies, and particularly of agro-pastoral farmers, to the status of civilised, ordered and cultured communities as opposed to savage, primitive and barbarian foragers. This binary opposition — between U s the Cultivators and the Savage O t h e r — is explicit, together with its sinister implications, in the words of that founding father of m o d e r n democracy, Benjamin Franklin: 'If it be the Design of Providence to extirpate these Savages in order to make room for Cultivators of the Earth, it seems . . . that R u m may be the appointed means' (cited in D i a m o n d 1992: 277). T h e subsequent development of sociocultural evolutionary schemes in the nineteenth century, such as those by Morgan (1964 [1877|), Tylor (1871), Engels (1972 [1884]) and Sollas (1911), upheld and elaborated the opposition between farming and foraging populations, leading Sollas to reiterate: the dispossession by a newcomer of a race already in occupation of the soil has marked an upward step in the intellectual progress of mankind. It is not priority of occupation, but the power to utilise, which establishes the claim to the land. (Sollas 1911: 383) T h e second socio-political development, which was responsible for the elevation of farming to heritage status, can be identified in industrialisation and the development of urban landscapes. Faced with the social upheavals and alienation brought about by these changes, Europeans of all social groups, but particularly the middle and upper classes, have idealised the pastoral and farming way of life, its established social order, its traditional values and its physical form: the unspoilt, rural landscape. R u r a l life as a symbol of the uncultured, of simple existence or a return of the Nature, inspired poets such as Wordsworth and novelists such as Tolstoy or T h o m a s Hardy, the landscape artists of the nineteenth century and books of the English and Irish countryside. N o t all such works uncritically promoted the romantic view of rural existence, but in exploring this subject, a genre was created, which served as a source of further idealisation more recently, notably in the last forty years (e.g., Hoskins 1985 |1955|). T h e recent uproar over the G A T T treaty is a contemporary expression of this progressive romantisation: the argument is not merely about saving the jobs of the French or British farmers, but also about o u r ancestral farms, our bonds to the countryside, about the spectre of le paysagc sans paysans (see e.g., Jackson 1992). T h e third reason for the promotion of our farming ancestry lies in the constitution of nation-states in the last hundred and fifty years. In some

Copyrighted Material

Farmers our ancestors

147

nationalist literature (for instance, in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland and Ireland) peasant farmers have been upheld as harbingers of true national culture and character, a repository of language and traditions at the time of foreign oppression, and as a key historical link between a glorious past and the m o d e r n aspirations of the nation. For others with a fragile sense of national identity, such as the Germans (Arnold 1992), the farming nature of their forefathers was employed in a general campaign 'to clear t h e m of the o d i u m of barbarity and to place t h e m on the same pedestal as the heroes of classical antiquity' (Sklenaf 1983: 67). This resulted in frequent references to the farming past in historical writing, film and literature. H o w far did these orientations penetrate archaeology? A cursory survey of national prehistories indicates that explicit references appear to reflect the strength of nationalist feeling and attempts to define one's territory. T h u s Kostrzewski (1965) traced the unbroken settlement and population continuity in Poland back to the Neolithic period (see also Martens 1989). Or, in her b o o k on prehistoric Finland, Kivikoski concludes that the 'real Finnish culture had its origins in the farms', which 'laid the foundations for the development of a national unit, and the eventual emergence . . . of an independent Finnish nation and Finnish state' (Kivikoski 1967: 155-6). Such a tendency reached its extreme form during the Nazi period in G e r m a n y w h e n , as Arnold points out, 'the Germanic culture of northern Europe was (held) responsible for virtually all major intellectual and technological achievements of Western civilisation' (1992: 32). Farming was one such achievement. As a part of his 'battle against the barbaric lie of the uncultured character of our Germanic forebears', R e i n e r t h invoked the image of blood ties 'across the ages to those Nordic farmer's sons, w h o had to fight for southern German soil' (Reinerth 1936: 5, quoted in Arnold 1990: 468). This was in keeping with Kossinna s theory that Neolithic culture in Europe spread from a 'Germanic homeland' together with the I n d o - G e r m a n i c languages (Kossinna 1902; 1926). O n the other side of the national divide, the Czechs also used the farming metaphor, re-packaged in the image of peaceful farmers 'endowed with all possible virtues and suffering at the hands of the rude G e r m a n i ' (Sklenaf 1983: 95) (Figure 10.1). In Western Europe, nationalism was less directly implicated in p r o m o t i n g the image of farmers as our ancestors. Yet the divide between the prehistoric hunters and farmers in Europe was regarded as insurmountable — and this led to the development of a major conceptual break between the Mesohthic and the Neolithic in European Prehistory. Consider, for instance, Henderson's description of Neolithic farmers: Look at them: very different from the earlier specimens of mankind, from the tusky folk of Piltdown or Talgai for instance, or the cave Rhodesians with their gorilla brows, or the stooping Mousterians. These are proper men,

Copyrighted Material

148

Marek Zvelebil

Figure 10.1 The Homeland, by J. Manes, 1856. The national selfperception created by Czech and Slovak intellectuals referred to ancestors as peaceful farmers, an image captured in this nationalist painting

whom we at once recognise as such; . . . Neolithic Europeans have long heads and dark hair, inclined to be curly. Their faces are oval and aquiline. (Henderson 1927: 125) It was G o r d o n Childe (1925; 1928; 1956) w h o cemented these notions, partly in reaction to Kossinna's theories, into the ex oriente lux explanation: farming societies in Europe arose as a result of the dispersal of farming communities from the Near East, w h o brought with t h e m advanced and superior culture, colonised Europe and replaced the impoverished h u n t e r gatherers of the Mesolithic. In this context it is not surprising that a chapter on the Mesolithic prehistory of Wessex in Stone (1958) should b e entitled 'Savage Wessex', followed by a chapter entitled 'First Farmers'. N e i t h e r is it surprising to find that Sir M o r t i m e r W h e e l e r described the Star Carr hunter-gatherers as, 'as squalid a huddle of march-ridden foodgatherers as the imagination could well encompass' (Wheeler 1954: 231). In his popular book, Archaeology from the Earth, W h e e l e r (1954) articulates the prevailing social evolutionary view of the hunter-gatherers and of the Mesolithic—Neolithic transition (see Bettinger 1991 for a critique): We need not close our eyes to Man-the-Jelly-fish or Man-the-Whole-timeFood-gatherer in order to believe in Man-with-Time-to-think-betweenmeals, in Civilised Man, but the last is, surely, of overriding importance. (Wheeler 1954: 237)

Copyrighted

Material

Farmers our ancestors

149

And: I am not prepared to admit the Noble Savage within my general definition of the term ('noble'), for the simple reason that he is a savage, suffering from a savage's restricted vision, tangential reasoning and lack of 'opportunity'. I have in mind something far more complex and comprehensive; something in fact which implies the background of civilisation or some approximation to it; where the intelligence has been subjected to the widest possible range of stimuli and where its fruits have been most widely, quickly, and intelligently shared. (Wheeler 1954: 238) That 'something' began with the origins of food production. Wheeler's views illustrate the full weight of multi-dimensional prejudice, b o r n of the deeply felt distinction between food gatherers and food producers, between the Savage and the Civilised, between stagnation and progress, between feeble-mindedness and intelligence, and from the personal and national identification with the latter. As a result, Wheeler's philosophical position dismissed hunter-gatherer archaeology as an irrelevant distraction from nobler goals, and hunter-gatherers themselves as savages. This view of the Mesolithic—Neolithic divide transcends, but at the same time incorporates, the nationalist interests of individual ethnicities in Europe to suggest a pan-European basis for the subsequent development of European civilisation. Despite later modifications to his ideas concerning the spread of agriculture, Childe (1942; 1957) remained convinced that hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic were either too overspecialised or under-cultured to contribute significantly to the Neolithic revolution (Trigger 1980: 105). W i t h few exceptions in Britain and Scandinavia, this view has been largely accepted by archaeologists (i.e. A m m e r m a n and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Clarke 1966; 1981; H o d d e r 1990; Piggott 1965) and by the public at large. T h e result of this prevailing view of the 'Neolithic Revolution' is an uneven treatment of archaeological evidence. It is curious, for instance, h o w traces of fire, erosion and vegetational disturbance ascribed to natural causes in the Mesolithic b e c o m e anthropogenic in the Neolithic. It is strange too, h o w cereal pollen grains or isolated finds of carbonised grain are either seen as indications of farming or as 'contamination', depending on chronological and cultural context (Edwards and Hirons 1984); or h o w a few bones of domesticates a m o n g wild faunal remains make a society 'Neolithic' ( A m m e r m a n and Cavalli-Sforza 1984). Neolithic pottery occurring with microliths is often interpreted as arising from mixed stratigraphy, and not as a result of settlement continuity or a local adoption of novel technology (Bernabo-Brea 1966). Mobility, referred to as nomadism or 'annual round' in the Mesolithic, suddenly becomes 'transhumance' in the Neolithic, if acknowledged at all. Hunting-gathering is characterised as 'parasitic' (Childe 1928: 2), predatory (Pleiner and Rybova 1978), and at the mercy of nature (Braidwood 1960; Childe 1928), while farming is 'food

Copyrighted Material

150

Marek Zvelebil Books sampled = 41 Total pages = 8179

/\ 3000 •

2500-

30%

2 9%

-

2 8%

/ /

//////

/ / ////

V/V/V/

2000

////

1500-

y^y/ 1000-

/ / / 7% 500-

n-

6%

' / //

^

// (////

Palaeolithic

//////

Mesolithic

Neolithic

Bronze

/ / / / / / / / / / / Age Iron Age / / / / /

=*

Figure 10.2 Average amount of printed pages devoted to each chronological period over the last forty years (1951-91) (Based on a sample of forty-one regional and national volumes on prehistory in Europe)

production' and in control (Braidwood I960; Childe 1928; Sahlins and Service 1960). Finally, despite a considerable evidence for ritual elaboration and differential treatment of social groups in the Mesolithic, these huntergatherer communities continue to be regarded as acephalous, egalitarian and close to nature, while their Neolithic successors are seen as engaging in complex social relations and communal megalithic rituals (e.g., Thomas 1988; see also the debate between Thomas 1991 and Mithen 1991; Graves forthcoming; Zvelebil 1995). Similar views can be discerned on the continent. For example, Olsen (1986; 1988) has identified 'Neolithic chauvinism' (1988: 425) in the treatment of the agricultural transition in Europe in general, and in the analysis of the relationship between Norwegian national identity and the treatment of Saami (hunting-gathering) archaeology and Norwegian (farming) archaeology in particular. As the discussion following Olsen's (1988) paper indicates, archaeologists in Poland, too, are bound by their pre-conceived ideology (whether favouring Neolithic or Mesolithic) to attribute differential values to one type of evidence at the expense of another (Tomaszewski 1988; Urbanczyk 1988). Such uneven treatment of the archaeological record is matched by a relative neglect of the Mesolithic and Palaeolithic in the archaeological literature. A survey of a sample of 41 books on regional and national prehistories between 1951 and 1991 shows that on average only 6 per cent of the pages cover the Mesolithic, while 30 per cent, or five times

Copyrighted

Material

Farmers our ancestors

1951

1S60

197a

1980

151

1991

Figure 10.3 Cumulative graph showing the variation in the amount of printed pages devoted to each chronological period over the last forty years (1951-91) (Sample as in Figure 10.2)

as much, is devoted to the Neolithic (Figure 10.2). This supports earlier surveys by Coles (1980) and Chapman (1985) of papers in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, confirming the predominance of later prehistory: a trend shown by the surveys to have increased in recent years. The annual variation in the amount of space devoted to the Palaeolithic/Mesolithic over the last forty years covered by my survey (Figure 10.3) shows a slight increase in the coverage of the pre-Neolithic periods coinciding with the predominance of 'New Archaeology' between the mid-1960s and early 1980s; this is followed by a corresponding decrease in interest as 'postprocessual' issues of political interpretation, source criticism, social organisation and ideology assume prominence in the last ten years. A C O N T E M P O R A R Y CASE I N P O I N T : A G R I C U L T U R A L T R A N S I T I O N A N D THE INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGINS

Recent work by Colin Renfrew (1987; 1992), linking the spread of the Indo-European languages to the Neolithic colonisation of Europe 1 has strengthened the perception that genetically, culturally and linguistically, European identity stems from these early farming groups and has little or nothing to do with the earlier hunter-gatherers of Europe. Yet, a careful analysis of all three strands of evidence gathered in support of the

Copyrighted

Material

152

Marek Zvelebil

Neolithic colonisation hypothesis casts serious doubt on the view that we are dealing with a pan-European phenomenon (Zvelebil and Zvelebil 1988; Zvelebil 1995). Let us first address the issue of material culture as a signature for population movement and ethnic groups. Appearance of new traits has commonly been taken to indicate the arrival of new populations. But it can be shown that outside the European continental interior — the provinces of the Balkan and First Temperate Neolithic — patterns of innovation and introduction of new traits can be matched by traits showing continuity of existing traditions. This is especially true for Northern, Eastern and South-West Europe, where continuities with the preceding hunter-gatherer society can be clearly discerned in the settlement pattern, resource use strategies, tool-making traditions, symbolism and decoration, and burial practices.2 At the same time, the recent re-appraisal of the meaning of material culture on the one hand (Binford 1965; Clarke 1968; Hodder 1978; Neustupny 1971; Shennan 1989; 1991), and of the concept of ethnicity on the other (Gellner 1987; Shennan 1989; Smith 1986) has shown that ethnicity is a matter of collective self-definition and that cultural variation in space can rarely, if ever, be comprehended as a signature of even broadly defined ethnicities (Binford 1965; Clarke 1968; Hodder 1978; Shennan 1989). An archaeological culture, as conventionally defined (Childe 1956; Clarke 1968) is composed of many constituent elements, and the distribution of each may be product of a wide array of variables. These range from the availability of raw materials to exchange patterns, residence and marriage rules and socio-ideological context of production. They include discard patterns and taphonomic factors. All these variables combine to create inter-locking patterns of cultural variation resulting in gradual, rather than discrete spatial patterns of distribution of material culture attributes. As Shennan has argued, archaeological cultures cannot be equivalent to ethnic groups because (1) the spatial variation in archaeological material is the product of different variables, as outlined above; (2) the constituent elements of archaeological cultures tend to produce overlapping rather than discrete patterns of distribution, thereby failing to meet the requirements set by Kossinna (1911), Childe (1956) and others for linking archaeological cultures with ethnicities; (3) ethnic or tribal units in themselves may be historical products of contacts and interaction, in part a response to the expansion of Western civilisation, and as such without a direct analogue in the prehistoric past (Schrire 1984; Shennan 1989). In Europe itself, the modern concept of ethicity is contingent upon the development of the nation state and of romantic nationalism (Gellner 1987; Smith 1981; 1986); indeed, the persistence of the link between archaeological culture and ethnic group, and the resurgence of this link

Copyrighted Material

Farmers our ancestors

153

in recent years can be tied to the current rise in nationalist sentiment and to its political manipulation by nation-states. Given this situation, it cannot be assumed that discrete archaeological cultures in prehistoric Europe represent 'ethnic groups', 'tribes', or 'folk', with a shared sense of belonging. While this may be so in exceptional cases (e.g., major language boundaries can sometimes be detected in material culture, Clarke 1968: 3 8 5 - 6 ) , ethno-historical evidence has shown time and again that this normative view of culture does not hold in general (Ehret 1988; H o d d e r 1978; Shennan 1989; Wahle 1941). Yet, as Shennan (1989: 5—6) has shown, archaeological cultures have been given the role of historical actors and perceived as indicators of ethnicity. Even if we dispense with the ethnic group as an organising principle behind archaeological cultures, there is still the relationship between material culture and a discrete population to consider, identifiable by exclusive traits such as language, language group or genetic make-up. It is in this broader sense of supra-ethnic population identity that the link between archaeological cultures and h u m a n population is maintained, to the effect that widespread and simultaneous changes in material culture are used as evidence for the spread of n e w populations with their o w n cultural traditions. So, for example, Renfrew rightly rejects the equation between ethnos and an archaeological culture as 'the fundamental organising principle for the prehistoric past', and links language change to broad changes in the socio-economic or demographic parameters and changes in archaeological cultures (Renfrew 1988: 438). Yet in his elaboration of the farming-language hypothesis (Renfrew 1987; 1994), these tentative links are consolidated into 'a clear convergence between the archaeological evidence, the genetic evidence and the linguistic evidence' (Renfrew 1994: 110). Here the Neolithic cultures are perceived as archaeological signatures for the arrival of farming colonist populations from Asia M i n o r and their spread through Europe. In my opinion, it would be best to regard archaeological cultures as inherently meaningless entities, whose structure remains to be established by analysis. If any initial assumptions at all can be made about their pre-depositional nature, they should, in my view, be regarded as broad traditions of behaviour, culturally transmitted from generation to generation and transformed in the process of transmission (Betzig et al. 1988; Boyd and Richerson 1985; for a post-structuralist analogue to this view, see Bourdieu 1977); in other words, entities which are clearly broader than what we conventionally define as ethnicities. So, in the first instance, the focus should be on internal developments, with migration or demic diffusion as but one a m o n g many variables which may be responsible for the process of cultural change. T h e linguistic evidence is also ambivalent in providing support for the Indo-European status of the Neolithic colonisation (Crossland 1992; Mallory 1988; Markey and Greppin 1990). T h e criticisms centre on the

Copyrighted Material

154

Marek Zvelebil

Neolithic date for the Indo-European diaspora required by the languagefarming hypothesis, which is regarded as too early by some linguists, particularly those adhering to glottochronology (Crossland 1992; Starostin 1989). T h e r e are also linguistic arguments against the location of the I n d o European homeland in Asia Minor, and against the direction of the spread from Asia M i n o r as a single, continuous process, making the fit between the language differentiation suggested by Renfrew's model and that offered o n the basis of historical linguistics difficult to sustain (Coleman 1988: 452—3). In contrast, others find Renfrew's language-farming hypothesis acceptable in outline (Baldi 1988), while the location of the I n d o European homeland in Asia M i n o r has been advanced independently of Renfrew by linguists themselves, albeit dated into the later period (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984). Along with archaeology and linguistics, physical anthropology and h u m a n genetics have been used to verify the notion of a population migration into Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic ( A m m e r m a n n and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Cavalli-Sforza 1991; Harding et al. 1990; Renfrew 1992; 1994; Sokal el al. 1989; 1991; Sokal and Livshits 1993, etc.). Despite claims to the contrary (e.g., D i a m o n d 1992: 2 4 1 ; Renfrew 1992: 463), the results so far have been inconclusive. T h e differences in gross physical morphology between the Mesolithic and Neolithic skeletal remains may reflect a dietary shift to a cereal-based diet (y'Edynak 1978; 1989; Meiklejohn and Zvelebil 1991), rather than demic diffusion. T h e study of cranial measurements of the relevant skeletal samples led Harding, R o s i n g and Sokal (1990: 54) to conclude that 'there is no evidence from this analysis for Neolithisation of Europe by demic diffusion coupled to the spread of farming'. Similarly, the analyses of genetic patterning in m o d e r n European populations, used to adduce support for the demic diffusion hypothesis ( A m m e r m a n and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Renfrew 1987; Sokal et al. 1991), suffer from small sample size, unrepresentativeness of the sample locations, and tend to ignore problems posed by genetic drift, natural selection and gene flow after the Neolithic (Bateman et al. 1990; Zvelebil and Zvelebil 1988). As a result, neither the analysis of blood protein polymorphisms (i.e. A m m e r m a n n and Cavalli-Sforza 1984), of molecular D N A (Sokal et al. 1989; 1991; 1992), or of dermatoglyphic traits (Sokal and Livshits 1993) produced clear results, a situation which made Sokal and his co-workers c o m e to a different conclusion with each new analysis (Sokal et al. 1989; 1991; 1992; Sokal and Livshits 1993). In the 1989 study, fiftynine allele frequencies and one hundred and nine cranial measurements were analysed at 3,466 geographical locations in Europe and then compared to different European language families. T h e results suggested that 'for numerous genetic systems, population samples overall differ more a m o n g language families than they do within families, and that only Germanic a m o n g the language families of Europe exhibits significant

Copyrighted Material

Farmers our ancestors

155

homogeniety' (Sokal et al. 1989: 497), with either gene flow or adaptation capable of accounting for the variation observed in the data (Sokal at al. 1989: 4 9 8 - 5 0 0 ) . Although in their 1991 letter to Nature they argue that their findings support the demic diffusion hypothesis, only six of twentysix genetic traits examined showed significant agreement with demic diffusion (Sokal et al. 1991: 144), while 'the highly significant negative partial correlation for the A B O system clearly contradicts the demic diffusion hypothesis' (1991: 144). T h e continuing doubts led Sokal to claim a year later that the genetic evidence does not support either Renfrew's (1987) language-farming or Gimbutas' (1970) nomadic hypothesis for the dispersal of the Indo-European languages (Roberts 1992). T h e recent analysis of dermatoglyphic traits from one hundred and forty-four samples in Eurasia (Sokal and Livshits 1993) has again proved inconclusive, showing more convincingly a diffusion from Central Asia and the Middle East than from Western Asia: in the latter case, the epicentre for the diffusion of dermatoglyphic traits was in the southern part of the Arab peninsula, and not in Asia M i n o r as required by the language-farming hypothesis. Given this situation, it is a little premature of Renfrew (1992; 1994) to adduce support for his hypothesis from genetic data, or for Jones to claim that 'farming is in the blood' (1991: 97). While there may be some genetic support for the immigration of Neolithic farmers into Europe, this evidence is particularly weak towards the margins of the continent (Sokal et al. 1989), a pattern favouring an intermediate position of partial immigration, partial local adoption of farming, advocated by the present author (Zvelcbil and Zvelebil 1988; Zvelebil forthcoming). T h e major problem is that the analysis of m o d e r n genetic variation cannot exclude the influence of later migrations into, and population movements within Europe, which may result in the same patterning as that predicted for the demic diffusion in the Neolithic (consider, for instance, the combined effect of Arab, Turkic and Central Asian nomad penetrations of Europe from the south and the east). We have to await the analysis of ancient D N A from a sufficient sample of Mesolithic/Neolithic populations for more conclusive results. W h e r e does this leave our understanding of the Mesohthic—Neolithic transition? M y argument, outlined above, has a wide range of implications, but here I would like to emphasise two major points: (1) If we accept the archaeological culture as a multi-dimentional p h e n o m e n o n , we cannot then automatically equate it with any coherent ethnic, economic, social or demographic unit. This means, for example, that an archaeological culture such as Funnel Beaker, can have diverse origins (Midgley 1993; Solberg 1989), and the unifying features which gave it apparent coherence (recognised and acknowledged archaeologically) may be a result of broad processes such as contact/exchange networks, ideological/symbolic change, adoption of farming by local

Copyrighted Material

156

Marek Zvelebil

(diverse) hunter-gatherer groups. Similarly, Corded Ware culture can (as it does) encompass societies with different socio-economic organisation; such as exclusively hunting-gathering, as in Finland (Edgren 1970; Zvelebil 1981; 1993; but see Siiriainen 1980); predominantly huntinggathering, as in the East Baltic (Machnik 1970; Zvelebil and Dolukhanov 1991, Dolukhanov 1992; 1993); or thoroughly agro-pastoral farming, as in Bohemia (Neustupny 1969). Within each cultural tradition, different artefact categories can tell a different story. The best example pertinent to the Mesolithic—Neolithic transition is the contrast between lithic assemblages and ceramics. It is the pots which usually define a Neolithic culture by the common features of their shape and decoration; since pottery was not produced in many parts of Europe in pre-Neolithic times, the appearance of pottery a priori adds to the 'novel' features in the material culture and lends support to arguments for neolithic migrations and replacement of the local foragers and their culture. It may be significant, however, that in those areas of Europe where pottery was produced by the hunter-gatherer groups before the transition to farming (Zvelebil 1986: 171), there seems to be at least some continuity in traditions between the hunter-gatherer pottery and the products belonging to the succeeding farming cultures (Funnell Beaker in Southern Scandinavia: Hulthen 1977; Jennberg 1985; Corded Ware in the East Baltic: Dolukhanov 1993; Dolukhanov and Fonyakov 1984; Cardial Ware and later wares in Southern France: Barnett 1990; Guilaine 1976). The lithic inventory, on the other hand, often shows continuity between the hunting-gathering (Mesolithic) and the agro-pastoral farming (Neolithic) cultures. This is the case, for example, in many areas covered by the Funnel Beaker pottery tradition (Bogucki 1988; Midgley 1993); the Impressed/Cardial Ware tradition in the West Mediterranean (Biagi 1991; Escalon de Fonton and De Lumley 1955; Guilaine 1976; Laplace 1964, etc.); in the east Baltic and the Ukraine (Dolukhanov 1979; Markevitch 1974; Zvelebil and Dolukhanov 1991, etc.); and even in some areas of South-East and Central Europe (Tringham 1971; 1968). In some of these areas, continuity in settlement, burial practice and symbolism, as well as subsistence strategies, adds to the case for continuity of occupation and local change, rather than immigration and replacement (as in the Funnell Beaker area: see Bogucki 1988; Madsen 1987; Midgley 1993; Solberg 1989, etc.). So, the pots and the stone tools are telling us a different story: the question is, how far do the continuities and discontinuities reflect the local passage of social traditions or arrival of new groups of people? The potential for expressing variability in lithic assemblage, for example, is limited by the availability and quality of the raw material: what appears to be continuity, may, in fact, simply indicate limited options for tool production, constrained by the poor quality of the raw material. Introduction of ceramics, on the other hand, does not per se indicate movement of people, merely an introduction of a new technology. We

Copyrighted Material

Farmers our ancestors

157

have to learn far more about the social context of innovations and their dispersal, before we can address this problem with greater authority ( for further discussion, see Van der Leuw and Torrence 1989). In summary, the distinction made between the introduction of farming into Europe by demic diffusion and the adoption of farming by local groups depends on our interpretation of Neolithic material culture and the spatial patterns created by it. In keeping with my arguments above, the burden of proof rests with migration/demic diffusion as merely one among many factors which structure archaeological cultures. The introduction of new cultural traits in more than one cultural 'subsystem'; their discrete and co-eval spatial distribution; the lack of earlier traditions for such traits within the region; and the existence of an adjacent donor culture, can, as a rough guide, be taken to indicate migration or demic

Broken line denotes the zones of Soufh-East and Central Europe into which farming was introduced by demic diffusion. Shaded areas: 1) Early Neolithic of Greece and Anatolia; 2) Balkan Neolithic; 3) Linear Pottery and derived cultures; 4) CucuteniTripolye culture; 5) Funnel Beaker culture; 6a) Impressed and Painted Wares of southern Italy; 6b) Impressed Ware in Western Mediterranean; 7) Iberian Neolithic; 8) Chassey and Cortaillod Neolithic; 9) The Neolithic of the British Isles and the Northwest Atlantic littoral; 10) Dnieper-Donetz and related groups; 11) Corded Ware and derived ceramic traditions in the East Baltic.

Figure 10.4 The spread of agro-pastoral farming a n d the spread of IndoEuropean language groups in Europe (partly redrawn after Renfrew 1987)

Copyrighted Material

158

Marek Zvelebil

diffusion. Given this view, the early Neolithic cultures of the Balkans, and, with a lesser degree of confidence, the Linear Pottery and derivative cultures of Central Europe, the Cucuteni—Tripolye culture of western Ukraine and the Impressed Ware groups in southern Italy can all be regarded as intrusive, as cultural signatures of immigrant farming groups w h o have gradually introduced farming into these parts of Europe through colonisation (Figure 10.4). In other parts of Europe, the evidence for the persistence of cultural traditions from the Mesolithic, for forager—farmer contacts, and for the heterogeniety and spatial 'fuzziness' of Neolithic archaeological cultures favours the adoption of farming by the indigenous hunter-gatherers through contact, possibly with some genetic input from farming groups through marriage alliances and interbreeding. (2) This scenario, if accepted, can at least partly explain the cultural variability evidenced in the Neolithic at a European scale. It also has implications for the genetic patterning of the Neolithic populations and for the dispersal of Indo-European languages, if indeed these languages were introduced to Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic (as argued by Renfrew 1987; 1992). T h e great diversity of Neolithic (stone age agro-pastoral farming) cultures becomes evident to anyone examining the subject at a supraregional or pan-European scale (e.g., Tringham 1971, Scarre 1990, D o l u k h a n o v 1979; Bogucki 1988; Midgley 1993; Whittle 1985; Barker 1985). This must be the result of: i) Internal developments occurring within regions or macro-regions in the course of the Neolithic, reflecting the diachrony of the Neolithic at 6,000 BC, the Early Neolithic of the Balkans is 3,000 radiocarbon years earlier than that of Denmark; ii) R a p i d cultural changes can be expected to occur in cultural transmission w h e n a major innovation such as agro-pastoral farming is introduced and adopted (Dennell 1985; Van der L e e u w and Torrence 1989), or during the colonisation of n e w areas in so-called frontier conditions (Green and Perlman 1985); iii) Diversity reflects the earlier cultural traditions of the Mesolithic. For example, the genesis of the megalithic burial practice and its distribution has been explained as an elaboration of existing Mesolithic traditions in n e w social conditions (Bogucki 1988; Renfrew 1976; Sherratt 1990). T h e settlement pattern and the lithic traditions of several Neolithic groups within the Cardial/Impressed Ware tradition in Italy and Southern France or in southern Scandinavia within the Funnel Beaker tradition (Jennbert 1984; Madsen 1987; Wyszomirska 1987) are equally taken as a reflection of earlier Mesolithic territories and traditions. And in Eastern Europe, the individual character and the strong cultural links of the farming-foraging communities to the preceding hunting-gathering groups between c. 2,500—1,000 BC have gained these cultures an unenviable term, 'paraneolithic' or 'subneolithic' (see Zvelebil 1986a for references). If the hypothesis advanced here is correct, we should see greater regional variation

Copyrighted Material

Farmers our ancestors

159

in the early Neolithic material culture outside Central and South-East Europe (Figure 10.4), respecting territorial boundaries set during the Mesolithic and reflected in the material culture. Such 'mapping o n ' of the Mesolithic into the Neolithic pattern should be absent in the European continental core, where probably farming was introduced by demic diffusion (Zvelebil 1986; Zvelebil and Zvelebil 1988; Zvelebil 1995). T h e genetic implications of this position are that we should not expect a uniform directional spread of genetic patterns, extending from southeast to north-west, as predicted by A m m e r m a n and Cavalli-Sforza (1984) and others. Instead, we should expect lack of directional change and increase in genetic variability in the West Mediterranean, North-West, N o r t h e r n and Eastern Europe; areas where I propose that local h u n t e r gatherer communities adopted farming w i t h o u t a significant immigration from Central or South-East Europe. Because of later shifts in population, as well as other problems (see above), this expectation can only be reliably tested by the analysis of ancient organic residues from h u m a n bone. Even if we accept that the first farming communities in Asia M i n o r and South-East Europe belonged a m o n g Indo-European speakers (Renfrew 1987), the history of the adoption of farming in Europe does not support the hypothesis of the demic diffusion of these farmers throughout the continent. T h e dispersal of the Indo-European languages must therefore be accounted for, at least partly, through contact-induced language shift. In my view, such linguistic change through contact may have occurred at the Mesolithic—Neolithic transition as locally resident hunter-gatherers gradually adopted farming in the West Mediterranean, North-West, N o r t h e r n and Eastern Europe (Zvelebil 1995).

CONCLUSION We should acknowledge and exploit the e n o r m o u s potential for our understanding of the past by combining the archaeological, genetic and linguistic research, as Renfrew has already attempted (1987; 1992). But we should be also careful to recognise the potential dangers of such a project. O n e such danger is the temptation to identify traditions in material culture with spatially-bounded, separate languages and gene pools. R e c e n t historical and ethnographic studies show that this is hardly ever the case. As archaeologists, we should also acknowledge the taphonomic problems of o u r data and recognise that the reconstruction of the past is too complicated for normative models of culture to apply. It is a matter of some puzzlement and concern then, that, despite many arguments and examples to the contrary (e.g., H o d d e r 1978; Shennan 1989; 1991), archaeologists, linguists and geneticists alike continue to identify genetically separate populations with separate language, material culture and ethnic identity as a coherent unit and a n o r m , rather that as an exception. Such persistence in the face of historical, ethnographic

Copyrighted Material

160

Marek Zvelebil

and contemporary m o d e r n experience testifies to the intuitive appeal and simplicity of this concept and to the grip which the inheritance of nineteenth-century nationalism still exercises u p o n us (Gellner 1987, Shennan 1989; Smith 1986). This perception of the European past and willingness to accept the Neolithic colonisation hypothesis has been conditioned by our desire to see farming societies of the Neolithic as our distant ancestors, and by the implicit reticence, indifference or inability to regard our hunter-gatherer past in the same light. W h o , after all, would wish to regard h u n t e r gatherers, whose main aim in life was to 'have ecological relationships with hazelnuts' as ancestral to ourselves? It is significant that this c o m m e n t by Bradley (1984: 11), originally directed at the practitioners of Mesolithic archaeology, has been taken to illustrate the poverty of the Mesolithic communities. It is significant, too, that in N o r t h America, where our o w n roots are not involved, we as 'Westerners' are prepared to contemplate a gradual, indigenous transition from foraging to farming o n the basis of m u c h the same data as exists in the greater part of Europe. I believe, however, that we shall remain unable to c o m p r e h e n d the diversity of the Neolithic unless we accord the hunter-gatherer communities an active role in its constitution and thus include the hitherto excluded Mesolithic past as a part of o u r history.

NOTES 1

2

In his language-farming hypothesis Renfrew (1987; 1988; 1989; 1991; 1992; 1994) argues that farming was introduced to Europe from Anatolia by immigrant farmers some 8,000 years ago, that these farmers colonised most of Europe through gradual migration into hitherto unfarmed areas (by 'demic diffusion', a term adopted from Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984), and that these farmers were the original proto-Indo-European speakers who introduced the speech to Europe. Perhaps the most powerful argument presented by Renfrew in favour of his hypothesis are the demographic and economic rationales associated with the model: in this case, transition to farming in the Near East engendered an increase in food production and population growth, which in turn fuelled the need for the colonisation of new habitats. Hence the dispersal to Europe (and other regions of the Old World, see Renfrew 1991; 1992), for which the archaeological signatures can be found in the Neolithic cultures of the continent. See Dennell 1983; Barker 1985; Zvelebil 1986; Price 1987 for general reviews, Madsen 1987; Solberg 1989; Bogucki 1988; Dolukhanov 1979; Zvelebil and Dolukhanov 1991; Markevitch 1974; Tringham 1971 for Northern and Eastern Europe, and Escalon de Fonton and de Lumley 1955; Laplace 1964; Biagi 1991; Barnett 1990; Geddes 1985; Guilaine et al 1987; 1987; Roussot-Laroque 1987; Scarre 1990 for South-West Europe. See Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Solberg 1989; Zilhao 1993 and Aurenche and Cauvin 1989 for the opposite view.

Copyrighted Material

Farmers our ancestors

161

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ammerman, A. and L. Cavalli-Sforza (1984) The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Arnold, B. (1990) 'The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany.' Antiquity 64: 464-78. Aurenche, O. and J. Cauvin (eds) (1989) Neolithisations. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 516. Oxford. Baldi, P. (1988) 'Book review: Archaeology and language, the puzzle of IndoEuropean origins, by Colin Renfrew.' Current Anthropology 29, 3: 445-8. Barker, G. (1985) Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnett, W.K. (1990) 'Production and distribution of early pottery in the west Mediterranean.' In D.W. Kingery (ed.), The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society: 26,000 B.P. to the Present. Ceramics and Civilization, 5.: 137—57. American Ceramic Society. Bateman, R., I. Goddard, R. O'Grady, V.A. Funk, R. Mooi, W.J. Kress and P. Cannell (1990) 'Speaking of forked tongues. The feasibility of reconciling human phylogeny and the history of language.' Current Anthropology 31, 1: 1-13. Bernabo-Brea, L. (1966) Sicily Before the Greeks. London: Thames and Hudson. Bettinger, R.L. (1991) Hunter-gatherers. New York: Plenum Press. Betzig, I. (1988) 'Redistribution: equity or exploitation.' In L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder and P. Turke (eds), Human Reproductive Behavior: a Darwinian Perspective.: 49—63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biagi, P. (1991) 'The prehistory of the early Atlantic period along the Ligurian and Adriatic Coasts of Northern Italy in a Mediterranean perspective.' Rivista di Archeologia 15: 46—54. Binford, L.R. (1965) 'Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process.' American Antiquity 31: 203—10. Bogucki, P.I. (1988) Forest Farmers and Stockherders: Early Agriculture and its Consequences in North-Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyd, R. and P. Richerson (1985) Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bradley, R. (1984) The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. New York: Longman. Braidwood, R.J. (1960). 'The agricultural revolution.' Scientific American 203: 131-48. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1991) 'Genes, peoples and languages.' Scientific American 263: 72-8. Chapman, R. (1985) 'The prehistoric society, prehistory and society.' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51: 15-29. Childe, V.G. (1925) The Dawn of European Civilisation. London: Kegan Paul. (1928) The Most Ancient East: The Oriental Prelude to European Prehistory. London: Kegan Paul. (1942) What Happened in History. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. (1951) Man Makes Himself. New York: Moonraker. (1956) Piecing Together the Past. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Copyrighted Material

162

Marek Zvelebil

(1957, sixth edition) The Dawn of European Civilisation. London: Regan Paul. Clark, G. (1966) 'The invasion hypothesis in British archaeology.' Antiquity 40: 172-89. (1981) Mesolithic Prelude. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Clarke, D. (1968) Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen. Coleman, R. (1988) 'Book review: Archaeology and language. The puzzle of Indo-European origins, by Colin Renfrew.' Current Anthropology 29, 3: 449-53. Coles, J. (1980) 'Presidential address: the donkey and the tail.' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46: 1—8. Crossland, A. (1992) 'When specialists collide: archaeology and Indo-European linguistics.' Antiquity 66, 251—4. Dennell, R. (1983) European Economic Prehistory: A New Approach. New York: Academic Press. (1985) 'The hunter-gatherer/agricultural frontier in prehistoric temperate Europe.' In S. Green and S.M. Perlman (eds), The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries.: 113—40. New York: Academic Press. Diamond, J. (1992) Tlic Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee. London: Vintage. Dolukhanov, P.M. (1979) Ecology and Economy in Neolithic Eastern Europe. London: Duckworth. (1992) 'Evolution of lakes and prehistoric settlement in Northwestern Russia.' In Bryony Coles (ed.), The Wetland Revolution in Prehistory. Warp: The Prehistoric Society. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. (1993) 'Foraging and farming groups in north-eastern and north-western Europe: identity and interaction.' In J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds), Cultural Transformations and Interactions in Eastern Europe.: 122—45. Aldershot: Avebury. and D.I. Fonyakov (1984) 'Modehrovanie kul'turnoistoricheskih processov.' Kompleksnye metody izuchenija istorii s drevneishikh vremjon do nasik dnei.: 33—5. Moscow: Nauka. Edgren, T. (1970) 'Studies over den snorkeramiska kulturens keramik I Finland.' Suomen Muinais Muisto YhdistysIFinska Formimes Forenignen 72: 1—118. Edwards, K.J. and K.R. Hirons (1984) 'Cereal pollen grains in pre-elm decline deposits: implications for the earliest agriculture in Britain and Ireland.' Journal of Archaeological Science 11: 71—80. y'Edynak, G. (1978) 'Culture, diet and dental reduction in Mesolithic foragerfishers of Yugoslavia.' Current Anthropology 19, 3: 616—17. (1989) 'Yugoslav Mesolithic dental reduction.' American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78: 17—36. Ehret, C. (1988) 'Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic shift.' Antiquity 62: 564-74. Engels (1972 [1884]) The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. New York: Pathfinder Press. Escalon de Fonton, M. and H. de Lumley (1955) 'Quelques civilisations de la mediterranee septentrionale et leurs intercurrences.' Bulletin de la Societe prehistorique francaise 63: 504—17. Gamble, C. (1992) 'Uttermost ends of the Earth.' Antiquity 66: 252-310. Gamkrelidze, T.V. and V.V. Ivanov (1984) Indojevropejskij Jazyk i Indojevropejcy. Tbilisi.

Copyrighted Material

Farmers our ancestors

163

Geddes, D. (1985) 'Mesolithic Domestic Sheep in West Mediterranean Europe.' Journal oj Archaeological Science 12: 25—48. Gellner, E. (1987) Culture, Identity and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gimbutas, M. (1970) 'Proto-Indo-European culture: the Kurgan culture during the fifth, fourth and third millennnia BC.' In G. Cardona, H.M. Hoenigswald and A. Senn (eds), Indo-European and Indo-Huropeans.: 155—96. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Graves, P. (forthcoming) 'Ape and essence.' In P. Pettit and M. Lake (eds), Hierarchies of Being Human. Archaeological Review from Cambridge. Green, S. and S. Perlman (eds) (1985) The Archaeology of frontiers and Boundaries. New York: Academic Press. Guilaine, J. (1976) Premiers Bergers et Paysans de VOccident Mediterranean. Paris: Mouton. Harding, R.M., F.W. Rosing and R . R . Sokal (1990) 'Cranial measurements do not support Neolithisation of Europe by demic expansion.' Homo: 45—58. Henderson, K. (1927) Prehistoric Man. London: Chatto and Windus. Hodder, I. (1978) (ed.) The Spatial Organisation of Culture. London: Duckworth. (1990) The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. Hoskins, W.G. (1985 [1955]) The Making of the English Landscape. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hulthen, B. (1977) 'On ceramic technology during the Scanian Neolithic and Bronze Age.' 'Iliescs and Papers in North-European Archaeology 6. Stockholm. Jackson, D. (1992) 'Le ferme de mon Pere.' The Guardian, 17 November: 14—15. Jennbert, K. (1984) Den Produtkiva gavan. Tradition och Innovation i Sydskandinavien for Omkring 5300 ar Sedan. [Acta Archaeological Ludensia, Series 4, 16]. Lund: University of Lund . (1985) 'Neolithisation — a Scanian perspective.' Journal of Danish Archaeology 4: 196-7. Jones, J.S. (1991) 'Fanning is in the blood.' Nature 351: 97-98. Kivikoski, E. (1967) Finland. London: Thames and Hudson. Kossinna, G. (1902) 'Die indogermanische Frage archaeologisch beantwortet.' Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie 34: 161-222. (1911) Die Herkunft der Germanen. Z.ur Methode der Siedlungsarchdologic. Mannus-Bibliothek 6. Wurzburg: Kabitzsch. (1926) Ursprung und Verbreitung der Germanen in vor-und fruhgeschichtlicher Zeit. Mannus-Bibliothek 6. Wurzburg: Kabitzsch. Kostrzewski, J. (1965) Zur Frage der Siedlungsstetigkeit in der Urgeschichte Polens von der Mitte des II. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. bis zum Friihen Mittelalter. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Laplace, G. (1964) 'Les subdivisions du leptolithique Italien, etude de typologie analytique.' Bollettino de Paletnologia Italiana 73: 25—62. Machnik, J. (1970) 'The Corded Ware cultures and cultures from the turn of the Neolithic and Bronze Age.' In T. Wislaiiski (cd.), The Neolithic in Poland. 384-420. Warsaw: PAN. Madsen, T. (1987) 'Where did all the hunters go? an assessment of an epoch-making episode in Danish prehistory.' Journal of Danish Archaeology 5: 229-39. Mallory, J.P. (1989) In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson.

Copyrighted Material

164

Marek Zvelebil

Markevitch, V.I. (1974) Bugo-Dnestrovskaya Kultura Na Territorii Moldavii [The Bug-Dniester Culture in Moldavia]. Shtiintsa: Kishinev (in Russian). Markey,J.P. andJ.A.C. Greppin (eds) (1990) When Worlds Collide. Indo-Huropeans and Pre-Indo-Europeans. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Martens, J. (1989) 'The Vandals: myths and facts about a Germanic tribe of the first half of the 1st millennium AD.' In S.J. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.: 57—65. London: Unwin Hyman. Meiklejohn, C. and M. Zvelebil (1991) 'Health status of European populations at the agricultural transition and the implications for the adoption of farming.' In H. Bush and M. Zvelebil (eds), Health in Past Societies: Biocultural Interpretations of Human Skeletal Remains in Archaeological Contexts.: 129—45. Oxford: British Arachaeological Reports, International Series 567. Midgley, M. (1993) TRB Culture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mithen, S. (1991) 'A cybernetic wasteland: rationality, emotion and Mesolithic foraging.' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, 2: 9—14. Morgan, H.L. (1964 [1877]) Ancient Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Neustupny, E. (1969) Economy of the Corded Ware cultures. Archaeologicke Rozhledy 21: 43-68. (1971) "Whither archaeology?' Antiquity 45: 34-7. Olsen, B. (1986) 'Norwegian archaeology and the people without (pre-)history: Or how to create a myth of a uniform past.' Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5, 1: 25-42. (1988) 'Interaction between hunter-gatherers and fanners: ethnographical and archaeological perspectives.' Archeologia Polski 33: 425—34. Piggot, S. (1965) Ancient Europe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Pleiner, R. and A. Rybova (1978) Pravckc Dejiny Cech. Prague: Academia. Price, T.D. (1987) 'The Mesolithic of western Europe.' Journal of World Prehistory 1: 225-305. Reinerth, H. (1936) Das Fcderseemoor als Siedlungsland des Vorzcitmenschen. Leipzig. Renfrew, C. (1976) Before Civilisation: the Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (1987) Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. (1988) 'Archaeology and language. The puzzle of Indo-European origins.' Current Anthropology 29, 3: 437-41. (1989) 'The origins of Indo-European languages.' Scientific American 256: 82-90. (1992) 'Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity.' Man 27: 445—78. (1994) 'World linguistic diversity.' Scientific American 270, 1: 104-10. Roberts, L. (1992) 'Using genes to track down Indo-European migrations.' Science 257: 1346. Roussot—Larroque, J. (1987) 'Les deux visages du Neolithique ancien d'Aquitaine.' In J. Guilane et al. (eds) Premieres Communautes Paysannes en Mcditerrancc Occidentale.: 681-92. Pans: C.N.R.S.. Sahlins, M. and E.R. Service (eds) (1960) Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Scarre, C. (ed.) (1990) Ancient France: Neolithic Societies and their landscapes 6000-2000 BC. Edinburgh: The University Press.

Copyrighted Material

Farmers our ancestors

165

Sherman, S.J. (1989) 'Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity.' In S.J. Shcnnan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity.: 1—32. London: Unwin Hyman. (1991) 'Some current issues in the archaeological identification of past peoples.' Archaeologia Polona 29: 29—37. Sherratt, A. (1990) 'The genesis of megaliths: monumentality, ethnicity and social complexity in Neolithic north-west Europe.' World Archaeology 22, 2: 148-67. Schrire, C. (ed.) (1984) Past and Present in Hunter-Gatherer Studies. Orlando: Academic Press. Siiriainen, A. (1980) 'On the cultural ecology of the Finnish stone age.' Suomen Museo 87: 5-40. Sklenar, K. (1983) Archaeology in Central Europe: The First 500 Years. New York: St. Martin's Press. Smith, A.D. (1981) The Ethnic Revival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sokal, R.R., N.L. Oden, P. Legendre, M.-J. Fortin, J. Kim and A. Vaudor (1989) 'Genetic differences among language families in Europe.' American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79: 489—502. Sokal, R.R., N.L. Oden, P. Legendre, M-J. Fortin, J. Kim, B.A. Thomson, A. Vaudor, R.M. Harding and G. Barbujani (1990) 'Genetics and language in European populations.' The American Naturalist 135, 2: 157—75. Sokal, R.R., N.L. Oden and A.C. Wilson (1991) 'New genetic evidence supports the origin of agriculture in Europe by demic diffusion.' Nature 351: 143-4. Sokal, R.R., N.L. Oden and B.A. Thompson (1992) 'Origins of the IndoEuropeans: genetic evidence.' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 89: 7669-73. Sokal R.R. and G. Livshits (1993) 'Demographic variation of six dermatoglyphic traits in Eurasia.' American Journal of Anthropology 90: 393—407. Solberg, B. (1989) 'The Neolithic transition in southern Scandinavia: internal development or migration?' Oxjord Journal of Archaeology 8, 3: 261—96. Sollas, W.J. (1911) Ancient Hunters and Their Modern Representatives. London: Macmillan. Starostin, S.A. (1989) 'Sravnitalno-istoriceskoje jazykoznanije I leksikostatistika.' In Lingvisticeskaja rekonstrukcija i drevnejsaja istorija Vostoka /, Moscow: 3—39. Stone, J.F. (1958) Wessex Before the Celts. London: Thames and Hudson. Thomas, J. (1988) 'Neolithic explanations revisited: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and south Scandinavia.' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54: 59-66. (1991) 'The hollow men? A reply to Steve Mithen.' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, 2: 15-20. Tomaszewski, A.J. (1988) 'Foragers, farmers and archaeologists: A comment on B. Olsen's Paper "Interaction between hunter-gatherers and fanners: ethnographical and archaeological perspectives" from the viewpoint of Polish archaeology.' Archeologia Polski 33: 434—40. Trigger, B. (1980) Gordon Childe. London: Thames and Hudson. Tringham, R. (1968) 'A preliminary study of the early Neolithic and latest Mesolithic blade industries in south-east and central Europe.' In J. Coles and

Copyrighted Material

166

Marek Zvelebil

D. Simpson (eds), Studies in Ancient Europe.: 45—70. Leicester: Leicester University Press. (1971) Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe 6000-3000 BC. London: Hutchinson. Tylor, E.B. (1871) Primitive Culture. London: J. Murray. Urbanczyk, P. (1988). 'The Arctic dilemma: reflections on the paper by B. Olsen "Interaction between hunter-gatherers and farmers: ethnographical and archaeological perspectives".' Archeologia Polski 33: 442—52. Van der Leeuw, S. and R. Torrence (eds) (1989) What's New? London: Routledge. Wahle, E. (1941, 2nd edn) 'Zur ethnischen Deutung friihgeschichter Kulturprovinzen. Grenzen der fruhgeschichten Erkenntnis I.' Sitzungberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philogisch-historische Klasse. Jahrgang 1940-41. Wheeler, M. (1954) Archaeology from the Earth. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Whittle, A. (1985) Neolithic Europe: A Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wyszomirska, B. (1987) 'New approaches in Polish stone age research.' Norwegian Archaeological Review 20, 1: 12—30. Zilhao, J. (1993) 'The spread of agro-pastoral economies across Mediterranean Europe: a view from the far west.' Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6 (1). Zvelebil, M. (1981) From Forager to Farmer in the Boreal Zone. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 115. (1986a) 'Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revolution.' In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ed.) (1986b) Hunters in Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and K.V. Zvelebil (1988) 'Agricultural transition and Indo-European dispersals.' Antiquity 62: 574-83. and P. Dolukhanov (1991) 'The transition to farming in northern and eastern Europe.' Journal of World Prehistory 5, 3: 233—78. (1993) 'Hunters or farmers? The Neolithic and Bronze Age societies of north-east Europe.' In J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds), Cultural transformation and Interactions in Eastern Europe. Aldershot: Avebury. (1995) 'Indo-european origins and the agricultural transition in Europe.' In M. Kuna and N. Venclova (eds), Festschrift for E. Neustpny.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER ELEVEN

CELTS A N D

POLITICS

JOHN COLLIS

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE IRISH Q U E S T I O N A STUDY OF E T H N I C I T Y IN A C T I O N

-

In the first century BC the British (or Pretanoi) lived quite happily on their islands all fighting one another, and probably not even aware that they were Pretanoi. This pleasant state of affairs was disrupted by the invasion of the Romans (actually not Romans, but Gauls, Germans, Spaniards, Numidians, Thracians, and lots of others with a few Italians pretending to be Romans for appearance's sake). After nearly four hundred years of occupation the Britons thought of themselves as Romans (and under this guise had themselves helped invade a few unsuspecting countries such as Dacia). According to history, in the early fifth century these 'Romans' 'left'. What actually happened was that, first under Magnus Maximus, and later, under Constantine III, the British (or Romans) went over to the continent to conquer the Roman Empire. Unfortunately they were too early, both were defeated and killed, and we had to wait another 1,500 years for the British Empire. This, however, left something of a military vacuum, which various Germans (Saxons, Angles and futes) were called in to fill by the Romans (or Britons) who were left. Under Constantine I the Roman Empire became nominally Christian (afewish religion, not to be mixed up with Judaism), so all the eastern parts of the British Isles were Christian. The Scots (who lived in Ireland) had never been conquered by Romans or by anyone pretending to be Romans, so they were not Christians, but Pagans, until they were converted to Christianity by Patrick (or Palladius). Meanwhile, behind their backs, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who were Pagans, had taken over the east of England, so that now the western part of Britain was Christian and the eastern part was Pagan (the reverse of what it was before, but perhaps the same as it is today). Never having been conquered, the Scots in Ireland had continued their bad old ways oj fighting one another, and when one group of them, the kingdom of Dal Riada, lost, they decided to take it out on people outside of Ireland. So they attacked the Britons (or Welsh) who lived in Scotland (which wasn't called Scotland, because the Scots lived in Ireland). But when the Scots from Dal Riada

Copyrighted Material

168

John Collis

invaded Scotland, it became Scotland, except the bits occupied by the Picts and Angles. Much later the Picts and Angles became Scots, which would have made things easier if the Norse hadn 't invaded part of Pictland (and remained Norse, until they too became Scots, and the last ones to speak Gaelic). So by around AD 600 (except it wasn't because Bede hadn't invented the AD system yet) the Irish Scots were in Ireland, the Picts and Scottish Scots in Scotland, the Britons (or Welsh) mainly in Wales, but also in England and Scotland, and the Angles, Saxons and futes living in the rest of England and parts of Scotland, and everyone was fighting everyone else including themselves for an alternative view of the Scottish problem, see Seller and Yeatman 1960:13). So the Irish became Irish, the Scots and Picts became Scots, the Britons became Welsh, and everyone else became English, unlike nowadays when everyone on the continent calls the Scots and Welsh English as well, which understandably annoys them intensely — the Irish arc either Irish or British, except when they too are called English. This goes to show that you can trust no external source, ancient or modern, to tell you what people call themselves. In AD 591 St Augustine turned up in Canterbury and introduced the Roman Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church when it was no longer catholic in the Greek sense of 'universal'). So in the east there were Roman Christians while in the west the Celtic Church held sway, except, as there were never any Celts in Britain, it could not have been the Celtic Church. Unfortunately no-one has come up with a better term — the Irish Church is not adequate, as the Irish weren't Irish, and it included Welsh, Scots, and some Anglians in Northumbria. According to Bede it should be the Scottish Church, but that confuses modern people who still naively believe that Scots come from Scotland. At this point in history comes the turning point, from whence all the Irish problems stem, the Synod of Whitby in AD 664. In it the Irishman (or Scotsman) Colman was defeated and went home to Scotland (or Ireland), and the English decided to follow Roman practice. This is why nowadays we have no idea when Easter falls following the Roman system of calculation, rather than having no idea when it falls following the Scottish calendar (the last prehistorian in the House of Lords was Lord Avebury who introduced Bank Holidays; given this track record oj prehistorians dealing with national holidays, we hope Lord Renfrew will finally solve the Easter question). Thus the Irish, Scots, Britons and Picts were on one side, and the English on the other. Except that somehow by the time of the next major event, the Irish had changed their minds, so that everyone in Britain followed the Roman Church and were on the same side, and trying to keep the terrible Vikings and Danes at bay. This might have been fairly successful, except for the fact that some Vikings went to France and became Normans (or Northmen), so that disguised as Frenchmen (the Franks were Germans who spoke French, whereas the French are Gauls who speak French), they were able to confuse Harold Godwinson by failing to live up to their name and attacking from the south, while Harold was in the north dealing with genuine Northmen. The Norman kings spoke French, so were

Copyrighted Material

Celts and politics

169

unable to converse with their English (and Danish) subjects, but this did not matter, as they also controlled large parts of France. However, when they lost control of their French possessions, they had no-one to talk to so they learnt English too. Thus it is thanks to Joan of Arc throwing the Normans (or English) out of France that English rather than French is now the major world language (otherwise the English might have ended up speaking French like the Normans). The other problem with the Normans was that they tried to take over everyone else (Welsh, Irish and Scots), but it is always the English who are blamed for this. Henry VIII, having lost the final bit of France, founded the Anglican Church to oppose Catholics. The Scots too became Protestants (not to be confused with the Scottish Church, which, as we saw, was Celtic). In 1601 the Scots took over England under their king, James VI, who became James I of England, and so took over Scotland, so that England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland were all finally united and could start fighting one another in peace without too much outside interference (except from the Dutch William of Orange, and various Georges of German origin). As part of this process, James sent some Scotsmen back to Ireland to keep the Irish under control. So now the Scots (who had been Irish before the Irish became Irish) now went back to Ireland where the Irish (who had been Scots) were now Irish. Add to this the religious dimension that the Irish (who had not been Catholic) were now Catholic, and the Scots and English (who had been Catholic) were now Protestant, then confusion was bound to reign. In the eighteenth century the Irish, Welsh and Scots suddenly found they were all Celtic. This fortunately came at an opportune moment, as all over Europe people were discovering the 'nation-state', and with it their national history. Thus the Germans had Germania, the Italians Italia, and the Greeks Graecia (or Hellas), and so they united or freed their countries. The English were too superior for such games, and in any case Britannia was Welsh, not English, so, illogically, they became British. The French too had a problem as the Franks were Germans, so they invented the Gauls. This coincided with the moment in time when the Irish discovered they could speak and write English much better than the English (Joyce, Yeats, Wilde, Shaw, etc.), and had largely changed their language, and they might have stopped speaking Irish but for the foundation of Eire. The problem still lies with Northern Ireland, where just under half of the population are Scots who stayed at home to become Irish and Catholic, and are in conflict with just over half of the population who were Scots who went away to become Scottish and Protestant, but then came back again to become British and Protestant. These latter want to remain British and Protestant Christians, when an increasing number of the English are becoming Muslim, Hindu, atheist, druids, witches, or incorrigible agnostics like myself, and are also wondering whether they really want to be British any longer. However, the Ulster Freedom Fighters (a Protestant group) are now drawing on Irish literature in evoking the spirit of the hero of the great Irish epic the Tain Bo Culaingc, Cuchulainn, as a defender of Ulster against the southern Irish, and

Copyrighted Material

170

John Collis

are even beginning to learn Irish (Bowcott 1991), turning the Irish language into a weapon of the north versus the south rather than vice versa. Unfortunately, Cuchulainn came from the south. To a non-Christian outsider such as myself it seems that Northern Ireland continues to be two communities divided by a common religion.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND

POLITICS

W h e t h e r one takes politics in its narrowest sense, as pertaining to a specific political party or persuasion, or, as I would, in the widest sense, of any matter that concerns us as citizens, as members of the body politic, archaeology and politics are inevitably, intimately intertwined. T h e basis and range of our political views are founded in our culture. For many of us sixteenth-century European politics are largely irrelevant, based in a conflict between warring Christian sects, and for some of us nineteenthcentury politics based on the concept of the nation-state are also b e c o m i n g less and less relevant to our personal circumstances. This change of political perspective inevitably leads to changes in our perspectives on the relevance of studying various aspects of the past. Taken on a world-wide scale, in many cultures, and indeed for some in our own society, the study of the past through archaeology is irrelevant, either because it cannot discover what is most important to those cultures, or, as for some religious fundamentalists, it is in direct conflict with a creation myth, and so has to be rejected as a field of study. Archaeology is only relevant in providing origin myths for those societies which accept a scientific episteniological framework. However, as I have tried to suggest in my t o n g u e - i n - c h e e k tale of ethnicity and nationalism in Britain, the way in which groups define and name themselves, is grounded more on emotion than logic, and this is as true of m o d e r n Western Europe as for the rest of the world, ancient and m o d e r n . In western society archaeology started as an interest of the social elite. Prehistorians were interested in ' M a n k i n d ' as a whole — inevitable given the nature of archaeological data; but for historical periods the archaeological interests reflected those of the elite — warfare, prestige artefacts, art and architecture. So medieval archaeology, for instance, concentrated on castles and churches. W i t h the increasing involvement of the middle classes, and, post-World War II, of the working classes as well, the focus of interest shifted more to the archaeology of those classes — traders, artisans and peasants. W i t h it came a shift in the sites chosen for excavation (e.g., the medieval village of W h a r r a m Percy, or artisan areas of medieval towns such as Winchester). This in turn necessitated a revolution in excavation and survey techniques (open area excavation, landscape archaeology, field walking). Paradigms for explaining 'change' in prehistory also shifted, away from invasions and culture groups, to trade, population pressure, environmental change, and so on.

Copyrighted Material

Celts and politics

171

However, these changes have been brought about by individuals on both the right and the left of politics. Often interests are the same irrespective of political persuasion — the origin of social differentiation, the basis of power, the impact of long-distance trade, control of production. For the right, social differentiation is one of the driving forces for change and innovation, and also the generation of regional identities; for the left, it is the beginning of exploitation and oppression, drawing on concepts such as the 'World Economy'. Both sides can produce evidence from archaeology to illustrate their theses, but ultimately it depends on what one sees as the aim of society. Is it the production of inspiring artefacts, buildings and music, to be appreciated only by an elite few; or is it the satisfaction of every individual's needs, the means of daily nourishment — less inspiring, but more fundamental for the majority of society? It is perhaps not without significance that two of our leading right-wing archaeologists, Grahame Clark and Colin Renfrew, both have considerable interest in modern art, while those of us on the left are more interested in the popularising aspects of archaeology, though neither interest is by any means the exclusive domain of left or right (indeed, both Clarke and Renfrew have exceptional records as populisers). But in the popularising side of archaeology there is also a gulf, between conceptions of archaeology as dealing with treasure hunting, displays of art treasures, and so on; and the more recent trend of museum display which has moved firmly towards the more mundane aspects of daily life. Thus, inevitably, archaeology is political. Society sets the agenda, and we work within it, perhaps helping to change the agenda (sometimes in a spectacular way, as with the demonstration of the antiquity of Mankind), but our interests naturally bias the aspects of the past that we choose to study, and the paradigm within which we choose to interpret it. So I would disagree fundamentally with Binford (TAG 1992) in his claims to teach archaeology apolitically. Simply to attempt to do this is in itself a political act, leading to conservatism and resistance to change. Both in post-World War II Germany, and more recently in post-communist eastern Europe, in reaction to the particularly overt involvement of archaeology in fascistic state politics, there has been an inevitable attempt to keep archaeology 'apolitical'. In the case of German archaeology the result has been, as I hope to show in this paper, that aspects of the basic methodology survived unquestioned, despite the rejection of nationalistic ideology. In contrast, in some English universities the aim has been to instil in the student a scientific scepticism and questioning of received belief, itself a political approach to the past which is, for instance, usually unacceptable under totalitarian regimes. Few of us would want to teach archaeology as political propaganda, but unless we accept the political nature of our subject and face it head on, others will usurp it and use it in ways we may find unacceptable. Moreover, we will be in no position to engage with, and dispute, such

Copyrighted Material

172

John Collis

political propaganda because we ourselves have not been willing to question the tacit assumptions which underlie our methodology. THE H I S T O R I C A L CELTS The Celts hold an unusual place in the mythology of modern Europe. At one and the same time they are taken as a symbol of European unity, and as a symbol of separateness, of regional identity, and of diversity. In the first case we have exhibitions such as that of / Celti in Venice, which is meant to symbolise the common cultural roots of an area from Eire to Turkey, from Portugal to Poland. The excavations at Mont Beuvray have an overt political aim of European co-operation with teams from more than a dozen countries working together, on a project financed in part directly from the presidential purse, and with an exhibition at the 'Centre Archeologique Europeen'. Even the nomenclature is beginning to shift subtly. In the nineteenth century the emphasis in France was on the 'Gauls' in contrast with the 'Germans' who lived east of the Rhine. The Celts are now more acceptable, as, supposedly, they lived all over Europe, and represent unity rather than division. In the second instance, the Celts are used as a symbol of regional and national identities, as in the case of the Irish and the Welsh, with the establishment of the National Eisteddfod and other organisations aimed at preserving and promoting the Welsh language. The foundation more recently of the festival of Lorient similarly attempts to establish an identity for Brittany. For my own part, I feel it is important to promote both a sense of European unity, but equally a feeling of regional character, both of which are clearly present in Europe today. Such an understanding can be articulated by means of archaeology, both by demonstrating the long history and development of regional diversity, but also by studying the processes such as trade and technological development which inextricably link us all together. Identity exists at several levels; I am a Hampshireman, I am English, but have less of a sense of being British; at the same time I am very much a European, and a citizen of the world. The tendency to resort to exclusive definitions of group identity lies in the all-too-easy transformation of identity into caricature — the mean Scotsman, the grasping Jew, the stupid Belgian, the emotionless Englishman. Thus the ancient Celts are depicted as child-like but easy to rouse, bold in battle, drunken and boastful. These are the racial stereotypes which are transformed into the 'Celtic Spirit' of the modern Celt (Mernman 1987), or the Guinness-swilling Irishman. Such caricatures are amusing in the hands of Goscinny and Uderzo, the creators of Asterix and Obelix, but deadly in the hands of Hitler, or of a Serb or Croat nationalist. In most books on the Celts, even such standard respectable volumes such as that of Terence Powell (1958), it is this aspect of caricature which dominates. There is an attempt to draw from a wide variety of disparate sources,

Copyrighted Material

Celts and politics

173

and to manipulate this into a h o m o g e n o u s entity called a Celt or a Celtic society. This is n o basis o n which m o d e r n scholarship can develop the study of the past. It is clear that subsumed within this 'Celtic society' there is an e n o r m o u s range of social and political structures, from simple tribal groups to complex urban societies (see Fitzpatrick, chapter 16).

THE CELTS A N D

ARCHAEOLOGY

In his discussion of the Celtic language, Renfrew (1987) identified several ways in which the t e r m Celtic is used — language, art, tribal or ethnic grouping, psychology, or archaeological culture. It is these different concepts which are conflated into the unified category o f ' t h e Celts'. As soon as these correlations are investigated, they are found to be wanting — people speaking Celtic languages w h o were never called Celts, or w h o never possessed La T e n e Art, or La T e n e 'Culture' (Ruiz Zapatero 1990; 1994; CoUis forthcoming a). Yet most specialists on the Iron Age continue to use 'La T e n e ' and 'Celtic' synonymously. Furthermore, several cases can be pointed out where the archaeological interpretation is actually warped to make it fit in with what the Celts were supposed to be or c o m e from (e.g., by Cunliffe 1985; 1991; for other examples see Collis 1986; 1994). Even worse, n o - o n e seems to consider the implications of this nomenclature, where it comes from or h o w potentially it can be used for political ends. T h e theory that lies behinds the concept of the archaeological culture is clear in Childe's classic definition in 1929: We find certain types of remains — pits, implements, ornaments, burial rites, house forms — constantly recurring together. Such a complex of regularly associated traits we shall term a 'cultural group' or just a 'culture'. We assume that such a complex is the material expression of what today would be called a people. (Childe 1929: v-vi)

At a much later date David Clarke (1968) tried to redefine the archaeological culture in polythetic terms, while suggesting it was a purely archaeological construct which did not necessarily have any correlation with other classifications such as linguistic, political or ethnic entities. H e advocated its continued use as a means of archaeological classification. Others of us simply rejected it as a useful approach to archaeological data, more likely to be misleading than helpful (Collis 1977). T h e majority of the archaeological world, at least on the continent, simply ignored the debate, and continue still to refer to Celtic Culture and Celtic Art (see the confusion caused by attempts at imposing ethnic interpretation on the art in Megaw and Megaw 1989). Both Childe and Clarke are considered respectable prehistorians, with acceptable approaches, and important in their own ways for the theoretical development of prehistoric archaeology. But if we consider the title of Childe's previous b o o k published in 1926, The Aryans, we have a hint at

Copyrighted Material

174

John Collis

the source of his ideas. In 1911 Gustaf Kossinna wrote: 'Sharply defined archaeological provinces correlate at all times with definite peoples or ethnic groups' (quoted in Childe 1956: 28). T h u s , it was not in their methodology that the nationalistic Kossinna and the Marxist Childe differed, it was in the inflated chronologies which Kossinna assigned to n o r t h e r n European prehistory in his attempts to demonstrate the racial superiority of the Germans, and their gradual spread southwards into Europe. This concept of the superiority and purity of a Germanic 'race' was subsequently manipulated by Hitler in a way which we n o w find totally unacceptable. Kossinna died in 1932, before Hitler's supremacy, and so was not associated with the worst atrocities for which his work was used as an historical justification. Few G e r m a n prehistorians in the 1930s followed his high chronology for Scandinavian and north G e r m a n prehistory, preferring the ex oriente lux model of diffusion familiar to the English reading world through the works of Childe. Nevertheless, the huge support given by the state meant that G e r m a n archaeology was closely implicated in the propaganda machine of the Third R e i c h , regardless of the opinions of some contemporary archaeologists. In the universities chairs of Vor- u n d Fruhgeschichte (Pre- and Proto-History) were established in preference to, if not actually replacing, chairs in Classical Archaeology. This shift in the balance of research is still reflected in the importance of Pre- and Proto-History in G e r m a n universities, in contrast, for instance, to France where the traditional emphasis on French culture in the classical civilisations of Greece and R o m e still reigns supreme, and where Pre- and Proto-History have still not been able to emerge as university subjects in their own right (Collis forthcoming b). Since World War II G e r m a n archaeologists have avoided anything that could hint at an involvement in political or social questions. T h e traditions followed are those formulated by scholars such as Wahle, and especially von Merhart and Muller-Karpe, essentially a culture-historical approach, with a major emphasis on chronology, typology, classification, and the definition of regional groups in spatial and chronological terms. This innate conservatism and avoidance of controversy was, and is, strengthened by the compartmentalised nature of G e r m a n research, and the control still exercised by professors over their students. Archaeologists are archaeologists, zoologists zoologists, and botanists botanists. Success in the academic field is achieved by following one's professor's approach, rather than opposing it as is the English tradition. Within the G e r m a n school there was always opposition to Kossinna's views (e.g., Wahle 1941); the major, and most accessible, attack on Kossinna is perhaps that of Eggers in his b o o k Einfuhrung in die Vorgeschichte (1959). Primarily, it is an attack on his methodology. First, there is the source criticism, especially the significance of distribution maps, and their distortion due to processes of deposition and discovery,

Copyrighted Material

Celts and politics

175

familiar ground in recent British literature. T h e second area, illustrated by case studies, is a comparison between historical and archaeological evidence in defining ethnic groups, and demonstrating that though there is some correlation, it is far from absolute. For those w h o insist o n correlating La T e n e Culture with the Celts, Eggers' critique is very apposite and damning. T h e aims, methodology and failings of Kossinna looking at the origin and spread of the Germans are precisely the same as those used for investigating the origin and spread of the Celts. T h e r e is the same naive assumption about the relationship between archaeological 'cultures' and ethnicity — La T e n e Art = Celtic Art; certain artefact types are assumed to be 'Celtic', with no logical justification as to why one artefact type is ethnically significant, and another not. Gaps on maps are assumed to be genuine gaps rather than due to processes of deposition. Thus, it is argued that the lack of Early La T e n e brooches in central and western France is because the Celts had not arrived, rather than due to a lack of burials or excavations on settlement sites. Certain burial rites are considered 'Celtic' (e.g., flat inhumations with weapons and ornaments — Filip 1956; I960), despite the obvious gaps in their distributions in areas with similar artefact types but a different burial rite (e.g., the contrast between the Arras burials of Yorkshire, and the rest of England). Flat inhumations, chariot burials etc., are not a characteristic of Celtic Gaul as defined by Caesar (where burials are rare throughout the Iron Age), but they are characteristic of large areas of Belgic Gaul. T h e methodology is confused, partial, and usually plain wrong. However, in his critique of such methodology, Eggers fails to follow the logic of his argument. T h e book, instead of continuing to discuss ' W h e r e do we go from here?' simply stops. Perhaps it is because of his narrow view of the aims of archaeology: Since the beginning of the 19th century two questions have stood at the forefront of the aims of prehistoric studies: the question of the age of prehistoric finds, in other words, chronology; and to which people they can be ascribed, that is the ethnic interpretation. (Eggers 1959:199, emphasis in the original text) Two thirds of Eggers' book does indeed treat chronology, the other third ethnicity, though within this there are major discussions of Montelius and the development of typology. H e fails to take the next logical step; to discuss h o w we can actually deal with the question of ethnicity in the archaeological record, h o w it can be identified and especially w h e t h e r there are better and more important things which archaeologists should be doing. In my earlier writings I have naively assumed that by approaching archaeology from more promising angles — geographical, social, economic, environmental — the old ill-founded approaches would simply disappear

Copyrighted Material

176

John Collis

with the shift in paradigm. I used to boast that I would never write a b o o k about the Celts — hence titles such as The European Iron Age (1984a), or Oppida: earliest towns north of the Alps, (1984b) books in which 1 deliberately avoided ethnic interpretations (only to be criticised for it — Megaw 1985). N o w 1 believe I was wrong. N o t only have the 'Celts' not gone away, they are in the ascendancy, and, like the Germani in the early twentieth century, are being invoked for political purposes. I find myself chairman of a committee of the Council of Europe promoting 'Celtic R o u t e s ' for informed tourism. Worse, we find ourselves in a Europe which is undergoing major political change in which ethnicity is playing a major role. In Western Europe the dominant ideology is of a united European confederation, in which European-ness over-rides nationalism, though nationality is also still being invoked by politicians to defend their power bases within the traditional nation-state. We can also detect the opposite trend, with increasing regionalism as groups w h o had been submerged under nation-states start to find a voice — Basques, Catalans, Scots, Welsh, Lombards and Flemings, Croats, Serbs and Chechins. T h e danger lies not in the acceptance of regional or group identities, however these are defined (language, religion, geographical groupings); rather it lies in something which had been thought to be dead or dying, in the new educated and informed Europe — racism. T h e events in Yugoslavia have shattered the illusion that ethnic and racial tensions are disappearing. Such tensions are not merely a 'problem' attributed to ethnic minorities, as political boundaries in eastern and central Europe are redrawn, and e c o n o m i c migrants and political refugees are absorbed, but also of indigenous minorities such as Jews or Gypsies w h o have n o territorial claims in m o d e r n Europe. O n c e again archaeology is being asked to play a role in politics, and we cannot remain neutral. Politicians and demagogues are appearing w h o are laying claims to 'historical' territory, and w h o are supporting this with historical or archaeological data. H o w can we answer t h e m if we are tacitly accepting the methodology of Kossinna and Childe in our interpretation of the Celts, w h e n we k n o w that can lead to the extremism of G e r m a n y in the 1930s? For my own part, as a socialist of liberal views, my aim will be to demonstrate both our c o m m o n European heritage, and our regional and group identities; to inform others of the limitations of archaeological inferences; but above all to use history to demonstrate the folly of ethnic conflict, both in its illogical use of symbols and history, and in the damage that it does to all those w h o are carried along by it. So, I shall write a b o o k on the Celts. But who am I to write such things about the Celts? I am a pure-bred Englishman from Winchester, market place of the Belgac, city of the West Saxons, and capital of Alfred the Great, Cnut den Stor and Guillaume le Vainqueur. On my father's side I am a Hampshire man as far back as 1 can trace my ancestry

Copyrighted Material

Celts and politics

177

(to my great-grandfather) and my mother came from the depths of darkest Dorset. It was only when we buried my mother's ashes in her home village of Winterbourne Houghton, that the priest said he did not know the name Collis from the area — and we explained that my mother's surname was Joyce, as was two-thirds of the village when she was a girl. 'Ah, the Joyces!', he said, 'yes, the Irish family that came across in the eighteenth century to clear the woodland'. 'So', I said to one of my Dublin colleagues, 'I too have Irish blood in me'. 'The Joyces!', he said, 'the Joyces! Anglo-Normans, every man-jack of them!'

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my (northern) Irish colleague J o h n Moreland for the reference to Sellar and Ycatman and to the m o d e r n importance of Cuchulainn, and also for not k n o w i n g w h e n the Irish became Catholics; also to my G e r m a n colleagues, especially O t t o - H e r r m a n n Frey and J o r g Biel, for interesting insights into the development of prehistoric studies in Germany.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bowcott, O. (1991) 'Tongue of Troubles.' The Guardian Europe February, 1991. Childe, V. G. (1926) Tie Aryans: a study of Indo-European origins. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, and Trubner. (1929) The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1956) Piecing Together the Past. The Interpretation of Archaeological Data. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Clarke, D. L. (1968) Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen. Collis, J. R. (1977) 'An approach to the Iron Age.' In J. R. Collis (ed.), The Iron Age in Britain: a review.: 1—7 Sheffield: Dept of Prehistory and Archaeology. (1984a) The European Iron Age. London: Batsford. (1984b) Oppida: earliest towns north of the Alps. Sheffield University: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology. (1986) 'Adieu Hallstatt! Adieu La Tene!' In A. Duval and J. Gomez de Soto (eds) Actes de VIII Colloque sur les Ages du Per en Prance non-Mediterraneenne, Angouleme, 18, 19, 20 mai 1984. Aquitania, Supplement 1: 327—30. (1994) 'Los Celtas en Europa.' In M. Almagro-Gorbea (ed.), Los Celtas; Hispania y Europa. Actas de El Escorial, 1992. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Cursos de Verano 1992: 63-76. (forthcoming a) 'Celtes: culture, contacts, conflits et confusion.' Actes de 16' Colloque sur les Ages du Per en Prance. Agen, May 1992. (forthcoming b) 'La recherche sur l'Age du Fer en France; une perspective.' In D. Maranski (ed.), Actes de 17' Colloque sur les Ages du Per en Prance. Nevers, 1993. Cunliffe, B. W. (1985) Danebury: anatomy of an Iron Age hilljort. London: Batsford. (1991) Iron Age Communities in Britain. Third edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Eggers, H.-J. (1959) Einfuhrung in die Vorgeschichte. Munich: Piper Verlag.

Copyrighted Material

178

John Collis

Filip, J. (1956) Keltove ve Stfedni Europe. Prague: Ceskoslovenske Akademie Ved. (1960) Keltska Civilizace a jeji Dedicttri. (Revised edition 1963) English translation Celtic Civilisation and its Heritage (1962). Prague: Akademia. Kossinna, G. (1911) 'Zur Herkunft der Gernianen: zur Methodologie der Siedlungsarchaologie.' Mannus-Bibliothek 6. Wiirzburg. Megaw, J.V.S. (1985) 'Review of Collis 1984a.' Antiquity 59: 146-7. Megaw, R. and V. Megaw (1989) Celtic Art, from its Beginnings to the Book of Kells. London: Thames and Hudson. Merriman, N. (1987) 'Value and motivation in prehistory: the evidence for "Celtic Spirit".' In 1. Hodder (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings.: 111-16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Powell, T.G.E. (1958) The Celts. London: Thames and Hudson. Renfrew, A.C. (1987) Archaeology and Language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ruiz Zapatero, G. (1990) 'Quienes eran las Celtas?' In J. A Garcia Castro (ed.), Los (deltas en la Peninsula Iberica: 6—11 Revista de Arqueologia. (1994) 'El concepto de Celtas en la Preistoria europe y espanola.' In M. Almagro-Gorbea, (ed.), Los Celtas; Hispania y Europa. Actas de El Escorial, 1992: 23—62. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Cursos de Verano 1992. Sellar, W.C. and R.J. Yeatman (1960) 1066 and All That. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Wahle, E. (1941) 'Zur ethnischen Deutung friihgeschichtlicher Kulturprovinzen.' Crenzcn der friihgeschicht lichen Erkenntnis I. Heidelberg.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER TWELVE

CELTS A N D

IBERIANS

Ideological manipulations in Spanish archaeology GONZALO

RUIZ

ZAPATERO

Since the Renaissance, histories of Spain have begun with the presentation of two strange phases. The first was represented by a mythical character, Tubal, son of Jafet and grandson of Noah, who was depicted as the singular 'first' inhabitant. Then, in the second phase, there was a shift to the plural and two tribes appeared, the Iberians and the Celts. These historical phases represent the convergence of two different traditions: Tubal came from biblical legend, created at the end of the Middle Ages, when historical origins were conceptualised in terms of the Old Testament. The Iberians and the Celts were the fruit of Renaissance readings of classical texts, knowledge of which was consolidated from the sixteenth century onwards. (Tarradell 1980: 49) T h e names of p r e - R o m a n peoples, such as the Celts and Iberians, have always exerted a great fascination in the context of European prehistory because they represent the first prehistoric communities to emerge from obscurity. Furthermore, until the development of m o d e r n archaeology, they have been considered as an indication of the original inhabitants of individual countries. It is well k n o w n that traditional archaeologists have used these first historically-known ethnic groups in Europe for their o w n political ends — the most obvious example being the use of the Celts. In recent years such uses of the past have been c o n d e m n e d , leading in some instances to an extreme reaction against ethnic interpretations. T h e value of the traditional, historical ethnic categories has been flatly rejected o n the grounds that they are not valid archaeologically, and that they do m o r e to confuse than clarify the study of the Iron Age. However, although ethnicity is a complex concept, advances in historical linguistics, a n t h r o pology, and the interpretation of written sources can be combined with an archaeological approach in the difficult task of identifying and studying proto-historic ethnic groups. T h u s , a third alternative, avoiding both the errors of the traditional approach, and the outright rejection of interpretations of ethnicity, can be offered by a critical approach which collates the various sources of evidence.

Copyrighted Material

180

Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero

I am aware of the dangers and difficulties that such an approach presents, but I am also convinced of three facts: 1) that the traces of languages, names, and other information contained in classical texts refer to historical events, in many cases distorted and reinterpreted, but nevertheless historical facts that can be investigated by archaeological methods; 2) that abandoning these ethnic concepts will not stop t h e m being taken up by amateurs and the lunatic fringe due to popular interest in these 'first settlers'; and 3) that the attitudes of archaeologists are shaped by the social, political and ideological circumstances of the world they live in. Archaeological interpretation is not based on a value-free position, and is thus subject to ideological manipulation which itself merits critical scrutiny. I shall try to demonstrate the role played by this ideological manipulation of Spanish proto-history in the evaluation of the Celts and Iberians 1 as ethnic categories. I aim to do this by presenting a brief synthesis of the historiography of these peoples from the first archaeological evaluations at the end of the nineteenth century until today. Two problems are e n c o u n tered by such a study: 1) there are few historiographical studies of the Spanish Iron Age; and 2) the boundaries between the different phases of historiographical research, and even the phases themselves, are largely arbitrary (see Figure 12.3). However, I believe such an analysis can provide a useful introduction that can shed light on the subject. FROM A N C I E N T W R I T T E N SOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION CELTS A N D I B E R I A N S

TO OF

T h e origin of our current knowledge of the Celts and Iberians in Spain lies with the nineteenth-century romantic vision of classical texts (Olmos 1992). Starting from this period, a concept of patriotic identity has been constructed through the exaltation of a supposedly glorious national past, focusing on p r e - R o m a n towns such as Segunto or Numantia, or heroes such as the Lusitanian Viriathus (Garcia M o r e n o 1988; Lopez Melero 1988) and the Ilergete chiefs, Indibil and M a n d o m o (Mangas 1986). This romantic vision of the past has been depicted in works of art emphasising the independence and bravery of the Hispanic peoples. For instance, some historical Spanish paintings show heroic events, such as the collective immolation of the Iberian people of Saguntum at the hands of Hannibal or R o m e ' s blockade of Celtiberian Numantia (Figure 12.1) (Reyero 1992). According to romantic interpretations, m e n and nations fight for their identity and their independence; an image which serves as a model for political propaganda, and hence marks a salutary lesson for c o n t e m porary society (Olmos 1992). Literature is also pressed into the service of this exaltation of alleged patriotic values; for instance, in Lucas' (1858) novel of the life of Viriathus or in Guimera's (1875) epic p o e m praising the deeds of the Ilergetes chiefs, Indibil and Mandonio.

Copyrighted Material

Celts a n d Iberians

181

Figure 12.1 Drawing of the Last Day of Numantia (133 BC) from a 1940s school textbook, a copy of the painting (1881) by A. Vera. The example of the Numantians, who would rather die than surrender to the Romans, was widely used from the early nineteenth century to the Franco regime as a good lesson for students to learn in order to promote the love of Spanish unity and independence

Although not all of these literary and artistic representations of the past were inspired by nineteenth-century Spanish nationalism, they helped to reinforce the nationalist ideals and sentiments of the intellectual bourgeoisie (Villacorta 1980). Due to the late development of archaeological studies in Spain, the surviving classical texts provided the only paradigm for representations of proto-history during the nineteenth century. Academic interest focused more on the Celts than the Iberians, without doubt because of the development of 'Celtomania' (D'Arbois de Jubainville 1893-4; Assas 1857a; 1857b; Martin Minguez 1887; Saralegui 1867), an associated tradition of research into the Celts, and the limited appeal of the Iberians on a 'European' scale. The absence of a broader framework for the study of the Iberians meant that interest was focused on the question of their origins, giving rise to contentious theories claiming that they originated in Asia Minor or America, or were even survivors of Atlantis (Enguix 1973: 21). By the end of the nineteenth century there was a widespread belief in an extensive Celtic presence in Spain, while the Iberians were more obscure: even their origins were unknown (Philipon 1909: 342). Thus, to a certain extent, it could be said that the Celtic element in Spanish history was more highly valued than the Iberian.

Copyrighted

Material

182

Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero

T h e first research identifying archaeological remains as Celtic was not undertaken until the early twentieth century. In this pioneering era the beginning of Celtic archaeology was marked by the observations of the G e r m a n archaeologist Schulten in Volume I of his Numantia (1914), the first works of the Catalan, Bosch Gimpera, o n Urnenfelder (1921; 1922), and the excavations of the Celtiberian cemeteries by the Marquis of Cerralbo (Schiile 1969). In the case of the Iberian world, Paris (1903—4) n o w adopted an archaeological approach to the study of the Iberians, although significantly the t e r m 'Iberian' does not appear in the title of his book. T h e discovery of works of art — amongst which the famous bust of the Dama de Elche is possibly best k n o w n — awakened interest in Iberian culture. However, ignorance of the chronology of Iberian culture continued to be a serious problem, and this was only resolved in the work of Bosch Gimpera (1915) w h o placed it between the fifth century BC and the R o m a n era. His study also underlined the importance of the Greek influence in the development of Iberian culture. T h e weight of Spanish nineteenth-century nationalism is very evident in some of the first works on the Iberians. T h e r e was an obsessive interest in establishing continuity between a 'glorious past' and the present, in order to justify the birth of the essence of Spain. Such interpretations, it can be argued, are more closely aligned to 'ethnic psychology' than archaeology: The pre-Roman Iberians were powerful, strong, hard-working and disciplined, their lives motivated by two great ideals that have not perhaps been entirely extinguished in our race, namely: enthusiasm for their independence and a yearning for a fervent religious faith. (Calvo and Cabre 1919: 14)

At the end of this initial phase of historiographical and archaeological research, during the 1920s and early 1930s, the first m o d e r n syntheses of Spanish prehistory to establish a combined vision of the Celts and Iberians were produced. Archaeological evidence was still scarce and to some extent interpretation was still conditioned by the traditional framework derived from the classical sources. T h e reference by the H i s p a n o - R o m a n poet, Martial, to two cultural worlds in ancient Iberia: ' N o s celtis genitos et ex iberis' (Epigram X X X V 'Ad Lucium') — the Celtic and the Iberian — was taken up in archaeology. T h u s , two worlds were carved out of the Iberian Peninsula, and these can be summarised by the following dichotomies, denoting their 'homeland' and areas of settlement: Celts :: Iberians Europe :: Africa N o r t h , Centre and West of Spain :: Levant and South of Spain This view of the proto-history of the Iberian Peninsular concedes scant importance to the indigenous peoples, and Celts and Iberians — both

Copyrighted Material

Celts and Iberians

183

Figure 12.2 Illustration of the distribution of Celts, Celtiberians and Iberians according to a primary-school textbook. The map shows the traditional ethnic distribution based on ancient written sources. It is, to a certain extent, a good reflection of the archaeological knowledge of the 1930s and even, with some modifications, of the current cultural areas in Spanish proto-history (from A. Alvarez, Enciclopedia de Segundo Grado, Valladolid: Ed. Minon, 1960) invaders — b e c o m e the protagonists of the historical events of the first millennium BC. T h e immediate result was the emergence of debates focusing on the relative cultural importance of each ethnic group in the structuring of Spanish proto-history. In academic papers, the supposedly bloodless conflicts between the two groups took place without interruption, against the backdrop of prehistory. Despite recognising the danger of over-valuing the Celtic contribution on the basis of the widespread presence of Celtic pottery, Pericot (1923) was not deterred from claiming that 'the Celtic invasion' or ' I n d o European wave' had led to the imposition of Celtic culture throughout the Peninsula and that only a few indigenous enclaves — such as the Basques, the Iberians of the Mediterranean coast, and the Tartessians — had resisted assimilation. However, a shift in emphasis can be seen in the first great synthesis of peninsular prehistory by Bosch Gimpera (1932). H e claimed that 'the Celts represent a mere episode' in peninsular ethnology, although one of some importance, limited to Catalonia and the Meseta (Celtiberians). H e rightly pointed out that we k n o w very little about the rest of the Peninsular Celts and offered a more balanced view of the Celts. As far as the Iberians are concerned, excavations had progressed considerably since Bosch Gimpera's important work appeared in 1915, with the result that, by the time of his 1932 synthesis, the Iberian peoples had

Copyrighted

Material

PARIS 1903-4

BOSCH GIMPERA 1915

BOSCH GIMPERA 1932

# PERICOT

192 3

ALMAGRO ,1952 SANTAOLALLA 1946

TA 1

. ARRIB

. ll.-.-.V; DICTATORSHIP WAR sympathy w i t h n a z i and fascist ideas

Figure 12.3 Diagram of the political history of Spain in the twentieth century, periods con key books by Spanish archaeologists and the relative importance accorded the Celts (left: wa of cigarette, 'Celtas') and Iberians (right: warrior taken from a secondary-school textbook) figure represents attributed cultural value

Celts and Iberians

185

been studied more extensively and were accorded more importance than the Celts. H e argued (1932: 638) that after the Celtic penetration, and despite its cultural survivals, the Iberian tribes re-emerged, and to some extent succeeded in introducing their character to the whole Peninsula, although this did not lead to the unification of the entire population.

F R A N C O ' S D I C T A T O R S H I P A N D THE M A N I P U L A T I O N OF THE PAST T h e outbreak of the Civil War in 1936 interrupted, as in every other aspect of Spanish life, archaeological debates about the Celts and Iberians. T h e most important figure, Bosch Gimpera, went into exile and other researchers sympathetic to the ideas of the Franco regime came to the fore. T h e Franco dictatorship imposed a rigid straitjacket on such disciplines as history, which resulted in barefaced distortions of Spanish history in the service of its ideas and interests. Archaeology was n o exception, and the identification of the Franco regime with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy led to an over-valuation of the Celtic c o m p o n e n t to the point where even the existence of the Iberian peoples was called into question (Diaz-Andreu 1993). A n u m b e r of factors are important in understanding this re-emphasis on the Celts in Spanish proto-history. First, the most influential archaeologists in those years — Martinez Santaolalla and Almagro — had received their training in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. T h e y had studied in the tradition of Kossinna's school (Arnold 1990; Kossack 1992) and were sympathetic to the ideas of the G e r m a n regime. Second, it was thought that the arrival of the Celts in Spain was the result of migrations from the R h i n e region. Third, it must be remembered that in Spain the concepts 'Indo-European', 'Aryan' and 'Celt', were frequently conflated and confused. These factors explain why, for many scholars, the Celtic element was the most attractive representation of the primitive ethnogenesis of the 'Spanish people'. Such political manipulation is clearly evident in one Spanish archaeologist's (Cabre 1943; 1944) interpretation of an Iberian vase showing four figures facing each other around a plant (Figure 12.4). T h e i r hands are raised to propitiate its growth, a gesture which the author claims was the origin of the national salute — the fascist salute! T h e best expression of this 'pan-Celtic' posture is Martinez Santaolalla's (1946) Esqucma Paletnologico dc la Peninsula Ibcrica. O n e of the objectives announced in the preface was the 're-evaluation of the Celtic world', another was to record, with satisfaction, the demise of the Iberians. According to Martinez Santaolalla, the Celts took their culture to 'all corners of Spain', while the 'so-called Iberians existed neither as a race nor as a culture'. T h e Iberians were simply an Hispanic substratum incorporating an important Celtic element that had been transformed by the influence of the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians and, later, the R o m a n s

Copyrighted Material

186

Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero

Figure 12.4 Top: detail of an Iberian pot from Cabezo de la Guardia (Alcorisa, Teruel) dated around the second century BC. Bottom: pro-Franco soldiers performing the fascist salute during the Civil War (from Olmos, Tortosa and Iguacel 1992: 43)

from the Mediterranean: 'the Iberian culture is no more than the reaction of the very personal Spanish genius in response to the influence of the classical world' (Martinez Santaolalla 1946: 98). The slogan 'Spain is different', coined by a well-known minister in Franco's government, was already being manifested here. An interpretation that accords better with the archaeological record than the extreme position of Martinez Santaolalla was Almagro's synthesis La invasion celtica en Espana (1952) some time after the end of the Civil War. However, the Celtic element was still overestimated in Almagro's work, and his position is clearly evident in a later popular work entitled

Copyrighted

Material

Celts and Iberians

187

Origen y formacion del pueblo hispano (1958). Here a chapter is dedicated to the incursions of the Celts while Iberian culture does not merit so m u c h as a chapter to itself, and it is only mentioned at the very end of the chapter o n the Celts. Moreover, Almagro's (1958) work seeks to use academic arguments to strengthen the idea of the ancestral unity of the 'Spanish people'; one more element in the progressive perfection of national unity which it was assumed would continue to shape the political structure of the m o d e r n state (Cortadella 1988). T h e Franco period made the 'Spanish Golden Age' (the sixteenth century) the high point of Spain's history (Prieto 1979), and, according to this interpretation, previous periods were simply stages on the long march towards that pinnacle. T h e first stage was marked by the Celtiberians, w h o embodied the spirit of Castile, and were in turn the e m b o d i m e n t of the spirit of Spain (Cortadella 1988: 21); in some respects the Celtiberians were the first real Spaniards. Thus, aside from the impact of Germanophiha, another factor in the over-valuation of the Celts was to provide an historical legitimation of the Franco regime's concept of fatherland through the representation of Spain as a unified whole since time immemorial (Tarradell 1980). Yet, despite the dominance of the Celtic interpretation during the Franco dictatorship, some authors — convinced of the real and indigenous character of the Iberians — began timidly to criticise 'pan-Celticism' (Fericot 1949), and a work in 'defence of Iberianism' was even published (Fletcher 1949). T h e foundation, a few years later, of the Institute for Iberian Studies and Valencian Ethnology (Cano 1957) is a significant indication of the beginning of a new attitude towards Iberian culture. T h e over-valuation of the Celtic and virtual exclusion of the Iberian was openly criticised. Garcia Bellido, referring to Almagro and other Celtophiles, describes it thus: Celtophile trend, that not long ago was taken to ridiculous extremes, has sought to deny even the physical existence of the Iberian people and an Iberian culture — racially speaking - regarding it as a simple consequence of the action or influences of the illustrious Mediterranean cultures on a single people, the Celts, that, in the centuries before the birth of Christ, must have occupied all, or nearly all, of the Peninsula. According to this interpretation, the Iberian culture of the coast would have been nothing more than Celtic culture modified by the influence of the Greek and Carthaginian colonies and, hence, the people of Iberian stock were merely a vestige with an arbitrary ethnic classification. (Garcia Bellido 1952: 304)

By the 1960s the tide was turning, and the works of Arribas (1963) and Tarradell (1965) illustrate that the Iberian 'crisis' of the 1940s and 1950s in the face of 'pan-Celticist' ideas had been overcome. Together with other authors (e.g., Fletcher 1960), they established the basis for a more balanced evaluation of Iberian culture. In some respects

Copyrighted Material

188

G o n z a l o Ruiz Zapatero

/7\SRO LA MOBLE SAM6RE IBERA. BBU 7 U^ABATO &RDE DE IHDievAClbV..

...y SU FUEKZA PRODKSIOSA LE IMPULSA HAOA ADEIAHTE COM IMPETU ARROLLAOOR..

Figure 12.5 'El Jabato' is the name of an Iberian comic hero created in the late 1950s and very popular in the 1960s. He represents Spanish bravery and love of independence, always fighting against Romans, the invaders, at an ambiguous time around the birth of Christ (Vazquez de Parga 1980: 149). What is significant is that this comic hero is an Iberian, not a Celt. No doubt because in those days Iberians were perceived as the authentic indigenous population and the main root of the Spanish nation, and Celts as an originally foreign people that had come from outside. In other words, Iberians are 'Spanish' and Celts are not

the proponents of pan-Celticism and the supporters of Iberian culture represent a reflection of the 'two Spains' to which the poet Antonio Machado refers: the pro-Franco 'nationalist' and the Republican 'red', the dramatic culmination of two very different realities that had been forged since the end of the nineteenth century. Unfortunately, in the 1950s and 1960s assertions relied more on personal and ideological convictions — the result of particular political circumstances — than on a firm theoretical foundation and scientific argument. Little archaeological research into 'Celtic Spain' was undertaken in the 1960s and 1970s. The problem of the Celts was dealt with in terms of existing approaches, such as those of Bosch Gimpera and Almagro; there was very little in the way of new theoretical formulations or empirical research. Furthermore, after the excesses of earlier decades, there was a tendency to reject everything concerned with the Celts, which led to the proscription of the term 'Celt' from much of the archaeological literature (Lucas 1992). It is evident that the debate and the bitter polemic surrounding Celts and Iberians was invested with interests, because it was deeply implicated in the establishment of a particular vision of the origins of the Spanish people. As stated above, later prehistory in Europe has always been seen

Copyrighted

Material

Celts and Iberians

189

as a genealogy of ourselves. It has been of great importance for political authority and the partisan use of history, especially in secondary education (Vails 1984; 1993). Here, significantly, certain 'facts' concerning the first historically k n o w n inhabitants, have remained unchanged in the textbooks for decades, despite research which has overturned, or at least called into question, traditional representations of such peoples (Bardavio 1992).

CELTS A N D

IBERIANS: CURRENT

APPROACHES

T h e death of Franco in 1975 and the transition to democracy resulted in a n u m b e r of changes in the study and evaluation of Celts and Iberians. R e c e n t approaches can be s u m m e d up by the following three trends: one, the appearance of acutely critical historiographies; two, the resurgence of Celtic studies, especially in archaeology, and the continuing expansion of Iberian studies; and three, the continuing investment of ideological interests in the representation of proto-history, for instance, through attempts by ' A u t o n o m o u s C o m m u n i t i e s ' " to reinforce the hallmarks of their o w n identity. O p e n l y critical analyses of the Celtic/Iberian debate (e.g., Tarradell 1980: 135) have argued that interpretations of the Celtic contribution had been affected by 'the desire to be as Aryan as possible, in line with the political tendencies of a Europe dominated by Nazi thinkers'. Nevertheless, Tarradell (1980: 135) argues that a proper evaluation of the Iberian contribution should also include those w h o 30 years previously had virtually denied the existence of the Iberians. T h e need to revise and reflect on the history of archaeological research has led to the appearance of the first serious works in this area (e.g., Arce and O l m o s 1991), and to the formulation of criticjues of the ideological manipulation of historical works (Cortadella 1988). Archaeological research into the Celts received a boost in the 1980s largely as a result of the interest the Celts aroused in Europe (Almagro Gorbea 1985; 1991a; 1991b; 1993; Almagro Gorbea and Lorrio 1987; Lenerz de Wilde 1991), and new attempts to combine archaeology, ancient history and linguistics (Tovar 1986; D e H o z 1992). Alongside this renewed interest in the Celts, Iberian archaeology has continued to expand (Ruiz and Molinos 1987; 1993). C u r r e n t debates d o not carry the same ideological connotations they had before, but the creation of the A u t o n o m o u s C o m m u n i t i e s in Spain, after the establishment of a new constitution in 1978, is introducing fresh ideological bias. T h e A u t o n o m o u s C o m m u n i t i e s encourage the exploration of their past as part of the very legitimate task of discovering their national or regional identity. But on occasions these 'roots from the past' are distortions (Gonzalez Morales 1992), as w h e n current political and administrative units are ascribed to proto-historic ethnic groups. T h e proliferation of 'General Histories' of nearly all the A u t o n o m o u s C o m m u n i t i e s is

Copyrighted Material

190

Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero

symptomatic of this presentist approach. T h e histories of Catalonia, Basque Country, Galicia, but also of Murcia, La Rioja or Cantabria, are structured — even with respect to prehistoric periods — by the m o d e r n administrative territory of each Community. Moreover, the danger of distortion is considerable in view of popular works by local scholars and amateurs that encourage fanciful interpretations, probably with the best of intentions, but with little knowledge of history. For example, Celtic mythologisations appear to awaken a response in the north of Spain, in regions such as Galicia and Cantabria, precisely where the rigorous examination of the archaeological evidence makes it very difficult to 'see' any Celts in the traditional sense (Gomez Tabanera 1991; Pereda 1992). T h e importance and cultural value of Celts and Iberians as ethnic categories, as the first inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula, has changed during the history of Spanish archaeology. Prior to the first serious archaeological research, nineteenth-century Spanish nationalists mobilised the chieftains and glorious deeds of Celtic and Iberian resistance to R o m a n occupation, presenting them as an exemplary precedent; an intimation of the Spanish character and even of Spain itself. It is in this context of nineteenth-century Spanish bourgeois nationalism that the first archaeological research into Celts and Iberians must be set, the former initially being considered more important, because of the favourable climate surrounding t h e m at the time (characterised as o n e of 'Celtomania') and initial barriers to the study of Iberian culture. T h e establishment of the Franco regime (1939—75), because of its sympathies with Nazism and Fascism, led to a distorted conception of the Celts as the only genuine Spanish racial group in order to demonstrate the antiquity of a united Spain. Celticism and political unitarianism walked hand in hand for several years, but with the decline of fascist ardour in Franco's government, especially from the 1950s onwards, this ideological manipulation gradually lost force and criticisms were even made of the 'Celtic excess'. Finally, in the 1980s, with the establishment of democracy and the creation of a State divided into A u t o n o m o u s C o m m u n i t i e s , a new ideological factor emerged in the form of attempts to support the nationalist and regionalist policies of contemporary groups through the establishment of their distinctive character as far back as late prehistory. This most recent ideological agenda has led to a resurgence of interest in proto-historic ethnic groups. Moreover, the popular works produced in the service of nationalist aspirations are just as vulnerable to overt political manipulation as earlier representations of proto-historic groups.

CONCLUSION Two possible reactions to the political nature of Spanish proto-history tend to stand out: we can maintain the old cliches concerning ethnic

Copyrighted Material

Celts and Iberians

191

Figure 12.6 The partisan use of the past was clearly evident in the Exhibition of 'I Celti' (Venice, Palazzo Grassi 1991) where a video ended with a picture in which small stars emerged from the most important Celtic sites in Europe (Numantia in Spain) to produce the emblem of the European Community. In some sense the leitmotif was to present a 'Celtic Europe' as a precedent for European Union (drawing taken from A. Forges, Historia de Aqui, Barcelona: Bruguera 1980; text is mine)

categories and fall into mythologisation, or we can flatly reject ethnic categories as a basis for archaeological research. I hope that a third approach is possible and desirable: the adoption of a holistic approach that incorporates and compares archaeological, linguistic, historical, religious and ethnographic information to achieve a new vision of the subject (Almagro Gorbea 1991b; 1993; De Hoz 1992). Ethnic categories should thus be considered concepts in the process of construction, much more plural, complex and subtle than the traditional concepts.

Copyrighted

Material

192

Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero

T h e rejection, by archaeologists in Temperate Europe, of the ethnic group as an analytic unit in Iron Age studies ignores the fact that, from the perspective of Mediterranean Europe, richer written sources make it possible to individualise ethnic groups on, historical, linguistic and archaeological grounds. This is perhaps most clearly relevant to the case of Italy (Peroni 1989), but the Iberian Peninsula is similar in many respects (Almagro Gorbea and R u i z Zapatero 1993). T h e distinctive character of the Mediterranean world has not been taken into account and to some extent Mediterranean Europe has been 'hijacked' by the Hallstatt and La T e n e framework of n o r t h e r n Europe. Very rarely has the course of the distinctive social development of the Mediterranean world been analysed in a distinct but complementary m a n n e r (Ruiz 1992). G e r m a n and British archaeologists have tended to over-simplify the Iron Age from the mistshrouded vantage point of Temperate Europe. A n e w 'north—south' dialogue is necessary. We cannot content ourselves with a single CentralEuropean perspective, if we want a plural, multicultural, diverse Iron Age that respects 'the other' within Europe. I have tried to show h o w the manipulation of the most prominent ethnic groups of Spanish proto-history has operated in archaeological research, w h e t h e r intentionally or as a result of ignorance. In the last analysis historiography reveals h o w we perceive our discipline, or to put it another way, how we k n o w what we know. To return to my opening comments, it is true that the categories, Celt and Iberian, have been manipulated for political ends, but if archaeologists do not engage with the serious analysis of these categories we can be sure that others will continue to use t h e m for ideological purposes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank T i m and Sara C h a m p i o n and John Collis for stimulating ideas about my research on the Iberian Iron Age. I am especially grateful to Paul Graves and Sian Jones for constructive c o m m e n t s o n early versions of this paper, for improving my English and for being so patient with deadlines.

NOTES 1 Strictly speaking the Iberians are the peoples of the Mediterranean strip from Andalusia to Languedoc, and not all the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula, as the term is sometimes used in English. 2 I.e. Basques, Catalonians, etc. BIBLIOGRAPHY Almagro, M. (1952) 'La invasion celtica en Espana.' In R. Menendez Pidal (ed.), Historia de Uspana I, 2: 1—278, Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

Copyrighted Material

Celts and Iberians

193

(1958) Origen y Formation del Pueblo Hispano, Barcelona: Vergara. Almagro Gorbea, M. (1985) 'La Celtizacion de la Meseta: estado de la cuestion.' Adas del I Congreso de Historia de Valencia.: 313—44 Palencia. (1991a) i Celti dell'Iberia.' In Moscati (ed.), / Celti. Milan: Bompiam. (1991b) Los Celtas en la Peninsula Iberica. Madrid: Revista de Arqueologia. (1993) 'Los Celtas en la Peninsula Iberica: Origen y personalidad cultural.' In M. Almagro Gorbea and G. Ruiz Zapatero (eds), Los Celtas: Hispania y Europa.: 121-73. Madrid: Actas. and G. Ruiz Zapatero (eds) (1993) Paleoetnologia de la Peninsula Iberica. Madrid: Complutum 2—3. and A. Lorrio (1987) 'La expansion celtica en la Peninsula Iberica: una aproximacion cartografica.' In F. Burillo (ed.), / Simposium sobre los Celtiberos.: 105-22. Zaragoza: Institucion Fernando el Catolico. Arce, J. and R. Olmos (eds) (1991) Historiografia de la Arqueologia y de la Historia Antigua en Espana (sighs XVIII—XX). Madrid: Ministerio de Gultura. Arnold, B. (1990) 'The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany.' Antiquity 64: 464-78. Arribas, A. (1963) The Iberians. London: Thames and Hudson. Assas de, M. (1857a) 'Nociones Fisonomico-Historicas de la Arquitectura de Espana. Monumentos Celticos.' Semanario Pintorcsco Espanol XXII: 124—33, 140-1 ; H 8 - 9 , 155-8, 163-5, 172-3. (1857b) 'Celtas.' Semanario Pintorcsco Espanol. XXII: 401-07. Bardavio, A. (1992) 'Com s'explica la historia. Wilma, abreme la puertaaa . . .!' Limes. 2: 86-96. Bosch Gimpera, P. (1915) 'El problema de la ceramica iberica.' Comision de Investigations Paleontologicas y Prehistoricas. Madrid: Mem. 7. (1921) 'Los celtas y la civilizacion celtica en la Peninsula Iberica.' Boletin de la Sociedad Espanola de Excursiones 29: 248—300. (1922) 'Die Kelten und die Keltische Kultur in Spanien.' 25 Jahre Siedlungsarchaologie, Manus-Bibliothek 22: 53-66. (1932) litnologia de la Peninsula Iberica. Barcelona. Cabre,J. (1943) 'El saludo iberico. Saludo racial precursor del nacional. Su difusion por Europa en union del Gladius Hispaniensis.' Coleccionismo XIX: 23—40. (1944) Corpus Vasorum Hispanorum. Ceramica de Azaila. Museos Arqueologicos de Madrid, Barcelona y Zaragoza. Madrid. Calvo, J. and J. Cabre (1919) Excavaciones en la Cueva y Collado de los Jardines de Santa Elena, Jaen. Madrid: Junta Superior de Excavaciones Arqueologicas. Cano, J. (1957) 'El Instituto de estudios Ibericos y Etnologicos Valenciano.' IV Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia, Burgos, 1955.: 31—7. Cortadella, J. (1988) 'M. Almagro Basch y la idea de la unidad de Espana.' Studia Historica (H. Antigua) 6: 17-25. D'Arbois de Jubainville, H. (1893-4) 'Les Celtes en Espagne.' Revue Celtique. 14: 357-95; 15: 1-61. De Hoz, J. (1992) 'The Celts of the Iberian Peninsula.' Zeitschrift fur Celtische Philobgie 45: 1-37. Diaz-Andreu, M. (1993) 'Theory and ideology in archaeology: Spanish archaeology under the Franco regime.' Antiquity 67: 74—82. Enguix, R. (1973) 'Aproximacion a una historia de la investigation de la cultura iberica.' Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueologia de la I Iniversidad de Valencia 9: 19-28.

Copyrighted Material

194

Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero

Fletcher, D. (1949) 'Defensa del Iberismo.' Anales del Centra de Cultura Valenciana 23: 168-78. (1960) Los Problemas de la Cultura Iberica. Valencia: Trabajos varios del S.I.P., 22. Garcia Bellido, A. (1952) 'Arte Iberico.' In R. Menendez Pidal (ed.), Historia de Espaha.: 371—675. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Garcia Moreno, L. (1988) 'Infancia, juventud y primeras aventuras de Viriato, caudillo lusitano.' Adas del Primer Congreso Peninsular de Historia Antigua 373-82. Santiago de Compostela. Gomez Tabanera, J.M. (1991) 'Leyenda y realidad del celtismo Cantabro-Astur.' Sobretiro de las Adas del XX Congreso National de Arqueologia, Oviedo. Gonzalez Morales, M.R. (1992) 'Racines: la justification archeologique des origenes regionales dans l'Espagne des Communantes autonomes.' In T. Shay and J. Clottes (eds), The Limitations of Archaeological Knowledge.: 15—27. Liege: Universite de Liege. Kossack, G. (1992) 'Prehistoric archaeology in Germany: Its history and current situation.' Norwegian Archaeological Review 25, 2: 73—109. Lenerz-de Wilde, M. (1991) Iberia Celtka: Archaologische Zeugnisse Keltischer Kultur auf der Pyrenaenhalbinsel. Stuttgart. Lopez Melero, R. (1988) 'Viriatus Hispaniae Romulus.' Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Sene II. 1: 247-61. Lucas, M.R. (1992) 'Prologo.' In L. Berrocal, Los Pueblos Cclticos del Suroeste de la Peninsula Iberica.: 17-19. Madrid: Complutum 2 Extra. Mangas, J. (1986) 'Indibil y Mandomo.' Historia 16, 121: 113-18. Martin Minguez, B. (1887) Los Celtas. Estudio Historico Geografico. Madrid. Martinez Santaolalla, J. (1946) Esquema Paletnologico de la Peninsula Iberica. Madrid: Diana. Olmos, R. (1992) 'El surgimiento de la imagen en la sociedad iberica.' In La Sociedad Iberica a traves de la imagen. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. , T. Tortosa and P. Iguacel (1992) 'Catalogo, aproximaciones a unas imagenes desconocidas.' In La Sociedad Iberica a Traves de la Imagen. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Paris, P. (1903—04) Essai sur I'Art et I'Industrie de l'Espagne primitive. Paris. Pereda, E. (1992) 'Sobre Celtas y Cantabros: de la atraccion al engano'. Nivel Cero 1: 49-50. Pericot, L. (1923) La Prehistoria de la Peninsula Iberica. Barcelona: Poliglota. (1949) 'Treinta afios de excavaciones en Levante.' IV Congreso del Suresle Espanol: 47-71. Elche 1948. Peroni, R. (1989) Protostoria dell'Italia Continentale. La Peninsola Italiana Nelle Eta del Bronzo e del Eerro. Rome: Biblioteca di Storia Patria. Philipon, E. (1909) Les Iberes. Etude d'Histoire, d'Archeologia et de Linguistique. Paris: H. Champion. Pneto, A. (1979) 'El franquisme i la historia Antiga.' L'Avenc 18: 75-7. Reyero, C. (1992) 'Los temas historicos en la pintura espanola del siglo XIX.' InJ.L. Diez (ed.), La Pintura de Historia del siglo XIX en Espaiia.: 37—67 Madrid: Museo del Prado. Ruiz, A. (1992) 'El desarrollo de la sociedad europea en el primer milenio a.C..' In V. Cabrera, F. Bernaldo de Quiros, M. Molist, P. Aguayo and A. Ruiz (eds), Manual de Historia Universal, I. Prehistoria.: 539—54. Madrid: Cambio 16.

Copyrighted Material

Celts and Iberians

195

and M. Molinos (eds) (1987) Iberos. I Jornadas Arqueologicas sobre el Mundo lberico. Seville: Junta de Andalucia. and M. Molinos (1993) Los Iberos. Andlisis arqueologico de un proceso historico. Barcelona: Cridca. Saralegui, L. (1867) Estudios sobre la epoca celtica en Galicia. Ferrol. Schiile, W. (1969) Die Meseta-Kulturen der Iberischen Halhinsel. Berlin: Madrider Forschungen, 3. Schulten, A. (1914) Numantia I. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1905—1912. Munich: Ph. Verlag. Tarradell, M. (1965) Historia del Pais Valencia, I. Barcelona: Edicions 62. (1980) 'Primeras Culturas.' In M. Tunon de Lara, M. Tarradell and J. Mangas (eds), Introduction. Primeras Culturas c Hispania Romana.: 49—195. Barcelona: Labor. Tovar, A. (1986) 'The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula: archaeology, history, language.' In K.H. Smith (ed.), Geschichte und Kultur der Kelten.: 68—101. Heidelberg: Herausgeg, Von K.H. Schmidt unter Mitwirkung V.R. Kodderitsch. Vails, R. (1984) La interpretation de la historia de Espana y sus origenes ideologicos en el bachilkrato franquista (1938-1953). Valencia. (1993) 'La Historia ensenyada a l'epoca franquista.' L'Avenc 169: 71-3. Vazquez de Parga, S. (1980) Los comics del franquismo. Barcelona: Planeta. Villacorta, F. (1980) Burguesia y Cultura: los Intelectuales Espanoles en la Sociedad Liberal (1880-1931). Madrid: Siglo XXI.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

T H E IDENTITY OF FRANCE: ARCHETYPES I N I R O N AGE S T U D I E S BEATRICE

FLEURY-ILETT

INTRODUCTION In 1985 the then President of France, Francois Mitterand, opened the prestigious excavation of the Iron Age hillfort of Mont-Beuvray in the central mountains of Morvan with the words 'Bihracte, where the first act of our history was played'. T h e President became patron of the project which attracted substantial sums of money. Scientifically, one of its aims was to investigate proto-urban development; ideologically, it was intended to support national identity and national unity. T h e choice of this site and the m o n e y spent o n it caused some controversy. T h e site was not threatened, and although it was declared a site national, regional archaeologists thought it 'doit plus a N a p o l e o n le Petit qu'a son originalite' (Ferdiere 1985) and argued that the m o n e y would have been better spent o n regional archaeological priorities. T h e opening of the Mont-Beuvray excavation was a key m o m e n t in the development of the archaeology o f ' m e t r o p o l i t a n ' France over the last thirty years, and in the growth of an archeologie nationale. T h e latter attempted, within a specifically and clearly French context, to bring a global approach to the archaeology of what is n o w metropolitan France, including periods and areas of the country which had previously been neglected by the traditional emphasis on the Paleolithic, classical and high medieval (Querrien and Schnapp 1984). T h e 1980s consequently saw a growing fashion for the study of transition periods such as the p r e - R o m a n and the L a t e - R o m a n / e a r l y Medieval periods, and a rapid increase in the study of the Late Iron Age. In this paper I will show that sites may be chosen for study on the basis of ideological factors. Factors which were a m o n g those that motivated the change in emphasis of metropolitan archaeology described above. Hence, these choices were made according to what are essentially

Copyrighted Material

The identity of France

197

perceptions of national feeling, albeit well hidden perceptions. T h r o u g h a structural analysis of the ideological positions manifested in archaeological practices and interpretations of French p r e - and proto-history I will argue the need to b e c o m e more 'objective' — by which I mean recognising the underlying codes which generate our actions in order to refine archaeological discourse. In archaeological research, the subject (the researcher) is an integral part of the ensemble that constitutes the context of research; the object of the inquiry is by definition part of that ensemble and constitutes it. Therefore, the researcher's consciousness of the object of her or his inquiry should be built into the operation of research. I argue here that it is necessary to raise the level of consciousness and so increase the degree of objectivity through the description of the 'total' context of French archaeology; this description should include, as well as the facts which constitute the real and historical development of the discipline, those facts that are less apparent, held in the m e m o r y in the wider sense.

COLLECTIVE MEMORY A N D THE D A T I N G OF THE GALLIC PERIOD T h e collective unconscious is reflected in the cultural production of a particular historical period. M y opinions here draw on the work of the historian Delumeau (1967; 1971; 1983), for w h o m fifteenth-century painting expresses the subconscious preoccupations of the people of the period and reflects their psychology for us. Delumeau draws the collective psychology of the period from the study of its artistic production in historical context. In this process, m e m o r y plays a crucial part. Collective m e m o r y is influenced by recent occurrences, by oral tradition, and by the landscape including those visual representations of events embodied in c o m m e m o rative m o n u m e n t s such as that at Soissons in N o r t h e r n France, here illustrated (see Figure 13.1). This m o n u m e n t is particularly relevant as it records a variety of historical m o m e n t s . Soissons lies a few miles b o t h from the ' C h e m i n des Dames', a major battlefield of World War I, and from the citadel of Laon, centre of one of de Gaulle's actions in 1940 . . . and in the path of many earlier Germanic invasions. N e a r to the cradle of the Merovingian realm and later to b e c o m e its capital, Soissons was where Clovis defeated the R o m a n Syagrius in Ai) 486. T h e earliest a m o n g the historical scenes on the m o n u m e n t is on the lower register, where Clovis obliges one of his soldiers to break the vase he has looted in contravention of orders. This is the incident of the 'Soissons vase' in AD 486 which was taken as proof of his authority and symbolises his creation of the realm of the Franks, uniting diverse peoples under his power. This part of the m o n u m e n t therefore represents a chief/hero of Germanic origin w h o has b e c o m e assimilated into the French nation (see Figure 13.2).

Copyrighted Material

198

Beatrice Fleury-llett

p ..

H

H

Figure 13.1 Soissons monument. General view: historical scenes, King Clovis and soldiers from the 1914-18 war

Copyrighted

Material

The identity of France

199

Figure 13.2 Soissons monument. Details - lower register: King Clovis and soldier breaking the Soissons vase

Paradoxically, this episode of French history is c o m m e m o r a t e d and recorded alongside the war which followed the invasion of 1914. O n the upper register, French soldiers follow their fallen comrades, w h o are sheltered by the wings of an angel having sacrificed themselves defending their country against the G e r m a n invader. Despite Clovis' credentials as the first king of France, however, popular sentiment is m u c h readier to draw o n the period of the Gauls to explain its origins, since Vercingetorix, a native, briefly rallied the diverse peoples of Gaul against the R o m a n invader. And one should not overlook the role that such m o n u m e n t s to the dead, placed in the daily path of the living, can play in the formation of a concept of identity in the collective memory. This is h o w the Gaulish period remains the period par excellence for explaining the origins of the French people. It is therefore not surprising that the debate which surrounds the questions of dating of this period reflect this ideological background. Differences of opinion about the chronology of this period are associated with different schools of thought and are rooted in the m o d e r n historico-ideological context. T h e custom is to date such sites as either before or after Caesar's invasion of Gaul. A cyclical duality oscillates between imperialist versus

Copyrighted

Material

200

Beatrice Fleury-llett

anti-colonialist, as is explained below. T h e r e are two conflicting approaches to dating, Romanist and n o n - R o m a n i s t , numismatist and archaeologist; the Romanist, numismatic approach which tends to date Late Iron Age sites to the R o m a n period; and the n o n - R o m a n i s t , archaeological approach which tends to date the same sites into the pre-Caesarian period (Fleury 1986: 29—30). T h e polarisation of the debate and the circularity of the responses which each school continues to make regardless of its preferred methodology (Debord 1984: 27—30, 3 3 - 7 ; D e b o r d and Buchsenschutz 1988: 132; Pion 1988: 1-6) indicate a binary reasoning. Variations of this can be found in B r u n and D e b o r d (1991: 54—7); I have considered such arguments elsewhere (1986: 36—44). However, while criticising the R o m a n o - n u m i s m a t i s t approach for its overemphasis of the key historical dates, they nevertheless hold to an interpretation which appears to give considerable weight to particular historical events. O n e can safely hypothesise that it is unlikely that both schools are wrong. But other propositions can be formulated; for example that the site is b o t h p r e - R o m a n and R o m a n , or that cultural changes in Gaul are not sudden but dynamic (Fleury in preparation). A second hypothesis can be drawn from recent developments in Gaulish archaeology. T h e contemporary ideological context, and also the content of the period studied, favour this dichotomy. T h e fashion for Gaulish studies at the end of the last century, in an ideological context which could be described as 'imperial', has been taken up again in recent years, but in an antithetic ideological context, namely anti-colonial. T h e taste for Gallic autonomy, in an ideological climate which believes in national self-determination, has supplanted the nineteenth-century view that Classical civilisation was superior, and that the R o m a n invasion of Gaul brought Gaul into the civilised world. T h e present development of Late Iron Age studies in France can be explained by the overall context of archaeology in contemporary France, which requires an overview of the wider context. T h e 1970s saw the development of archeologie nationale. This t e r m cannot be translated literally. It is not 'nationalist archaeology', in the sense applied to early developments of European archaeological studies in the A n g l o p h o n e literature, and so labeled by Trigger (1984) w h o introduces the word national alongside 'nationalist' (1989: 174), without explanation of the difference. Perhaps the best parallel for the English reader is the national sentiment implicit in the expressions Welsh or Scottish heritage relative to English heritage. T h e nuance between 'national' and 'nationalist' is n o n e the less fine and the impact of the one (national identity) on the other (nationalism) is well worth discussing. Nevertheless, although the distinction between national and nationalist may in the last resort fade, a semantic distinction is necessary here for a methodological purpose. W i t h o u t this distinction,

Copyrighted Material

The identity of France

201

a n u m b e r of traits which constitute this archaeology could well not be discerned, with the result that we might not be able to identify its true practice. T h e word 'national' contains an essentially passive notion, culturaldescriptive in character, b o u n d to the identity of one group of individuals in relation to another, and ascribed a cultural dimension in the present context. Conversely, the word 'nationalist' embodies an offensive sense, linked to the instinct of aggression as defined by Freud (Szaluta 1987: 34—5); the aggressive impulse is channelled in society through the b o n d i n g of a group by love, in such a way that its aggressiveness is diverted towards an external group. Nationalism is a means by which this process is achieved. T h e concept of 'national' is central to my analysis. It has an enhanced meaning in the French m o d e of thought, reflecting geographical, linguistic, institutional, and historical factors; the position of France at the extremity of the European continent, the recipient of constant migrations, and of recurrent invasions; and the centralised state governed from Paris. In the French context, archeologie nationale has three distinct characteristics. 1

2

3

It builds o n the separate, traditional and well developed archaeologies o n French soil, notably the Palaeolithic, Classical archaeology and Medieval archaeology, by giving equal weight to the archaeology of the intervening, hitherto less fashionable, periods, and by attempting to address the totality as a coherent whole. It distinguishes the archaeology in and of France from French archaeology in a wider sense. T h e latter encompasses the archaeology of other parts of the world undertaken by French archaeologists. It is distinct from the archaeology of neighbouring regions, e.g., the south of England and the Rhineland, even where the archaeological record of these regions is immediately related to the archaeological record in what is n o w France.

Archeologie nationale and the centralised organisational structure make archaeology in France particularly susceptible to political and ideological trends. T h e developments of the 1970s are rooted in the 1960s and in turn explain the situation in the 1980s described above. T h e main characteristic was the growing development of archeologie nationale ( Q u e r r i e n and Schnapp 1984: 32). Chapelot (1984: 7 4 - 6 ) notes that this changed the emphasis of the previous period in which the prevalent archaeological interest apart from the Palaeolithic period and Classical Mediterranean area had been with areas outside the borders of France. ( O n the develo p m e n t of archeologie nationale see maps in Q u e r r i e n 1984: 33; and maps in Les Nouvclles de Varcheologie 1984 16: 25—6). This new development was partly due to more extensive exploitation of land in France. I would

Copyrighted Material

202

Beatrice Fleury-llett

argue that it was also due to the relative decline in opportunities for overseas research as Third World countries asserted their independence; the ideological climate of 1968; social and political change; the changing role of archaeologists and the centralisation of archaeology; and the role of collective m e m o r y in constructing a concept of national culture. T h e picture changed during the 1980s, but the legacy of the post 1968 era remains. D u r i n g the 1970s, for reasons associated with the events of 1968 and its ideological climate, the term proto histoire emerged and Neolithic studies developed. Apart from the factors mentioned above, the 1968 ideological climate of an egalitarian society with its quest for anarchy promoted the study of Neolithic societies, which were considered to be egalitarian. In the 1980s, with the climate of increased e c o n o m i c c o m p e t itiveness, international exchange, return to the values of hierarchy (and mandarinate) stimulated the study of the Late Iron Age, which tended to be interpreted in similar economic and sociological terms. O v e r the last thirty years, the social background, approach and training of archaeologists, have altered and so has their role. Many of the present senior archaeologists began their careers in 1968. T h e ' n e w ' archaeologists attempted to take advantage of the changes in the economic situation and their social consequences by supporting the government's investment in the so-called 'non-lucrative areas'. A shift towards a 'leisure society' was natural. An acceleration in these developments was noticeable in 1981 w h e n a socialist government came into power. This situation was attractive to ex-radicals of May 1968 for w h o m there had been n o alternative structure available. It is also in this light, grafted on to national identity, that the investment in the budget for 'culture' in France has to be seen. These factors have induced cultural investment by the State and the use, by the political system, of archaeology as an instrument to reinforce a concept of identity and unified culture. T h e notion of identity is central here; 'bonding of a group by love' amounts to recognition of oneself in others. T h e b o n d i n g of a group is achieved through their identification in a c o m m o n denominator, the Hero. In this case, there is equality in content between hero and ego as this process plays on identification. T h e French people establishes its identity through a c o m m o n ancestor, necessarily a Hero. This identification is familiar to the French and so recorded in the collective memory. Mitterand's reference at Bibracte to the 'first act of our history' revives the H e r o as an archetype. T h e first history lesson, for five to six-years-olds in the French classroom of the 1950s, started as I still r e m e m b e r it (in Tunis): 'Our ancestors the Gauls . . .'. This constitutes a background for the collective m e m o r y ; the French people identify with a quasi-mythological figure: Vercingetonx was presented as National Hero. Furthermore, the image the French have of themselves and other people have of the French is close to Strabo's famous description of the Gauls (IV, 4: 2—4): ' T h e entire race

Copyrighted Material

The identity of France

203

which is called Gallic . . . is short-tempered and quick to fight, but otherwise simple in their ways and without malice. O n c e provoked, they form into a mass to fight, openly and without reflection, with the result that they are easy to deal with for those w h o wish to beat them.'

THE POWER OF SYMBOLS T h e events in central Gaul reported by Caesar in De Bello Gallica (VII, 55, 63, 90; VIII, 2, 4) which marked the end of Gaulish independence reflect the themes of resistance, kingship and unity, heroisation. These themes are invested in the person of Vercingetorix, mythical hero and c o m m o n ancestor. T h e y are echoed in the m o d e r n themes of colonialism, national identity and national unity, heroism and resistance. T h e fact that such elements underlie Iron Age studies and fit familiar archetypes helps one to c o m p r e h e n d h o w the p e r m a n e n c e of archetypes may contaminate the archaeological construction. T h e first theme, colonialism/anti-colonialism is found in the dualism of Late Iron Age studies, which address both the indigenous Gaulish culture and the R o m a n invasion, and where much of the controversy centres on the interaction between the two. Caesar's invasion of 52 BC has a dualistic aspect (colonialism/anticolonialisrn) that the nineteenth century and the twentieth century each exploited in its o w n way. For the nineteenth century, Classical civilisation was superior and Gaul enters the civilised world with Caesar's invasion. This interpretation was consistent with the nineteenth-century colonisation of the Third World. Twentiethcentury representations of the R o m a n conquest emphasise Gaulish resistance to the R o m a n s ; a view which fits comfortably with the antiinvasionist, anticolonial ideals cherished in twentieth-century liberal, western ideology. In the second theme, National Identity and National Unity, it is primarily the notions of identity and unity tout court and their corollary, 'specificity' ('specificite' as in Braudel, 1986: 1,190) that are relevant. Identity is a matter of ego. It is the role of the chief/hero to achieve unity by transferring the ego to the level of the group; in addition, culture will safeguard the specificity of the group. I will show below h o w three of the more detailed characteristics of the notion of unity; political unity, unity in time of crisis, unity and kingship are equally relevant in contemporary, m o d e r n historical and archaeological contexts. T h e difficulties of achieving political unity and centralisation given the pressure of tribal/regional division were illustrated by Mirabeau w h o , in a celebrated c o m m e n t in 1789, described France as 'an agglomeration of disunited peoples observing different customs, subjected to different laws . . . and obedient to local rather than national loyalties'. Although two centuries of Napoleonic centralisation have unified France to a certain extent, the need for constant appeal to national unity is still present.

Copyrighted Material

204

Beatrice Fleury-llett

Caesar gave much the same picture in his description of Gaul as 'divided into three parts, one inhabited by the Belgae, another by the Aquitanians, and the third by people who called themselves Celts. All these peoples differed among themselves in language, customs and laws'. President Mitterand's choice of words (1985) for the opening of the Mont-Beuvray excavation at the site of Bibracte ignored past and present disunity. Unity in time of crisis is, however, central to Mitterand's statement. His speech was delivered just before the 1986 legislative elections which resulted in the first episode of cohabitation between a President of the Left and a government of the Right. Bibracte, 'where the first act of our history was played', is where the tribal chiefs of Gaul, joined in a coalition, proclaimed Vercingetorix their king during the period of external threat before the battle of Alesia against Caesar in 52 BC (B. G. VII, 55, 63, 90) which ended the resistance of the Gauls to the Romans. The drive for unity, actualised in the struggle to win the leadership, is illustrated by the theme of Kingship. The institutional context of the Fifth Republic enables the political use of archaeological projects to demonstrate possession of the cultural high ground. The excavation of the 'cour du Louvre' from 1983 to 1986 coincided in terms of political and cultural activity with Mont-Beuvray. The cour du Louvre operation was divided between two teams of archaeologists, one under the Ministry of Culture, the other under the City of Paris, at the same time as the Mayor of Paris was challenging a perception of national unity in the forthcoming elections. This mirrored a division in French political life which symbolised threat to national unity and so became polarised and transposed into cultural terms on both Right and Left. Each side used archaeological prestige, among other cultural 'weapons', in its political struggle. This was literally visible on the ground in the 'cour du Louvre', with its two teams reflecting the 'diarchy' which existed at the heart of the French State once the post of Mayor of Paris was recreated with the departure of the last prefect of Paris in 1977, and the key opponent of the President became Mayor. The third theme, heroism, crystallises the first two, in the figure of the Hero. In opposition to Caesar's invasion in 52 B C , Celtic Gaul unites in a coalition under the command of Vercingetorix, at the site of Bibracte. Vercingetorix, now king, is an Arveni chief whose capital is Gergovie. Caesar besieges Vercingetorix at Alesia. Vercingetorix is defeated. But although he loses the battle, because he sacrifices himself to his people by surrendering, he transforms himself into a hero. These events reported by Caesar (B.G. VII, 36, 55, 63) take place on three sites whose symbolism is heavily significant, and which emphasise the role of the Hero. Gergovie = resistance and defeat; Alesia = heroisation; Bibracte = kingship and unity. The three symbols are central to the concept of the hero. The symbolism which led to the choice of

Copyrighted Material

The identity of France

205

the site of Bibracte becomes clear. Gergovie ended in a defeat; Alesia was the bastion of Gaulish resistance to Caesar but also of its capitulation; but the site of Bibracte where the Gauls had rallied to a single chief was the obvious candidate for Mitterand's address. HERO, ARCHETYPE

AND

REPETITIVE

ACTS

T h e power of the symbols is effected by the mechanism of collective m e m o r y through the m e d i u m of semic acts, by which I mean a code, gesture or ritual act which signals and actualises the appropriation of power. T h e notion of the H e r o as appropriated from the ancient Greek conception of a hero; a c o m m o n mortal w h o is placed above the others by reason of his actions; may overlap with the concept of divine right defined by Bossuet in 1679 and claimed by Louis X I V for his authority as absolute monarch (Beloff 1954: 50—52). This notion could put the Absolute Monarch on a par with the immortals (or half-gods) of Classical times. However, monarchs were humans and their power had to be established. T h e act of enthronement, found throughout the historical record (see Bloch 1968 [19391: 523—5), specifically applies to the rites used to install monarchs, w h e t h e r they inherited by direct descent, were n e w in line, or indeed usurpers, and to legitimate the source of their power. Napoleon III and Mitterand used, respectively, the sites of Alesia and Bibracte to reinforce their power and resist challenges. Napoleon Ill's eagerness to 'investigate' archaeological remains could be interpreted as an attempt to seek out the legitimacy of his authority. Archaeology gave the new Emperor the opportunity to imply a lineal relationship to the first king of 'our history' by erecting the m o n u m e n t to Vercingetorix at Alesia, the site of Vercingetorix's heroisation. T h e French presidential power struggle in 1984 shows similar rites in a m o d e r n context. T h e ceremony preceding the opening of the Mont-Beuvray excavation would have been the realisation of such a 'rite'! At a time w h e n the Mayor of Paris was about to challenge what was perceived as national unity in the forthcoming legislative election and of escalating political activity, the Mont-Beuvray ceremony recalled rituals of enthronement, and appealed for unity. But the 'rite' had n o w to derive from another authority, that of The Act of History. T h e analysis above reveals a correlation between significant profane gestures and 'ritual' acts whose purpose is to actualise the accession to power, or as here to recall the event. These established and repetitive gestures can be retraced infinitely in the historical record. Eliade (1969 [1949]: 48—52, 59) states that collective m e m o r y recollects a historical event by the 'niythicisation' of the event, and by the 'rapprochement' of the historic character to its archetype.

Copyrighted Material

206

Beatrice Fleury-llett

The semic acts identified above activate memory by their repetition, recall the common ancestor and by so doing bring the historical character closer to its archetype (Figure 13.3); it is through such a process that historical events become fixed in the collective memory. The semic acts structure memory and so also the processes of choice. The very processes involved in the 'choice' of research strategies and archaeological interpretation are influenced by the permanence of archetypes. In cognitive mechanisms the symbol presides over our processes of 'choice' and of interpretation by the power of representation conferred by its semiotic character.

Figure 13.3

The archetype and the historic character

Copyrighted Material

The identity of France

207

CONCLUSION It has been suggested in this chapter that symbols fit familiar archetypes and so reinforce the use of the original archaeological strategy. This is important because government policy has an impact on archaeology through the allocation of limited funds which are directed towards particular periods for political or ideological reasons; so by a self-feeding process government policy influences the construction of areas for research. Sites may be chosen for study according to ideological factors related to perceptions which are essentially those of national feeling. By this process of choice, the exercise of budgetary power makes science tributary to ideology and so influences the o u t c o m e . T h e interpretation of the period u n d e r study is distorted and the problem of periodisation becomes more acute; periods of 'change', i.e. those at the interface with other periods, are especially at risk of distortion through this bias since they can only b e properly understood if a substantial period of time o n either side of the interface is studied. Such a description of the 'total' context of French archaeology serves to raise archaeologists' consciousness of the symbols which underlie Iron Age studies, notably those reflecting the archetype of the c o m m o n ancestor which is by definition a source of identity. T h e need for an historically-rooted identity influences the processes of selection which guide research strategies and interpretation. These issues are reflected in the activities of politicians which reinforces the use of the original archaeological/ideological strategy. Such bias can affect what is researched as well as what research concludes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Professor M.J. Rowlands (Department of Anthropology, University College London) and D r A.J. Laite (lately Senior Lecturer, D e p a r t m e n t of Sociology, University of Manchester) for their constructive criticisms, and to M r N.J. Ilett for helping m e transcribe the nuances and subtleties of the French language. I would also like to acknowledge the influence of Professor J. Delumeau (College de France) for the appreciation of collective mentality in the literary and artistic production of a given period.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Les Nouveiles de I'archiologie (1984) 16: 18—45. Maison des Sciences de l'Homme: Paris. Beloff M. (1954) The Age of Absolutism, 1660-1815. London: Hutchinson and Co. Bloch, M. (1968 [1939]) La societe feodale. Pans: Editions Albin Michel. Braudel, F. (1986) L'Identite de la France. Les Homines et les Glioses. Paris: ArthaudFlammarion.

Copyrighted Material

208

Beatrice Fleury-llett

Brun, P. and J. Dcbord (1991) 'Monnaies trouvees en fouilles sur l'oppidum de Pommiers (Aisne).' Revue Numismatique VI series, vol. XXXIII. C:aesarJ. (1984, 12th edn [1926]) De Bella Gallico. Paris: Traduction Bude. Chapelot J. and A. Schnapp (1984) La Politique de I'Archiologie en liurope. C N R S table ronde 1978. Pans: C N R S . Dcbord J. (1984) 'Les origines Gauloises de Soissons, oscillation d'un site urbain.' Revue Archeologique de Picardie 3—4: 27—40. Amiens. , B. Lambot and O. Buchsenschutz (1988) 'Les fosses couverts du site de Villeneuve Saint Germain.' Dossier de Protohistoirc 2: Architecture des Ages des Metaux. Paris: ERA 314 du C N R S . Delumeau J. (1967) La Civilisation de la Renaissance. Paris: Arthaud. (1971) 'La fin du Moyen Age et la civilisation de la Renaissance'. Cours de Sorbonne. Unpublished. (1983) Le Peche et la Pcur. Paris: Fayard. Eliade, M. (1969 [1949]) Le mythc de I'Hternel Retour. Archetypes et Repetitions. Paris: Gallimard. Ferdiere, A. (1985) 'Avant propos.' In A. Villes (ed.), La Civilisation Gauloise en Pays Carnute.: 4—5. Edite par la ville de Chateaudun, avec le concours de la Direction des in usees de France et de la Direction Regionale des Affaires culturelles du Centre. Fleury, B. (1986) 'Late iron age chronology in the light of new material from the Aisne valley (northern France).' Bulletin 23: 29-46. London: Institute of Archaeology. Mitterand, F. (1985) 'Allocution prononcee par Monsieur Francois Mitterand, President de la Republique, au Mont-Beuvray, mardi 17 septembre 1985.' Nouvelles de I'Archeologie 21: 51—5. Pion, P. (1988) 'Le sauvetage de l'oppidum de Conde sur Suippe/Variscourt (Aisne).' Bulletin du Centre de Recherches Archeologiques de Soissons 2: 2—6. Soissons. Querrien, A. (1982) Pour line Nouvelle Politique du Patrimoine. Paris. La Documentation Francaise. and A. Schnapp (1984) Deuxieme Rapport sur la Politique Archeologique en Prance. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. Strabo Geographie, vol. iv. SzalutaJ. (1987) La Psychohistoire. Pans: PUF. Trigger, B.C. (1984) 'Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist.' Man 19, 3: 355-70. (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

NARRATIVES

OF VEOY

On the poetics and scientijics of archaeology BRIT

SOLLI

T h e ideas, problems and methods presented below have been inspired by the post-processual theoretical debate of the mid-eighties onwards. This discourse has been dominated by theory and has not been excessively preoccupied with the development of methodologies. N o r has it made efforts toward outlining a theory of post-processual practice. Let me tell you a tale of h o w a post-processualist met with the past archaeological landscapes and present rural and urban communities of a fjord-district in north-western Norway.

THE PROBLEMS T h e t e r m 'post-processual' designates manifold directions in archaeology. I find the discussions concerning 'the writing of archaeologies' most thought-provoking: we have to 'find a way between science and narrative' (Shanks 1990: 309). Aristotle's once sharp and solid division between fiction and fact seems to melt into thin air. As a consequence, any textual re-presentation of the 'real', the outside world, becomes problematic in terms of the possibility of total referentiality to the 'real' in text. Disciplines dealing with past events, structures and processes have taken up the challenge of the poetics of 'faction'; for example Hayden W h i t e (1973; 1978; 1987) in history and Misia Landau (1991) in paleontology. T h r o u g h o u t the 1980s N o r t h American ethnographers have been discussing the poetics of ethnography (Clifford and Marcus 1986; Clifford 1988; Marcus and Cushman 1982; Marcus and Fischer 1986; Rosaldo 1989; Stoller 1989; Van Maanen 1988), and in Europe social anthropologists have taken up the challenge of a critical focus on the writing of ethnographies/anthropologies (Hastrup 1992a; Hastrup and Hervik 1994; Okely and Callaway 1992). Let me elaborate on these issues. As archaeologists we are storytellers, we create narratives of the past, we know that there is not only one true past. According to W h i t e (1973),

Copyrighted Material

210

Brit Solli

b o t h the present and past are contingent, chaotic, without narrative structures. H e maintains that w h e n we describe the past w e d o it through predetermined, archetypical tropes — prefigurative structures. In spite of o u r source-critical, scientific methods we are writers of tales (Solli 1992b); even the father of m o d e r n historical source-critical methods, Leopold R a n k e , wrote emplotted stories of a 'tropical' nature (White 1973). T h e 'content of the form' the tropics of discourse, are, according to W h i t e (1978; 1987), decisive. T h e paradox of White's position is that epistemologically it comprises both a theoretical belief in deterministic elements (the archetypical tropes), and contingent elements (the n o n narrative chaos of events). White's point about the contingency of the past, the seemingly chaotic character of the material fragments left to us from which we try to compile a 'fragmentarium', or various 'fragmentaria', coincides with my intuitive and emotional perception of my o w n archaeological practice. T h e way I structure material fragments and events into a narrative text creates a content which is derivative of the narrative form rather than the evidence, and which ultimately transforms dispersed 'things', not only into words, b u t also into intelligible narratives of the past. This intuitive perception of archaeological practice is in sharp contrast with the professional 'expert' in me. I am trained through b o t h academic and field practice to d o c u m e n t the evidence systematically and 'scientifically', as if the evidence itself was the sole narrator of the past. Cultural layers and finds must be properly uncovered and d o c u m e n t e d , taphonomical histories recovered, and a variation of sourcecritical methods applied and so on. Is it at all possible to make the 'narrative' and the 'systematic' perceptions of archaeology epistemologically commensurate? T h e French sociologist Edgar M o r i n advocates a complexity paradigm which accommodates the incommensurable, manifold and unfinished (Morin 1987; 1990). T h e total solution of a problem leads to the unproductive and fota/itarian. Morin's complexity paradigm resembles Richard Rorty's description of the ironist w h o 'has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabularies she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies. . . . Ironists are 'meta-stable': (they are) always aware that the terms in which they describe themselves are subject to change, always aware of the contingency and fragility of their final vocabularies . . .' (Rorty 1989: 7 3 - 4 ) . If I choose to ' c o m e o u t ' as an ironist in the R o r t i a n sense of the term, various difficulties of a paradoxical nature arise. T h e i n c o m m e n s u r ability of the situation is obvious: as an archaeologist I want to do good archaeology, demonstrating that I am aware of any source-critical traps, taphonomical histories, that I k n o w the latest research and theories relevant to my field of investigation, etc.. Because if I do sloppy work, my research will not be taken seriously by the archaeological community.

Copyrighted Material

Narratives of Veoy

211

At the same time I am fully aware of the temporality and historicity of the present rules of the archaeological trade. In a few years time n e w ideas, source-material and vocabularies will make my stories hopelessly out of date and 'primitive'. Maybe the once source-critical archaeological narrative will c o m e to resemble the folkloristic traditions or 'other histories' (Hastrup 1992d) evolving around the site, rather than the n e w archaeological narratives in the process of being written. So why bother to be 'scientific' in the first place, w h e n the scientifics inevitably will turn into folkloristics within a short period of time? Furthermore, folkloristic narratives very often do evolve around archaeological m o n u m e n t s , landscapes and sites, but from where do they originate, h o w are they generated? A complex discourse of knowledge promulgates a diversification of the past; not only histories of the great civilisations of Europe and its nationstates are of interest but also of the silent 'other', the peoples and communities ' w i t h o u t ' histories (Wolf 1982). In the last decade there have been confrontations with the aboriginal and indigenous populations in Australia and the U n i t e d States. Archaeologists, physical anthropologists and ethnographers have begun to take the legendary/mythical 'other' past into serious consideration, thereby questioning their own rationale for behaving as outside experts. T h e 'other' histories are not only a question of exotic minority cultures of Third World countries and indigenous peoples. Any European field archaeologist, or ethnographer, also meets such 'other histories'; the uniqueness and the unity of European history must be dismantled. The unified sense of history seems to be a discursive rather than a social fact and the product of a highly literate Enlightenment heritage. In Europe as elsewhere there is a multiplicity of histories. (Hastrup 1992c: 2) Inside of the mainstream of majority history a myriad of histories exists. W i t h the exception of the obligatory school curricula, few people in industrialised western societies actually read archaeology or history. This does not mean that they are people without (pre) histories (Olsen 1986). There are a polyphony of stories out there; for the academically trained storyteller it may be tempting to classify this multi-plurality as a cacophonic fringe and leave it at that. As experts on past material culture, we are quite unconsciously trained to control non-experts' stories of the past. However, the intellectual discourse of the 1980s in various academic disciplines should make us feel uneasy. O u r rights to expert authority and control are put into serious question. Theoretical, intellectual games can continue only as long as you are not confronted with people and communities outside academia. Hastrup and Meulengracht Sorensen dispute the assumption that authentic material or sources are necessary in the writing of history

Copyrighted Material

212

BritSolli

(Hastrup and Meulengracht Sorensen 1987: 9). T h e y claim that it is the written and oral tradition, rather than the skeletons themselves, which induce life into the sources of the past. Furthermore, from the point of view of tradition, the skeleton itself does not have primary significance. Indeed, detailed analyses of bones may contradict the tradition that a king was buried somewhere, and hence deconstruct the history. W i t h o u t the stories we lose the history (Hastrup and Meulengracht Sorensen 1987: 10); myopic specialisation and detailed studies of a sourcecritical character do not enrich history: on the contrary, history is deprived of meaning. Hastrup and Meulengracht Sorensen's somewhat polemical desire to reintroduce, more or less, folkloristic tradition and the Norse sagas into the academic history and archaeology of Scandinavia is t h o u g h t provoking. But they definitely miss an important point in this reintroduction; where do the traditional stories c o m e from? W h e r e d o the stories and traditions originate that give life to archaeological m o n u m e n t s and sites? Maybe the stories of today originate from the written discourse of yesterday, for example, nineteenth-century historical research. W h y should we interpret these stories as more lifegiving than o u r own? These are questions I shall take up later at a very concrete and practical level. O u t there, in the landscape, archaeologists are confronted by other histories and storytellers. An archaeological investigation will intrude, and maybe erase these other stories. Archaeology has undoubtedly played a role as a terminator of folkloristic narratives, local legends and myths. Post-processual archaeologies recognise the temporality and historicity of archaeological narratives. A self-evident consequence of this recognition should be that the folkloristic narratives are respected and made 'visible' in archaeological texts. T h e differentiality and, most often, the i n c o m mensurability between the archaeological and folkloristic narratives should b e stressed and not their value in relation to a non-discursive ' T r u t h ' about the past. Yet an investigation into the poetics of archaeology is uninteresting if it fails to engage with archaeological practice. Post-processual recourse to theory is just as uninteresting as processual recourse to m e t h o d (Solli 1992c). In much of the post-processual literature, ideas have neither been confronted with the archaeological landscapes, nor the people and the communities presently inhabiting these landscapes. Few convincing stories have been written through the constraints of archaeological material and fieldwork (Solli 1992a). W h a t follows is an account of my attempt to explore both the relationship between an archaeologist and some storytellers, and of the archaeological narratives and 'other histories' of a small island in Romsdal, Norway.

Copyrighted Material

Narratives of Veoy

Figure 14.1

213

Location of Veoy in Romsdal, Norway

GEOGRAPHICAL, HISTORICAL AND A R C H A E O L O G I C A L S E T T I N G OF V E 0 Y

The island of Veoy is situated in the middle of the fjords in the northwestern part of Norway (see Figure 14.1). In old Norse the name Veoy meant 'the holy island'. In the 1220s, the Icelandic saga writer Snorri Sturlusson describes a battle close to Veoy, in 1162, in which king Hakon Herdebrei was slain. The king had, in vain, expected a lot of help from the townsmen in Veoy. Here, for the first time, written sources indicate that a medieval small town or market place was located on the island. Two additional passages in thirteenth-century sagas, and some letters written on the island in the fourteenth century, substantiate the idea that Veoy was some kind of central place in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries. A church built of stone around An 1200 functioned as a parish church until 1907 (Bergsvik 1991b: 124). An extensive area of very black cultural layers, covers about 40,000 m2 west and south-west of the church (see Figure 14.2). Located on the southern part of the island are some gravecairns and a large area with signs of intensive tilling, from which excavations recovered evidence of cultivation as far back as 1600 B C (Solli 1991: 37). The cultural-historical problems of the project revolve around questions of centre-periphery relations, and the Christianisation and urbanisation of western Norway. The function of the island as a central place was severely diminished after the Great Pestilence (the Black Death) in 1349-50. Around 1450 the only people living on the island were the parish priest and his household who moved to the mainland in the late 1890s. The church on Veoy was closed down as a parish church and new churches were raised on various sides of the fjord. At present, the island is uninhabited.

Copyrighted

Material

214

Brit Solli

Figure 14.2

Map of Veoy and Hangholmen with the location of the church

THE OTHER

HISTORIES

OF

VEOY

Archaeology deals with the past through the space of the present. This situates archaeology in an almost unique position a m o n g disciplines studying the h u m a n past. T h e hitherto k n o w n history of Veoy has for the most part concentrated o n the Middle Ages. A past only twenty-four to thirty-two generations away. T h e material traces of the past on Veoy are situated in a landscape which I, as a point of departure, assumed meant something special to the people in the mainland settlements and communities surrounding the island; particularly so to people in those settlements which once belonged to the old parish of Veoy. T h e churchyard was officially closed d o w n w h e n n e w churches were built o n the mainland. But, [t]he new churches never got the same hold on people as the old one; people did not like the thought of a total desertion of Veoy. Many good memories were attached to the place and people buried their dear ones on the island up until the last possible moment. (Bergsvik 1991a: 139) D u r i n g 1907 and 1908 inaugural services were held in the new churches o n Solsnes, H o l m , R o d v e n , and the chapel on Sekken (Bergsvik 1991b). T h e parishioners resisted the idea that the Christian saga of Veoy should be definitely over, and it was decided that a service should be held every W h i t s u n in the old church on the island. An annual service is still held and the tradition is well rooted, not only in the old parish of Veoy, but in the w h o l e of Romsdal. Traditionally, the secularised Norwegians only fill up the churches on Christmas Eve. T h e fact that every Whitsun the church o n Veoy is overcrowded shows that this is more than a Christian religious tradition. It has b e c o m e a tradition of revisiting the past. After church there are always one or two storytellers telling tales of Veoy. O n the Whitsun of 1991 and 1992, it was my privilege to be the storyteller.

Copyrighted

Material

Narratives of Veoy

215

In 1990, however, I was, by my o w n choice, a listener and I will elaborate o n the reasons for this decision below. Archaeology has not developed methods for the location and serious consideration of folkloristic narratives and other histories in western industrialised societies. T h e living traditions of non-western peoples arctaken into serious consideration; and the relationship between archaeological and folkloristic narratives is often incommensurable and problematic (Layton 1989a; 1989b). In such cases the problems are situated in anthropological and cultural terms. But what about a situation where the expert - the fieldworker — cannot be said to be culturally different from those living in the landscape under study? W h a t about a situation where the actual fieldworker in fact grew up in the area that is being worked upon? This fieldworker is in many ways b o t h different from, due to her expert status, and part of 'the other'. This is my position in relationship to my work on Veoy. I grew up and went to school in the nearby town of Molde. In 1978 I moved to go to university, but my family still lives in Molde. I would be unlikely to be seen as an outsider digging into other people's past, but inevitably I was situated socially as a professional, middle-class girl from town. M y father used to work as a country policeman (lensmann) and as an insurance agent, my m o t h e r taught 'half the t o w n ' to play the piano. I still speak the particular small-town dialect of Molde, which, just a few miles out of town, is considered to be somewhat snobbish. At the outset of the project I was aware of the fact that my Molde background might be held against m e by people in the old parish communities of Veoy. Altogether, I did consider my geographical and social background as a better point of departure for obtaining contact with the local communities than that which a total stranger from a remote university would have had. Unlike an outside expert, however, I also had to make convincing statements in public about archaeology and the past in order to substantiate my transition to the status of an expert and therefore be entrusted with the task of excavating, and temporarily messing up, the landscape of Veoy. This intermediate position, being both an expert and one of the 'others', put m e in a state of continual internal negotiation between two roles on the excavational scene. I k n e w that tensions might arise if the archaeologist's narratives were told without reference to those w h o for decades have had status in the local c o m m u n i t y as storytellers of Veoy. I would have to make clear very early on in the project that I respected the stories of 'other' storytellers. Consequently, my methodological point of departure was that any archaeological field project is an ethnographic one as well. T h e archaeological excavation affects the landscape and the people living in that landscape. T h e most important thing at the beginning of the project was not to provoke the other storytellers committed to their own narratives of Veoy. W h o were these storytellers? And h o w should I approach them?

Copyrighted Material

216

Brit Solli THE OTHER STORYTELLERS A N D THEIR HISTORIES

In 1905 the northern part of Veoy, Nordoya, including the parsonage, was b o u g h t by William C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t , a Norwegian naval officer. Like many y o u n g N o r w e g i a n officers of his time, he served for a period, from 1890—93, in the Imperial Customs Service of China. William C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t was a colourful personality, and I dare say, even somewhat on the eccentric side. In 1905, w h e n the Swedish-Norwegian U n i o n was dissolved, he claimed seriously to be a pretender of the Norwegian T h r o n e . H e considered himself a direct descendant of King Harald Fairhair, w h o died c. AD 933. C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t did not b e c o m e the king of Norway, but he certainly developed his own k i n g d o m on Veoy (Hestenes 1948; Thingvold 1991). H e was extremely interested in history, with special preferences for narratives describing the medieval grandeur of the Norwegian Realm; a period in which the authority of the King of N o r w a y reached as far as Greenland, Iceland, Isle of Man, and so on. H e claimed to have held 5,200 historical lectures all over the country (see Figure 14.3). In fact this was h o w he earned his living. William C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t was a strong personality and a powerful storyteller and, although he died in 1948, he is very m u c h remembered and so are his stories; they made a great impression on the people in the old parish c o m m u n i t y and this is of course why I present these seemingly irrelevant biographical data. Q u i t e a lot of the stories told today may be traced back to William C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t , in fact people often make direct references to him. Unfortunately he did not transform his stories of Veoy into texts. But through conversations with people w h o k n e w him, and through texts of his contemporary listeners, it is possible to get an impression of what kinds of stories C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t told. N o t surprisingly, his narratives abound with 'heroes', 'villains', and past greatness. Very often, he used material traces to prove the correctness of his stories. In 1923 a group of Catholic priests visited Veoy. C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t fired a salute to welcome the first Catholic priests in 400 years to visit the island 'where several of the Norwegian kings once resided and where archbishops lived during the s u m m e r m o n t h s ' (K.K. 1923: 315). H e guided his guests around, showing t h e m ruins of the king's buildings, the old St Peter's C h u r c h , and the foundations of the archbishop's residence. H e maintained that in the latter building the last Catholic archbishop of Norway, Olav Engelbrektson, stayed on his visits to Veoy. C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t deplored the removal of the medieval interior of the stone church '. . . in irreverent times, w h e n Norway was a dependent province under greedy Danish kings' (K.K. 1923: 317). H e had obviously read books on the history of medieval Norway, but he definitely created his o w n colourful and nationalistic interpretations regardless of academic source-criticism of any kind. People still

Copyrighted Material

Narratives of Veoy

217

Figure 14.3 William Coucheron-Aamot. Drawing by Gosta Hammarlund in the newspaper Dagbladet, 24 April 1948 (reprinted with the kind permission of Mrs Gerd Hammarlund)

retell these dramatic stories; the archaeological narratives of Veoy cannot match his stories' ability to be remembered and retold. How was I to approach and get to know, the other storytellers? Interviews as practised by ethnologists and folklorists seemed, all things sensitively considered, to be an obtrusive method. Besides, since this was a one-woman project, a series of systematic interviews would have consumed too much of my working capacity. I decided to start off by just being there, doing surveys and digging on what I thought to be uncontroversial parts of the island, I stayed in the background and got to know people. This may remind the reader of the early stages of ethnographic fieldwork on some remote Polynesian island, and this was exactly what I had in mind. Archaeological source-material is out there, in the landscape, and we are bound to meet people living in this landscape. This makes the extraction of archaeological source-material so very different from the compilation of historical source-material. An ethnographic approach takes time, and it was not until the third and last season (each season lasted four months) that I really felt I had got to know people, and a relationship full of confidence had been developed

Copyrighted

Material

218

BritSolli

between myself and the 'other' storytellers. I never formally interviewed anyone; we chatted, and in between a story or two were told. C o n t e m p o r a r y storytellers can be divided into two groups: (1) the local academics; (2) those w h o have childhood memories a n d / o r have, in o n e way or another, been working on the island as domestic servants, during haymaking, or in the forest. G r o u p (1) has a literary knowledge of history; they base their narratives o n general knowledge of history as well as local knowledge of topography, m o n u m e n t s and sites. T h e group consists mostly of teachers. A theologian, however, w h o used to work as curate in a neighbouring parish, is k n o w n , and very m u c h appreciated, for telling stories of Veoy after church on Whitsun. In 1990 I was a m o n g the audience and his historical narrative was blended with biblical interpretations; the result was indeed personal and colourful. T h e structuration of the narrative seemed definitely more important than presentation of sourcecritically correct facts. G r o u p (1) had learned their stories of Veoy through reading, and because of this I consider their narratives less part of the living tradition than the narratives of those w h o were part of an oral tradition. T h a t is not to suggest that a literate tradition is less legitimate than an oral one, but as far as Veoy is concerned the literary tradition is associated more closely with academics from the town than the locals. I was particularly interested in local, spoken legends and myths. Group (2) consists of people with less intellectual and a m o r e personal and emotional relationship to the island. Most of the stories I heard were humorous anecdotes about William C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t and h o w he and his family led their lives on the island. Although his stories concerning the past greatness of Veoy were remembered, especially through names on various places o n the island, for example Kongsgarden (the King's building) and Futgarden, people preferred to convey firsthand or secondhand stories on Coucheron-Aamot's eccentricities. T h e following story, which I heard several times and from various people, may exemplify the kind of stories I was told. D u r i n g an excavation close to the parsonage, a slab of rock was discovered with a cavity beneath it. C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t ordered his men immediately to cover up the spot and forget that they had ever seen anything; the holy treasures of the past should not be disturbed! N o one could tell m e exactly where this spot was situated, but I was e n c o u r aged to try to find this assumed treasure. I suspect that this incident is o n e of many where the old officer, quite on purpose, created a mystery out of material traces in the ground. T h e m o r e enigmatic the island could appear the better. T h e following stories were so c o m m o n that they deserve to be labelled folkloristic narratives: T h e gallows were situated on the islet/holm west of Veoy called H a n g h o l m e n (see Figure 14.2). T h e pile of stones supporting the gallows are still visible.

Copyrighted Material

Narratives of Veay

219

Once there were seven churches on Veoy. Remains of foundations may be seen in several places. Italian pirates and the Swedes destroyed the town by burning it, and the black soils prove that there must have been a great fire. Some people say that the king's house, Kongsgarden, was situated south-west of the stone church. Low stone walls there are said to be the remains of the foundations (see Figure 14.4). Others are certain that this was the place for the medieval regional court and assembly: Tingplassen. Low stone walls west of the church (see Figure 14.4) are the remains of a church, mentioned in a medieval written source and consecrated to the Holy Cross. A stone structure in the western stone wall (see Figure 14.4) is the remains of a scaffold where peoples heads were chopped off. Contemporary archaeological narratives differ from the folkloristic ones. The archaeological interpretation of the stone structure on Hangholmcn

LEGEND: Enclosure T T T

Positive lynchet/terrace

crrrT-i

Recent stonewall

" 67773 \ . . ,~

Line of stones Depression Elevation Stonewall

Figure 14.4 Map of the area enclosed by low stone walls west and southwest of the stone church

Copyrighted

Material

220

Brit Solli

('the gallows on H a n g h o l m e n ' ) is that it is most probably the remains of a Bronze Age burial of which there are several examples in the fjords, generally situated on the eastern or western points of islands. With respect to the narrative of the 'great fire', any contemporary archaeologist will interpret the black soils, not as traces of a great fire, but as cultural layers containing the remains of medieval refuse, hearths and various smaller fires. And any warfare against the Swedes happened centuries after the disappearance of an urbanised c o m m u n i t y on Veoy. In these examples, the relationship between the archaeological and the folkloristic narratives is one of straightforward incommensurability; the narratives are situated in different discourses. T h e area west and southwest of the present stone church is intriguing, and n e w narratives of the area would benefit from some fresh source-material. Excavations in 1992 uncovered the fact that the two enclosed places constitute early Christian churchyards, from the tenth century (see Figure 14.4) (Solli n.d.). H o w should such fantastic stories be approached? Archaeologically they are ' w r o n g ' , they do not stand up to source-critical analysis. But there is n o doubt that the 'other storytellers' enjoy telling them. I especially recall one incident. T h e local paper and radio had d o n e an interview with me, in which I presented some preliminary results and ideas. Shortly afterwards, an elderly lady - in fact the daughter-in-law of William C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t — called the newspaper to pinpoint a couple of errors, one of t h e m concerning neglect of the name Kongsgarden which traditionally designates one of the two enclosed places (see Figure 14.4). But at the same time she was very enthusiastic about my work, and wished m e luck. This attitude seemed widespread a m o n g the other storytellers: they visited the sites quite often, examined the finds, were updated with the results and very excited with my work. But still it did not seem to affect their stories, or their names for various areas on the island. T h e y incorporated the new archaeological narratives into their own narratives in spite of the incommensurability. In fact, it did not seem to bother them; they wanted to tell good stories. T h e y had n o difficulty in structuring what I found to be completely incommensurable stories into one narrative.

ON DIALOGUE, QUESTIONNAIRES AND EMOTIONS T h e r e is another and important third group of people attached to Veoy, i.e., the regular and casual visitors from the region of Romsdal as a whole. W h e r e should I start to get in touch with this group of people? T h e obvious answer was to use the winter season to get acquainted with children in some of the comprehensive schools in Romsdal (private schools are rare in Norway, and there are n o n e in Romsdal). I offered to give talks to various age groups at four different schools in the district.

Copyrighted Material

Narratives of Veoy

221

I assumed that the kids would probably repeat some of the things which I asked them to their families. I also decided to distribute an information sheet to as many households as possible, which also contained a questionnaire. In the questionnaire I encouraged people to present suggestions for further research. People could also express their attitude towards the project by telling me if they thought it was positive, negative or merely uninteresting. Other questions included: do you visit Veoy, if yes, why? How do you experience the landscape? Does the island mean something special to you, and if so, why? Five hundred sheets were distributed through schools, shops, post offices, a bank, a ferry, some were put directly in peoples' mailboxes, and during the summer I also kept some at my little archaeological fieldstation on the island which could be visited by anyone at any time. Twenty-eight sheets, 5.6 per cent, were sent back to me. This percentage was low, but not disappointingly low, because the questionnaire was not the only point of the exercise, the goodwill which it created was of equal importance. What did they tell me? In short: all were excited about the excavations, they wanted me to find out how ordinary people lived in the Middle Ages, and how daily life was conducted on the island. They wanted me to answer questions such as the following: What kinds of clothes did people wear in the Middle Ages? How, and what did they cultivate? What position did this island community have in society? When was the island first settled? Where exactly was the marketplace situated? Who lived there? What did they live on? What role did Veoy play as a Tingsted (i.e., regional court or assembly, a ting)? Was the island an old pagan cult centre? What about trade and commerce? How did the Black Death affect the community? What kind of jobs did people have? What kind of animals lived on the island? How did Veoy become an ecclesiastical centre in Romsdal? Are there finds which show cultural links with the 'civilised world' further south? Did the saga character Gange-Rolv (traditionally identified with the Norman king Rollo!) come from Veoy? Some of the respondents advised me to be 'careful with that which gave the island its name', namely its holiness. People kindly reminded me not to go messing the place up; 'fill in the holes you make in the ground!' Both in the questionnaire, and when visiting the island, people were very

Copyrighted Material

222

Brit Solli

preoccupied with the qualities of the landscape and the very peaceful and historic atmosphere of the island. I am convinced that larger operations o n the island, including large-scale excavations, which in any way disturbed the environment, would be m e t with massive protests. In b o t h the second and third field season the local interest turned out to be overwhelming. Countless numbers of school children and teachers poured over the island looking for the archaeologist. Besides the schoolkids other organised visitors of a mixed blend were: a group of w o m e n from the Association for N o r w e g i a n Housewives; M P s from the C o m m i t t e e for Education and C h u r c h matters from the Norwegian Parliament; local politicians; volunteers working in a local women's refuge; 120 teachers in agriculture. . . . And all of t h e m definitely wanted to be informed about the history of the island by me, the expert. O f course I took every opportunity to ask them questions, but basically the archaeologist was expected to be the teller of tales. And I really cannot blame them; dispersed trenches and black soil profiles d o n o t actually stir the imagination of the n o n - e x p e r t . To avoid the incomprehensible, people wanted an authorised translator and narrator. Breaking d o w n the traditional ex cathedra attitude towards being told by an expert is a m u c h bigger than I had assumed at the start of the project. T h e ethnographic part was n o t meant to be a one-sided transfer of information, but I think this is what it was recognised as by those w h o got involved. Most of the stories I was told could be traced back to written records from the eighteenth, nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, or to William C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t . I did find a living oral tradition evolving around Veoy, but these 'other histories' are based mostly o n the historical and archaeological narratives of o u r predecessors, i.e. the historians and archaeologists of the nineteenth and early to mid-twentieth centuries (cf. Hastrup and Meulengracht Sorensen 1987). These other histories are not a direct re-telling of the old written narratives; oral tradition has twisted and transformed the stories, but not beyond recognition. To complicate the picture further, it is possible that o u r professional predecessors used oral and living traditions as a basis for their written narratives. But we may never k n o w for certain that this was the case. This knowledge, which is outdated by o u r professional archaeologists' standards, means something to the people and communities of Romsdal in terms of attachment, pride and cultural identity. In spite of fact that such 'other histories' are based on 'old' knowledge they comprise an important part of a community's 'folk psychology': Folk psychology is invested in canonicality. It focuses upon the expectable and/or the usual in the human condition. It endows these with legitimacy or authority. Yet it has powerful means that are purpose-built for rendering the exceptional and the unusual into comprehensible form. (Bruner 1990: 47)

Copyrighted Material

Narratives of Veoy

223

And the 'exceptional' deviating from the n o r m s are made intelligible through narrative and narrative interpretation (Bruner 1990). T h e 'other histories' will not be erased in my n e w archaeological narratives of Veoy, but they will be situated in the discursive formation from which they originated (Foucault 1972). Although the histories I recovered could all be traced back to written records, I did find that an ethnographic methodology, embedded within the practice of archaeological fieldwork, turned out to be extremely interesting and rewarding in terms of creating a good relationship between the expert and the non-experts in the local community. I definitely appreciated the fact that Veoy means something important to people in this part of Norway. T h e following story illustrates this point: In 1992 there was a performance, o n the island, of an historical play about Veoy. T h e background to this event was the 250th anniversary of the t o w n of Molde. T h e producer and the director of the play started to behave in a close to dictatorial fashion deciding that, during the eight days in which the play was to be performed, n o small boats should be allowed to land o n the island. This prohibition included Whitsun. As m e n t i o n e d above, there is a continuous tradition since 1907 that a service is held in the old parish church on Whitsun. People in the communities which constituted the old parish of Veoy were outraged by the arrogance shown by these theatrical outsiders. Some, w h o had not been to the island for over twenty years, swore that they would b o r r o w a boat and definitely go. Statements like the following could be heard: 'Veoy used to be our island, but n o w the townspeople' — i.e., people from M o l d e — 'are taking over'. I would like to think that the fury was mainly directed towards the theatre, but b o t h the regional museum, w h i c h had inherited the old parsonage, and myself might have been included in this indignant outburst against imposing outsiders taking over what used to be the heritage of others. M y experience, however, was that at this stage of my project, the archaeological activities o n the island were generally looked u p o n with acceptance and interest in the local communities. T h e other storytellers had b e c o m e my friends and 'accomplices'. In fact, I did my bit in the theatre conflict, negotiating o n behalf of 'us' with ' t h e m ' (i.e., the producer). Everything was solved relatively peacefully after four days, but quite a lot of surprisingly strong emotions had emerged during the dispute. A lesson can be learnt from this incident because, unfortunately, archaeologists often act in similar ways to this theatre group; many archaeological excavations begin with strangers bursting into a c o m m u n i t y with n o awareness of what people living in the actual landscape really want. Such an insensitive practice is devastating for the discipline in the long run. T h e content of the historical play, written by Edvard H o e m (n.d.), seems to have induced an additional narrative of Veoy. Based o n b o t h 'factual' facts and 'facts' of fiction in the play, it took eight days to create

Copyrighted Material

224

Brit Solli

an original popular narrative of Veoy. T h e writer of the play asked for information from m e as well as from other expert narrators of Veoy. O n purely artistic grounds he decided to date the church and a ring of gold, which I found in 1990, to about AD 1100. T h e archaeologically correct date of both is c. A D 1200. O f course I did not intrude nor oppose the artistic freedom of the writer. T h e ring of gold had a French inscription (Solli et al. 1992), which, in m o d e r n French goes as follows: 'Eric entre amis et j e suis drue amie, A.M.'. H o e m used the ring as his main theme, a leitmotif, in the play which was entitled One Thousand Years — One Summer Day (Tusen Ar — Ein Sommardag}. T h e main characters of the play were two lovers wandering without peace in their minds looking for a lost ring. T h r o u g h ten centuries we follow, in a picaresque way, the lovers' quest for the ring; once they find it their search can c o m e to an end, and they may rest in peace. W h e n they encounter the m o d e r n world, they discover that there is a legend of the ring and of themselves. T h e peak of the drama is set inside the church as a w o m a n shouts from the gallery that she has found a ring of gold whilst digging in the ground. T h e ring is returned to those w h o once lost it, and their plight is resolved. T h e w o m a n in the gallery is, of course, supposed to be the archaeologist. Personally, I am a m o n g the audience and, I confess, giggling. I do not think that Edvard Hoem's mixing of dates will cause any c h r o n o logical confusion in the long run. People are inclined to forget dates and numbers. W h a t they will not forget is the story presented in the play about the legend of the ring. Even the actors rehearsing thought that there really was a local legend of a ring of gold connected to the one excavated. D u r i n g the summer season several people I talked to mentioned the fantastic legend of the ring as if it was not fictional but factual. T h e need for a legendary past is not solely a Third World issue, it is a deeply rooted h u m a n desire, and w h e n the opportunity knocks people in the 'rationalised' West grasp it wholeheartedly. M y guess is that in not more than twenty years time, the people in Romsdal will have forgotten that the legend first occurred in a play, and not in the 'real' world. Kirsten Hastrup has described h o w she felt alienated from her own life and work w h e n the O d i n theatre went on a tour with a play of her life and field experiences (Hastrup 1992b). M y experience is, albeit on a m u c h smaller scale, similar to hers; once an archaeological narrative of Veoy is transformed into text, anything can happen. T h e text may be read in multiple ways, and inherent in it are, inevitably, multiple voices. T h e r e is absolutely nothing I, or other expert narrators, can d o about this.

ARCHAEOLOGY, COMMUNITY CULTURAL IDENTITY

AND

In spite of all good intentions and unintrusive strategies, stressing dialogue and communication with the other storytellers, 1 am still considered by the

Copyrighted Material

Narratives of Veoy

225

local c o m m u n i t y to be 'the expert'. But various remarks and incidents indicate that local people consider m e to be 'their expert'! W h e n my car was packed with gear and the fieldwork over in August 1992, I had warned people for m o n t h s that this was the last field season, but n o one could believe that the excavations were over. T h e environmental warden of the island claimed emphatically, and not without tears: 'But you, kind of, like the rest of us belong here. You're part of the environment.' T h e writing of archaeology always implies a certain a m o u n t of 'symbolic violence'; people of the local c o m m u n i t y may be willing to participate up to a certain point, but ultimately they would like you to tell them n e w stories and not the other way around. T h e wholly d e m o cratic, pluralistic and negotiating archaeology promulgated by Shanks and Tillcy (e.g., 1989) seems impossible to carry out in practice; maybe this kind of archaeology should be left to speculations in the C a m b r i d g e armchairs where it originated. This is not to say that archaeologists will inevitably be terminators of 'other histories'; these stories are just as m u c h part of a community's cultural identity as the most u p - t o date archaeological version. Imposing the latter on a c o m m u n i t y and presenting it as the authorised version of the past is the height of foolishness. Lay m e n and w o m e n seem to be more able to embrace the complexity paradigm (cf. M o r i n 1987; 1990) than the scientificallytrained archaeologists. Regarding Veoy, the other storytellers did not seem excessively preoccupied with a commensurable narrative. T h e y found the n e w archaeological narratives interesting, but did not see t h e m as a reason to abandon the old stories. T h e quest for a universal and total history may be seen as a historically situated quest (Hastrup 1992c). An attempt to create a European Cultural Identity through a Universal History of Europe will have to exclude every 'other history' not fitting the overall scheme and will most probably be the history of the 'educated' classes. I once witnessed a discussion on television between the French intellectual, Alain Finkielkraut, and the recently elected president of the Saami Parliament in Norway, O l e H e n r i k Magga. Finkielkraut claimed that a European identity could only be established, and kept alive, through a knowledge of Classical culture, manifested in great works of art, and so on. H e illustrated his point by referring to the oeuvres of Proust, Balzac, and Flaubert. In contrast, Magga maintained that the Saami culture, or any other culture not incorporating the Classical European culture and heritage in its living practice, was equally valuable and 'European'. Promptly, and rather arrogantly, Finkielkraut accused Magga of favouring illiteracy (from the television series European Voices, produced by Danish Public Broadcasting, Danmarks Radio). This dispute between two Europeans, a Continental intellectual and a representative of an Arctic people, illustrates how important it is to make the other histories of Europe visible and textualised; an ignorance

Copyrighted Material

226

Brit Solli

of this point will make the construction of a European identity into a very feeble edifice indeed; an edifice pertaining to the academically trained communities only, excluding all other communities and cultures. T h e construction of a 'Universal History' of the nation-states of Europe and of Europe itself, may thus, contrary to what is intended, constitute a divisive act. O n the other hand, the inclusion of a multivocahty of 'other histories' may produce a participative, and thus more unifying direction. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bapty, I. and T. Yates (1990) Archaeology after Structuralism. Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology. London: Routledge. Bergsvik, P. (1991a) 'Bondene sine batstoer pa Veoya.' Romsdalsmuseets Arhok 1991: 139-41. (1991b) 'Da presten flytta fra Veoya.' Romsdalmuseets Arbok 1991: 119-25. Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Clifford, J. (1988) The Predicament of Culture. Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature and Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. and G.E. Marcus (1986) Writing Culture. Tlic Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Foucault M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge. Hastrup, K. (1992a) 'Writing ethnography: state of the art.' In J. Okely and H. Callaway (eds), Anthropology and Autobiography. London: Routledge. (1992b) Det antropologiske prosjekt. Om forbloffelse. Kobenhavn: Gyldendal. (1992c) 'Introduction.' In K. Hastrup (ed.), Other Histories. London: Routledge. and P. Meulengracht Sorensen (1987) 'Innledning.' In K. Hastrup and P. Meulengracht Sorensen (eds), Tradition og historieskrivning, Acta Jutlandica 63, 2: 7-14. (ed.) (1992d) Other Histories. London: Routledge. and P. Hervik (eds), (1994) Social Experience and Anthropological Knowledge. London: Routledge. Hestenes, A. (1948) 'Kongen pa Veoy.' Dagbladet, April 24. Hoem, E. (n.d.) i'uscn ar-ein sommardag. Unpublished MS. K.K. (1923) 'Paa det gamle, historiske Veoy.' St. Olav: 314-17. Landau, M. (1991) Narratives of Human Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press. Layton, R. (1989a) Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman. (1989b) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. London: Unwin Hyman. Marcus, G.E. and D. Cushman (1982) 'Ethnographies as texts.' Annual Review of Anthropology 11: 25-69. Marcus, G.E. and M.M.J. Fischer (1986) Anthropology as Cultural Critique. An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morin, E. (1987) 'Kompleksitetsparadigmet.' Profit 1, 2: 105-08.

Copyrighted

Material

Narratives of Veoy

227

(1990) Kendskabet til kundskaben. En erkendelsens antropologi. Arhus: Ask. Okely, J. and H. Callaway (eds) (1992) Anthropology and Autobiography. London: Routledge. Olsen, 13. (1986) 'Norwegian archaeology and the people without (pre-)history: Or how to create a myth of a uniform past.' Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5, 1: 25-42. Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosaldo, R. (1989) Culture and Truth. The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press. Shanks, M. (1990) 'Conclusion: reading the signs: responses to archaeology after structuralism.' In I. Bapty and T. Yates (eds), Archaeology after Structuralism. Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology. London: Routledge. (1992) Experiencing the Past. On the Character of Archaeology. London: Routledge. and C. Tilley (1989) 'Archaeology into the 1990s.' Norwegian Archaeological Review. 1: 1-12. Solli, B. (1991) 'Arkeologiske landskap pa Veoya.' Romsdalsmuseets Arbok 1991: 27-42. (1992a) idehistoriske retninger innenfor arkeologi 1970-1990. Fra test via tegn til tekst.' Eornvannen 87: 99-107. (1992b) 'Historiens og arkeologiens poetikk-a skrive om fortid. En presentasjon av Hayden Whites metahistorie.' META 3: 22-35. (1992c) 'Review of I. Bapty and T. Yates (1990) Archaeology after Structuralism. Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology.' Norwegian Archaeological Review 1: 71—2. (n.d.) 'Narratives of Veoy. An investigation into the poetics and scientifics of archaeology.' Unpublished PhD. thesis. University of Oslo. ,J.R. Hagland and A. Hammervold (1992) 'Ein gullring fra mellomalderen funne pa Veoya.' Viking LV: 121-36. Stoller, P. (1989) The "Taste of Ethnographic 'Things. The Senses in Anthropology. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stone, P.G. (1989) interpretations and uses of the past in modern Britain.' In R. Lay ton (ed.), Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman. Thingvold, T. (1991) 'William Coucheron-Aamot og Veoy.' Romsdalsmuseets Arbok 1991: 173-196. Tilley, C. (ed.) (1990) Reading Material Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (1991) Material Culture and Text. The Art of Ambiguity. London: Routledge. Van Maanen, J. (1988) Talcs of the Ticld. On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. White, H. (1973) Mctahistory. The Historical Imagination of Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (1978) Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University press. (1987) The Content of the Form. Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wolf, E. (1982) Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES AS E T H N I C A L EVIDENCE The case of the Eastern Vistula mouth ALEKSANDER

BURSCHE

The growing archaeological interest in ethnicity — a reflection of current events — has developed in two main directions. The first, a particularly theoretical one, broadly interprets ethnicity as cultural identity; concerned with the origin, formation and partition of societies 'from tribe to state'; against the background of sociology and the anthropological sciences. On such a basis, scholars look for the contemporary identity of living sociocultural groups' and yet play down the importance of ethnicity, in order to counteract any possible misuse for political aims. The second, much more traditional trend, represented in particular by numerous Central European archaeologists, historians and linguists, studies problems of ethnicity among Celts, Germans, early Slavs, Baits, etc. In order to explain their origin or to trace tribal shifts (i.e. both tongue duree and histoire evenementiellc matters), they make wide use of archaeological sources. For instance, the appearance or decline of cemeteries is supposed to signify a movement of people. The composition of finds assemblages or the distribution of particular classes of objects are supposed to confirm tribal connections that may be described by the written sources. These scholars often express their reservations about Kossinna's theory (1911), particularly with regard to pottery decorations or forms, but rarely explain why their interpretations based upon brooches should be better than potshards. But perhaps of more importance is that, unlike Kossinna, they do not define the theoretical background to their own highly intuitional works. In fact we can only guess that by 'ethnicity' these scholars mean language and tribal groups. Among such scholars I will only mention some of the most famous names, often originators of archaeological schools; Wolfram and Pohl (1990), Godtowski (1983), Okulicz (1986; 1989) and Shchukin (1991).

Copyrighted Material

Archaeological sources as ethnical evidence

229

W h a t one finds particularly unclear in these books is the distinction between m o v e m e n t of objects as goods (imports), m o v e m e n t of people (migrations, incursions, slaves, military service, marriages etc.) and m o v e m e n t of ideas (like stylistic influences). However, n e w possibilities for the study of the roots of European identities have come from: i) recent progress in the Central European Iron Age chronology (e.g., Godlowski 1970; 1974; 1988; Godlowski and Madyda-Legutko 1992); h) advanced methods in settlement and regional studies (e.g., Godlowski 1985a; Wotagiewicz 1986a); iii) improved spatial analysis and detailed examination of material, together with a m o d e r n critical analysis of ancient written records (e.g., Kolendo 1976; 1981a; 1983; 1985a; 1989; Wolfram 1990). Advances which have often gone unnoticed or been underestimated by the pure theoreticians.

THE V I S T U L A M O U T H : A R C H A E O L O G I C A L CONTEXT 1 would like to single out one example of such recent research in the area east of the Vistula m o u t h , and with respect to the first half of the first millennium A D (Figure 15.1), for the light it sheds on several aspects of ethnic studies of past societies. This region was a basis for the classic methodological studies (Qucllenforschung) of J. Eggers (1951) and for the creation of such terms as: i e b e n d e - , t o t e - u n d wiederendeckte Kultur'. 2 D u r i n g the R o m a n Period a very clear ethnic (linguistic) barrier between Germans and Baits ran along the Pasleka (Passarge) river (Andrzejowski, Bursche and Nowakowski 1995). In the light of recent critical analysis of written sources (Wolfram 1990; Kolendo 1981a; 1981b; 1987; Strzelczyk 1984; Nowakowski 1990; 1991; 1992), the first-century G o t h and Gepid tribes can be located on the right bank of the river, whilst the Galindai, Sudioni and Aestii inhabited the other. T h e linguistic border was so evident, that it was even noticed by Tacitus in his Germania? We could expect that cultural identity should be reflected particularly in such material culture elements as clothing or o r n a m e n t style, as well as in w e a p o n r y / a r m a m e n t s . At least, this might be assumed on the basis of several ethno-archaeological studies. However this is not the case for the Vistula region. Detailed spatial analysis of women's attire and ornaments from graves of the Westbalt and Wielbark cultures in the second-third centuries A D (Bitner-Wroblewska 1989; 1991; 1992; Nowakowski 1989; 1990; 1991; 1992; Tempelmann-Maczynska 1983; 1988; 1989; Wolagiewicz 1974), suggests that several artefacts, such as brooches of Almgren (1923) type 42, 72 (Figure 15.2) or 168, band bracelets etc., were c o m m o n in b o t h territories, with concentrations at the Vistula m o u t h and the Sambian Peninsula. These artefacts often derived from the same workshops, and we could assume that in both societies similar elements of attire (at least the female funeral attire) were

Copyrighted Material

230

Aleksander Bursche

• WIELBARK culture

Figure 15.1

O WESTBALTS cultures

+ PRZEWOR5K

culture

The Lower Vistula in the second/third century AD

in use. Similarities in this respect between different ethnic populations of the Westbalt and Wielbark cultures are higher than between neighbouring G e r m a n societies of the Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures of this period (Godtowski 1986; Tempelmann-Maczynska 1989). T h e problem of armaments is somewhat more complicated because of the specific nature of Wielbark culture funeral rites; the almost complete lack of weapons in graves (Kaczanowski and Zaborowski 1988). Nevertheless, we can state that the pattern of armament in the second—third centuries AD did not differ much from that w h i c h was general a m o n g Central European Germanic societies as for example in the Przeworsk culture graves (Godtowski 1981). However, this pattern differed strongly from that observed in Eastbalt societies (Michclbertas 1986). Similarly many aspects of funeral rites are shared by the Wielbark and Westbalt cultures, in contrast to their neighbours (Bursche 1994; Jaskanis 1974; Walenta 1981). Unfortunately, the state of research into settlements from this territory is too p o o r to undertake even the most general observations with respect to ethnic determinants (Andrzejowski and Bursche 1986; Nowakowski 1986; Woiagiewicz 1986b). However, spatial analysis of all categories of dated finds indicates that at the end of the second and early third century A D settlements of b o t h cultures were very close each other (Figure 15.1). In summary, many elements of material culture of these ethnically different societies reveal close relationships, without parallel in the neighb o u r h o o d . This relationship is particularly apparent in the second- and

Copyrighted

Material

Archaeological sources as ethnical evidence

231

Figure 15.2 Spread of Almgren type 72 brooches according to W . Nowakowski (size of sign refers to number of finds from one site)

early third-century attire of the Sambian Peninsula and the Vistula mouth region (Andrzejowski, Bursche and Nowakowski 1995). ARCHAEOLOGY A N D WRITTEN

SOURCES

We are quite lucky to have written records which throw some light on the reasons for such strong interregional ties, reasons which can probably be summarised in one word — amber. The south-east Baltic coast (particularly the Sambian Peninsula and the Vistula mouth), territory occupied in the Roman Period by Westbalts and Germans, was, and still is, the main source for amber, the so-called 'gold of the North'. Pliny the Elder located commercia and emporia here; Roman Period 'ports of trade' for the Baltic region (Kolendo 1981b; 1983; 1985b; 1987; 1993). The significance of this area is confirmed archaeologically by a concentration of second- and early third-century AD Roman imports (Godlowski 1985b; Nowakowski 1985; Okulicz 1976; 1992). A great quantity of sestertii, including third-century specimens (unknown from any other part of Europe besides Italy) testify to the importance of this region for Roman traders (Bursche 1992). On the basis of this evidence, I suggest that common economic interest and an open sphere of contact, stimulated by Roman influences, was the main reason for extensive similarity in the material culture between ethnically different groups. Societies living on the shore of the Baltic Sea between the Vistula and Neman rivers in the

Copyrighted

Material

232

Aleksander Bursche

Figure 15.3 Spread of bronze vessels found east of the Vistula river (size of sign means number of finds from one site)

second and third centuries M) probably played the role of classic 'gateway communities' for north 'Barbaricum', which in turn broke the linguistic barrier that previously divided the Wielbark and Westbalt cultures. These similarities were noticed in antiquity. Tacitus included the Aestii tribe from the Sambian Peninsula in his Germania 'civilization'; 'people who build houses and use shields'.4 Contemporary archaeologists also include the Westbalt culture in the great Central European cultural province. CONCLUSION If written records were lacking in this case and there were only archaeological sources at our disposal, we should have no ground to suspect that the Roman Period cultures east of the Vistula mouth represented different ethnic groups. I trust that this is a good example which testifies to the fact that acculturation processes often proceed much quicker in material culture than in other spheres. Wozniak (1974) presents some similar observations concerning acculturation processes on the eastern Celtic ranges, but unfortunately his book is only available in Polish. In the case of the east Vistula mouth in the Roman Period, I believe that a detailed analysis of archaeological sources will, in the future, allow the ethnical determinants of these two societies to be distinguished. We could expect to find them particularly in the religious sphere (rites etc.). For instance, horse burials (Jaskanis 1974) or sestertii (Bursche 1992) are

Copyrighted

Material

Archaeological sources as ethnical evidence

Figure 15.4

233

Solidi found in the territory of Poland

typical for Bait graves, while bronze vessels in the second century AD (Figure 15.3; Wielowiejski 1985), or solidi in the Migration Period, are restricted to the region west of the Pasteka river (Figure 15.4, Godtowski 1980). However, in all of these cases we are not sure w h e t h e r our picture reflects 'die tote-, lebende- or wiederendeckte Kultur'. M o r e concrete studies should be preceded by detailed source criticism and careful theoretical research, with particular regard to problems of acculturation, cultural syncretism etc.. O n l y as a result of such research will it be possible to stress any kind of 'archaeological determinants of ethnicity' in the case of these two societies. In this article I have presented some problems relating to the Vistula M o u t h region which formed a linguistic border over one millennium. I h o p e this case study exemplifies the fact that 'ethno-archaeological' studies and research concerning the roots of European civilisation should be accompanied by updated knowledge of archeological sources, critical analysis of written records and, most importantly, deep intellectual and theoretical reflection.

NOTES 1 Cf. Jones, chapter 4. 2 'the living, dead or rediscovered culture'. 3 Tacitus, Germ: 45 J — this was probably important information because of the necessity to use different interpreters (Nowakowski 1992: 221).

Copyrighted Material

234

Alekscmder Bursche

4 Ergo iam dextro Svucbki maris litore Aestiorum gentes alluuntur quibus ritus habitusque Sveborum, lingua Britannicae proprior {Germ.: 45, 6—7) and behind the Aestii: Hie Svebiae finis (Germ.:46,1; see Nowakowski 1992).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Almgren, O. (1923) 'Studien iiber nordeuropaische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte mit Beriicksichtigung der provinzialromischen und siidrussischen Formen 2.' Mannus Bibiiothek 32, Leipzig: Verlag von Curt Kabitzsch. Andrzejowski, J. and A. Bursche (1986) 'Stan i potrzeby badan nad okresem rzymskim na wschod od dolnej Wisty' [State and aims of research on the Roman Period east of the River Vistula]. In K. Godlowski and R. MadydaLegutko (eds), Stan i potrzeby badan nad mlodszym okresem przedrzymskim i okresem wplywow rzymskich w Polsce. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski. Andrzejowski, J., A. Bursche and W. Nowakowski (1995) 'Ethnical borderland east of the Vistula river during the Roman and Early Migration Periods in the light of recent archaeological research.' In Proceedings of the Xlth UISPP Congress. Mainz. Bitner-Wroblewska, A. (1989) 'Elenienty batyjskie w kulturze wielbarskiej.' In J. Gurba and A. Kokowski (eds), Kultura wielbarska w mlodszym okresie rzymskim II. Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej. (1991) 'Zapinki z gwiazdzista i lopatkowata nozka z poludniowowschodnich wybrzezy Baltyku.' Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 51 (1986—90): 49-90. (1992) 'Cross-Bow Brooches from the Eastern Baltic Basin in the Early Migration Period. The Import of Ideas or Objects?.' In B. I Iardh and B.Wyszomirska-Webart (eds), Contacts across the Baltic Sea during the Late Iron Age, Baltic Sea Conference, Lund October 25-7, 1991. Lund: Bloms Boktryckeri AB. Bursche, A. (1992) 'Roman Ae Coinage in the South Baltic Coast.' In B.Hardh and B. Wyszomirska-Webart (eds), Contacts across the Baltic Sea during the Late Iron Age, Baltic Sea Conference, Lund October 25—7, 1991. Lund: Bloms Boktryckeri AB. (1994) 'Die tote und die lebende Kultur. Germans and Baits at the south Baltic in the light of their funeral rites.' In B. Sjernquist (ed.), Prehistoric Graves as a Source of Information. Upsala: Almquist and Wihsell Tryckeri. Eggers, J. (1951) Der romische Import im freien Gcrmanien, Atlas der Urgeschichtc 1. Hamburg: Hamburgisches Museum fur Volkerkunde und Vorgeschichte. Godlowski, K. (1970) 'The Chronology of the Late Roman and Early Migration Periods in Central Europe.' Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego CCXVII, Prace Archeologiczne 11. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski. (1974) 'Chronologia okresu poznorzymskiego I wczesnego okresu wedrowek ludow w Polsce polnocno-wschodniej.' Rocznik Biatostocki 12: 8—110. (1980) 'Zur Frage der volkerwanderungszeitlichen Besiedlung in Pommern.' Studien zur Sachsenforschung 2: 63-106. (1981) 'Kultura przeworska. [The Przeworsk culture].' In J. Wielowiejski (ed.), Prahistoria Ziem Polskich, 5: Pozny okres latenski i okres rzymski. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich.

Copyrighted Material

Archaeological sources as ethnical evidence

235

(1983) 'Zur Frage der Slawensitze von der grossen Slawenwanderung im 6. Jahrhundert.' Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi Sull'alto Mcdioevo 30: 257-84. (1985a) Przemiany kulturowe i osadniczc w poludniowej isrodkowej Polsce w mlodszym okresie przedrzymskim i w okresie rzymskim. Prace Komisji Archeologicznej 23. Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich. (1985b) 'Die romische Handel in die Germania libera aufgrund der archaologischen Quelle.' In K. Diiwel, H. Jahnkuhn, H. Siems, and D. Timpe (eds), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor-und friihgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittelund Nordeuropa 1, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 3:143. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. (1986) 'Gegenseitige Beziehungen zwischen der Wielbark- und der Przeworsk-Kultur, Veranderungen ihrer Verbreitung und das Problem der Gotenwanderung.' In J. Kmiecinski (ed.), Peregrinatio Gothica, Archaeologia Daltica 7. Lodz: Zaklad Graficzny Wydawnictw Naukowych. (1988) 'Problemy chronologii okresu rzymskiego'. In M.Gedl (ed.), Scripta Archaeologica, Warsaw and Cracow: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. and R. Madyda-Legutko (eds) (1992) Probleme der relativen und absolutcn Chronologie ab Latenezeit bis zum Fruhmittelalter. Cracow: Wydawnictwo i Drukarnia 'Secesja'. Jaskanis, J. (1974) Ohrzqdek Pogrzebowy zachodnich baltbw u schylku starozytnosci (I-V w.n.e.). Wroclaw: Zaklad Narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich. Kaczanowski, P. and J. Zaborowski (1988) 'Benierkungcn iiber die Bewaffnung der Bevolkerung der Wielbark-Kultur.' In J. Gurba and A. Kokowski (eds), Kultura wielbarska w mlodszym okresie rzymskim I. Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej. Kolendo, J. (1976) 'Zroznicowanie ludow Germanii w swietle analizy dziela Tacyta' ('Die Aufteilung der Volker Germaniens im Lichte einer Analyse der Werke des Tacitus'). In K.Godlowski (ed.), Kultury archeologiczne i strefy kulturowe w Europie Srodkowej w okresie wplywbw rzymskich, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwcrsytetu Jagiellohskiego CCCCXXII, Prace Archeologiczne 22. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski. (1981a) 'Zrodla pisane w badaniach nad strefami kulturowymi i etnicznymi Europy srodkowej w okresie rzymskim.' In T. Malinowski (ed.), Problemy kultury wielbarskiej, Slupsk: Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna w Slupsku. (1981b) 'A la recherche de l'ambre baltique. L'expedition d'un chevalier romain sous Neron,' Studia Antiqua 4. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytctu Warszawskiego. (1983) 'Lcs connaissances des anciens sur les lieux de provenance de l'ambre jaune.' Archeologia 34 (1985): 1-15. (1985a) 'I Veneti dell'Europa centrale e orientale. Sedi e realita etnica.' Atti dell'Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Letre ed Arti 143: 415-35. (1985b) 'Miejsca wystepowania bursztynu wedlug Pliniusza Starszego.' Prace Muzeum Ziemi 37: 5—26. (1987) 'Rejon ujscia Wisly w oczach starozytnych.' In A.Pawowski (ed.), Badania archeologiczne w woj elblqshim w latach 1980—83. Malbork: Muzeum Zamkowe w Malborku. (1989) 'W sprawie metody badati nad zrodtami pisanymi dotyczacymi etnogenezy Slowian.' In J. Okulicz-Kozaryn (ed.), Barbaricum. Warsaw: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Copyrighted Material

236

Aleksander Bursche

(1993) 'L'ambra e i rapporti Cisalpina e regioni centro europee.' In G. Rosada (ed.), Archeologia Strumenti. Testi 1. Padua: Stamperia Editoriale Varotto. Kossinna G. 1911. 'Zur herkunft der Germanen: zur methodologie der siedlungsarchaologie.' Mannus-Bibliothck 6. Wiirzburg. Michelbertas, M. (1986) Senasis gelezies amivzius Lietuvojc. I-IV amicus. Vilnius: Leidykla 'Moslas'. Nowakowski, W. (1985) 'Rzymskie importy przemyslowe na terytorium zachodniobaltyjskiego kregu kulturowego.' Archeologia 34 (1983): 63—106. (1986) 'Stan i potrzeby badan nad zachodniobaltyjskim kregiem kulturowym na terenie Polski, ze szczegolnym uwzglednieniem kultury bogaczewskiej.' In K. Godlowski and R. Madyda-Legutko (eds), Stan i potrzeby badah nad mlodszym okresem przedrzymskim i okresem wpiywow rzymskich w Polsce. Gracow: Uniwcrsytet Jagiellonski. (1989) 'Kultura wielbarska a zachodniobaltyjski krag kulturowy.' In J. Gurba and A. Kokowski (eds), Kultura wielbarska w mlodszym okresie rzymskim II. Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Gurie-Sktodowskiej. (1990) 'Ludy na potnocno-wschodnich skrajach Barbancum. "Germania" Tacyta w swietle zrodet archeologicznych.' Meander 2-3, 90: 75—96. (1991) 'Kulturowy krag zachodniobaltyjski w okresie wpiywow rzymskich. Kwestia definicji i podziatow wewnetrznych.' in H. Judzihska (ed.), Archeologia Baltyjska: 42-66 Olsztyn. (1992) '"HIG SUEBIAE FINIS" - concept of the border of the barbarous world at the East Baltic coast in the Roman Period.' In J. Okulicz-Kozaryn and W. Nowakowski (eds), Barbancum '92, 2. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo i drukamia Tokawi — As Druk. Okuhcz, J. (1976) 'Powiazania pobrzeza wschodniego Baltyku i centrum sambijskiego z poludniem w podokresie wczesnorzymskim.' In K. Godlowski (ed.), Kultury Archeologiczne i strefy kulturowe w Europie Srodkowej w okresie wpiywow rzymskich, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwcrsytetu Jagiellohskiego CCCCXXII, Prace Archeologiczne 22. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski. (1986) 'Einige Aspekte der Ethnogenese der Balten und Slawen im Lichte archaologischer und sprachwissenschaftlicher Forschungen.' Quaestiones Medii Aevii 3 (1984): 7-33. (1989) 'Proba identyfikacji archeologicznej ludow baltyjskich w polowie pierwszego tysiaclecia n.e.' In J. Kozaryn-Okulicz (ed.), Barbancum, Warsaw: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. (1992) 'Gentrum kulturowe z pierwszych wiekow naszej ery u ujscia Wisly.' In J. Okulicz-Kozaryn and W. Nowakowski (eds), Barbancum 1992, 2. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo i drukamia Tokawi — As Druk. Shchukin, M.B. (1991) 'The Balto-Slavic Forest Direction in the Archaeological Study of the Ethnogenesis of the Slavs.' Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 51 (1986-90): 3-30. Strzelczyk, J. (1984) God - rzcczywistosc i legenda. Warsaw: Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Tempelmann-Maczynska, M. (1983) 'Proba rckonstrukcji stroju kobiecego kultury zachodniobaltyjskiej w okresie wpiywow rzymskich.' Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 48: 3-19. (1988) 'Strqj kobiecy kultury wielbarskiej i jego powiazania z sasiednimi obszarami.' In J. Gurba and A. Kokowski (eds), Kultura wielbarska u> mlodszym

Copyrighted Material

Archaeological sources as ethnical evidence

237

okresie rzymskim I. Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej. (1989) Das Frauentrachtzubehor des Mittel- und Osteuropaischen Barbaricums in der romischen Kaiserzeit. Cracow: Jagiellonen-Universitat. Walenta, K. (1981) 'Obrzadek pogrzebowy na Pomorzu w okresie poznolatenskim i rzymskim.' Archaeologia Baltica 5. lodz: todzka Drukarnia Dzietowa. Wielowiejski, J. (1985) 'Die spatkeltische und romische Bronzgefasse in Polen.' Bericht der Romisch-Germanischen Kommission 66: 123—320. Wolfram, H. (1990) Die Coten. Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck. Wolfram, H. and W. Pohl (eds) (1990) Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der Bayern 1—2. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschafften. Wotqgiewicz, R. (1974) 'Zagadnienie stylu wczesnorzymskiego w kulturze wielbarskiej.' In F.J. Lachowicz (ed.), Studia Archaeologica Pomeranica. Koszalm: Muzeum Archeologiczno-Historyczne w Koszalinie. (1986a) 'Die Goten im Bereich der Wielbark-Kultur.' In J. Kmiecinski (ed.), Peregrinatio Gothica, Archaeologia Baltica 7. lodz: Zaklad Graficzny Wydawnictw Naukowych. (1986b) 'Stan badan nad okresem rzymskim na Pomorzu.' In K. Godlowski and R. Madyda-Legutko (eds), Stan i potrzeby badah nad mlodszym okresem przedrzymskim i okresem wplywow rzymskich w Polsce. Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski. Wozniak, Z. (1974) Wschodnic pograniczc kultury latehskiej. Wrolcaw: Zaklad Narodowy Imienia Ossolinskich.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

'CELTIC' IRON AGE EUROPE The theoretical basis A N D R E W P. F I T Z P A T R I C K

INTRODUCTION In the mid-fifth century lie: Herodotus referred to the people living on the Danube, near the Pyrenees and in further Spain, w h o m he called the Celts (Histories 2.33, 3.115, 4.49). His writing contributed to the classification and interpretation of his world and that of his audiences (Tierney I960: 189—93; Hartog 1980), yet in many ways his c o m m e n t s continue to characterise current approaches to the European Iron Age, which largely reflect the presumption that geographically definable groups should be the subject of an essentially historical study. This paper concentrates on the fifth to first centuries lie: and examines the ways in which ideas of Europe in the Iron Age have been formulated, and h o w they are essentially that of a 'Celtic' Europe whose study is closely linked to the study of the classical world. T h e essence of being 'Celtic' as applied to 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe draws on interpretations of three different sorts of evidence, some of which are of different dates: (i) language; (ii) art; and (iii) the classical texts. T h e interpretation of this evidence has b e c o m e inextricably linked and confused leading to a situation in which 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe is perceived as timeless and traditional and appears to have little explanatory value. Yet, the archaeological evidence which prompted the nineteenth-century correlations with the Celts remains to be explained. It will be suggested that in this instance the idea of an archaeological culture equating with a people, and in particular a language, is misplaced. Instead the widespread distribution of certain types, decorative elements and depositional groupings may reflect religious beliefs shared by small groups across much of Europe, but the primary significance of this shared material lay in the local context. T h e continuing popularity of a 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe in both scholarly and popular works shows that it is not enough to present critiques of

Copyrighted Material

'Celtic' Iron Age Europe

239

m o d e r n interpretation of 'the Celts' (as has recently been the vogue): instead those critiques must also advance alternative interpretations of the ancient evidence.

THE I R O N AGE IN EUROPE The Iron Age Herodotus' short c o m m e n t s on the Celts obviously d o not refer to the T h r e e Age System, although Hesiod's four ages of gold, silver, bronze and iron were k n o w n to him. T h e m o d e r n archaeological Three Age system established by T h o m s e n was a construct driven by progress; from the Stone Age to the Iron Age ( R o d d e n 1981). Like all pan-European systems of m o d e r n archaeological classification, there is an infinite variety of regional and local subdivisions of the Iron Age. T h e principal division usually recognised in the Iron Age of Europe is between the Hallstatt (approximately eighth—fifth centuries Be) and La T e n e (approximately fifth century BC—first century A D ) periods. Yet although the Iron Age is a chronological division, the idea of the Iron Age as a chronological construct is rarely considered. In contrast with the ways in which the adoption of metallurgy and the transition from the Stone to Bronze Ages have been considered, it is only recently that comparable attention has been devoted to the end of the Bronze Age. In general these discussions have considered the end of the Bronze Age and, while the adoption of iron technology has been widely considered, the debate has been constituted as the Bronze Age—Iron Age transition (e.g., Sorensen and T h o m a s 1989). Consequently the idea of the Iron Age seems unproblematic and not to merit discussion. Two reasons for this apparent lack of discussion of the idea of the Iron Age may be suggested, both relating to the end of the Iron Age. T h e first reason is that technologically the Iron Age lasted for nearly two millennia, until the Industrial Revolution, a period to which archaeology is often thought to have little to contribute. Consequently, the ending of the Iron Age does not seem a relevant issue in the study of the Three Age system. T h e second reason for a lack of discussion is that 'culturally' the end of the Iron Age is widely perceived as having being heralded by the R o m a n conquest(s). In Ireland this is clearly not the case, but in many areas the end of the Iron Age has its own logic imposed from outside and, again, does not seem to demand study. This lack of discussion of the beginning and end of the Iron Age has also resulted in correspondingly little consideration of the nature and duration of the Iron Age, and the meaning and usefulness of definitions of the period. There are some critiques (e.g., Collis 1984), but their general absence is highlighted most clearly by the central European usage of Hallstatt. There, the essential unity of Hallstatt Bronze Age metalworking

Copyrighted Material

240

A n d r e w P. Fitzpatrick

traditions which continued after the adoption of ironworking is emphasised with, in some cases, relatively little attention being paid to the introduction of iron. Celtic Europe If the idea of an Iron Age has appeared unproblematic, the idea of a prehistory of Europe has until recently seemed equally unambiguous. Yet we should be clear about a fundamental point; we do not study the Iron Age of Europe: we study the Iron Age of a 'Celtic Europe' (see Figure 16.1). The Celts constrain and restrain the study of the European Iron Age. Time and again we see a 'Celtic core' of Switzerland, southern and western Germany and central and eastern France to which the rest of Europe is sometimes described as 'peripheral' (Wells 1990: 439). This Iron Age Europe encompasses those areas transformed by the Roman conquests, and some of its exclusions may be explicable in terms of the traditions of research into Germanic or Slavic peoples instead of Celtic ones (Bohner 1981; Meinander 1981). Nonetheless, the Iron Age archaeologies of Iberia (despite the Celtiberians (e.g., Lenerez de Wilde 1991)), Scandinavia and much of the North European Plain are excluded from the European Iron Age as it is usually constructed. Moreover, the

Direction of expansion Area ot birth of the La Tene art style Original territory of the Celts and the La Tene civilization Zone of expansion ot the Celts Celtiberians

La Tene»

Hallstatt

C ^

3

Figure 16.1 A multicultural map of one 'Europe' showing the areas suggested to have been inhabited by the Celts from the fifth century BC until the Roman conquests (after Megaw and Megaw 1989, figure 2)

Copyrighted

Material

'Celtic' Iron Age Europe

241

Italic, Thracian and Scythian worlds are all part of the European Iron Age which at times may be Eurasian in scope, even with regard to the Celts (Fischer 1988; Rolle 1989; Taylor 1992). It may be asked then, what the archaeological evidence for this presumed central and western European unity is? Here it is necessary to turn to nineteenth-century archaeological theory. In 1871 de Mortillet recognised the similarities between burials and grave goods in Italy and France and interpreted t h e m as evidence of cultural continuity in the form of Gaulish or Celtic migrations to Italy. Yet w h e n Hildebrand coined the t e r m 'La T e n e culture' in 1870 it was apparently solely in a chronological sense (Hildebrand 1870; Meinander 1981; de Mortillet 1871). Thus, from the outset the terms 'La T e n e ' and 'Celtic' have meant different things to different people. Although the distinction between Hallstatt and La T e n e may have been primarily a chronological one (Collis 1986), this ambiguity of purpose has introduced almost accidentally a fundamental distinction between a certainly 'Celtic' La T e n e Europe, and a possibly 'Celtic' Hallstatt Europe. D e Mortillet's characterisation of the 'core' o f ' C e l t i c ' culture would certainly have been different had he k n o w n of recently excavated sites, for example in the Herzogenburg region of lower Austria (Neugebauer 1992), but the subsequent construction of the European Iron Age, as effectively 'Celtic' La T e n e Europe, seems unlikely to have been m u c h different. Part of this perception of 'Celtic' Europe is due to the sequence of archaeological discoveries, but the patterns of deposition have also affected it. Many apparently discontinuous distributions of what are taken to be type fossils of the La T e n e phase also reflect the regional distributions of burial rites a n d / o r practises of formal deposition. This methodological point vitiates many discussions of artistic links between France and Italy which are still considered in terms of migrations a n d / o r itinerant craftspeople (Kruta 1982; Frey 1991a; Megaw and Megaw 1990; Verger 1987) w h e n the observed patterns may simply be a product of depositional patterning. Considerable variation within the archaeological record may be anticipated and while assemblages, artefacts and contexts from Britain may differ from those in Switzerland, so d o those in G e r m a n y or the former Czechoslovakia (e.g., Lorenz 1978).

Celts and classicism This creation of a 'Celtic Europe' also reflects the depth of the debt to classical studies in the study of the European Iron Age (Fitzpatrick 1993: 233). Despite a reluctance amongst English-speaking scholars to recognise that classical literary sources make the study of the Iron Age p r o t o historic, the analytical context of most recent explanatory frameworks remains entwined with the classical world. This is particularly so in the case of the core—periphery models with their emphasis on either external

Copyrighted Material

242

Andrew P. Fitzpatrick

or internal exchange which have dominated the interpretation of both late Hallstatt (e.g., Wells 1980) and later La Tene Europes (e.g., CunlifFe 1988; Wells 1984), despite the major difficulties with such interpretations (Dietler 1990; Fitzpatnck 1993; Woolf 1993). In contrast to the attention which has been paid to the late Hallstatt and late La Tene, the age of Celtic migrations (that is the early/mid-La Tene) has usually been passed over summarily (Collis 1984; Cunliffe 1988). Nevertheless, the emphasis on classicism has remained. The historically attested Celtic raids on Greece and Rome are emphasised (e.g., Nash 1985), whilst the demographically more extensive and significant settlements in central and eastern Europe (Peschel 1984; Szabo 1992; Wozniak 1976), which are poorly recorded historically, receive little attention. Yet it is from precisely this early/middle La Tene period that much of the evidence for the creation of a 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe comes, when the classical, southern, narrative wanes and the northern, Celtic, context merits greater weight. Constructing Celticity It is clear then, that there is no intrinsic 'Celtic' European unity and that the idea of 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe has developed in an almost ad hoc fashion. When examined critically the central idea — of being 'Celtic' — may also be seen to be weakly formulated. The diversity of this concept has been set out by Renfrew (1987) in the context of his work on archaeology and language but for our present purposes three usages of Celtic can be identified as fundamental to the construction of 'Celticity' in the (pre-Roman) Iron Age: (i) language; (ii) art; and (iii) the literary sources. Language Two recent books on Indo-European 'origins' demonstrated opposing attitudes to any correlation between Celtic languages and material culture. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989), guardedly accepted the apparent correlation between the much later linguistic evidence and the earlier archaeological evidence. On the other hand, in Archaeology and Language, Renfrew (1987) even doubted the usefulness of Livy as one of the principal sources on Celtic migrations and consequently, in part, the correlation of archaeological and linguistic evidence. Irrespective of the particular merits of the two positions, their polarisation is noteworthy. How nineteenth-century philological reconstructions of Celtic Europe, based almost entirely on early medieval sources from western Europe, relate to situations over a thousand years earlier in, for example, Eastern Europe, might be thought to be, at best, obscure. These interpretations and linguistic reconstructions are themselves coming under question, and it is increasingly recognised that the appellation 'Celtic language' is modern, not ancient.

Copyrighted Material

'Celtic' Iron Age Europe

243

It is an important point that classical geographers rarely mentioned what languages other peoples spoke. Therefore even if 'Celtic' languages were spoken in those places during the Iron Age, they may not have been called, or recognised as, Celtic by their speakers. Consequently ancient classical names such as Keltoi and closely related ones such as Galateans, Galli etc., may be cases of naming the barbarians by the classical world and need not imply that those peoples spoke what in recent times have been termed a Celtic language. As Renfrew (1987) demonstrated, language is considered to be the essential element defining ethnic groups in most works on language. Such contemporary evidence as there is for written Celtic languages of Iron Age date (largely from Northern Italy, France and Central Spain (Prosdocimi with Solinas 1991)), allows only the generalised conclusion that P-Celtic may have been the most common language. Yet it seems likely that this language was spoken there before the development of what is usually characterised as a 'Celtic' material culture ( Pare 1991; Pauli 1985). Consequently the basis of the presumed correlation between language and material culture of 'La Tene' type is weak, and the crucial connection between language and ethnic groups is unproven. Celtic art Despite their enduring popularity, many studies of 'Celtic' art fail to tell us either what 'Celtic' or 'art' is (e.g., Frey 1991b; Megaw and Megaw 1989). Instead the audiences are presented with motifs isolated from the object, or even the part of the object, they helped to construct. Grave groups, grave plans, or other associations are rarely given (Taylor 1991), and basic relationships such as the relative frequency of decorated to undecorated objects are not considered. Instead the audience is presented with descriptions and illustrations of'cultural achievement', and 'Celtic spirit' in the 'Celtic world'. The assumption of a 'Celtic spirit' (Dillon and Chadwick 1967) allows for academic discussions of a 'Celtic revival' in early Christian Ireland (e.g., Jope 1987) even when virtually no links between it and the art of the pre-Christian Iron Age are discernible. More importantly, the separation of discussions of art from its archaeological context allow Celtic art to be widely regarded as the leitmotif for Celtic expansion (e.g., Kruta 1982; Powell 1980, see esp. figure 74) without the meanings it may have had for those who made and used it being addressed. Yet the fact that the motifs, syntax and image(s) of this art were shared between distant communities might be thought to be an important point in itself (Frey 1991b) and is one of the key elements of any 'Celtic Europe' (Megaw and Megaw 1990; 1993) (see below).

Copyrighted Material

244

Andrew P. Fitzpatrick Classical texts

T h e classical literary sources such as Herodotus and Diodorus share similar intrinsic problems of source criticism, but these pale into insignificance w h e n compared to the difficulties created by the way in which they became intertwined with the later vernacular, and largely Christian, literature of early medieval Ireland (e.g., R a n k i n 1987). This conflation has been used to create a continuity between the p r e - R o m a n , R o m a n and p o s t - R o m a n Iron Ages and the present. Here indeed is a mythical past: 'a past-as-wished-for' (Piggott 1975: 11). In seeking this past, the meanings of these texts to the ancient peoples are often forgotten. Just as the classical texts are often used today in the construction of ethnic identities, they also helped create the 'other' in the classical world. T h e Celts were originally presented as part of a Hellenistic world view which, as described by Ephorus, saw four great Barbarian peoples, the Celts, Scythians, Persians and Libyans, ordered, cruciform-like, around the Creek world (Fischer 1977; Hartog 1980; M o m i g h a n o 1975; Powell 1980: 14). As we have seen, within this construct the appellation 'Celtic' is geographical as much as cultural; it need not indicate that these people spoke Celtic or called themselves Celts (an ethnonym). In the classical texts geographical distance also served to create a cultural distance in that the further from civilisation one travelled the more barbaric it was, even if this barbarism could be imbued with what might today be considered as soft primitivism (Piggott 1975; Rowlands 1990; Shaw 1982-3). Consequently the texts were not 'objective' descriptions, nor were they meant to be. In naming the 'barbarian' they helped to constitute the classical. It is in this context that some of Herodotus's comments of the kind with which this paper starts, and the famous classical figural representations of the Celts should be viewed. For example the thirdcentury Be sculpture of the Dying 'Gaul' (see Figure 16.2) is often used to illustrate works about the Celts. Yet the figure was originally only one part of a much larger group sited in the temple of Athena Nikephoros in Pergamon in Asia M i n o r to celebrate and c o m m e m o r a t e the victory of Attalus I over the Calataea (or Celts) in 232 Be (Bittel 1976; Coarelli 1978; Kiinzl 1971). T h e Dying 'Gaul' is an emphatically classical piece from a classical context; it is not an objective record of 'Celtic spirit'.

' C E L T I C I R O N AGE EUROPE: TIMELESS A N D T R A D I T I O N A L ? It is clear that the ways in which language, art and the literary sources are c o m m o n l y used in the support of a 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe are not united by a cogent and coherent theoretical basis. T h e 'Celtic World' is a pastiche, an unchanging rural idyll which has been characterised as traditional and

Copyrighted Material

'Celtic' Iron A g e Europe

245

Figure 16.2 The 'Dying Gaul'. A Roman marble copy (first century AD?) of a Hellenistic bronze statue of third-century BC date in the temple of Athena Nikephoros, Pergamon, in modern Turkey (Museo Capitolino, Rome: Photograph Antonio Idini) timeless, simply because it is timeless and traditional (Fitzpatrick 1991). It is this which leads C h a p m a n (1992: 52), w h e n considering archaeological evidence, to (incorrectly) describe "Celtic E u r o p e " as a kind of empty space, in which mythical figures disport themselves'. Yet if the theoretical basis of 'Celticity' is so weak, what sustains beliefs in a 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe? Ideas of the Iron Age and of a Europe mapped by 'Celtic' objects are widely thought to be unproblematic and a correlation n o w over a hundred years old still commands widespread acceptance. Books, both academic and 'popular', exhibitions and films o n ' T h e Celts' appear regularly (Megaw 1981; Megaw and Megaw 1992). An important part of one explanation for this popularity lies in the idea of a European Iron Age of Europe which is 'Celtic', described in relation to the Classical world. This provides a greater unity to which specialist studies are assumed to contribute. Archaeological evidence has also played a very important role in constructing 'Celticity' through the idea of an archaeological culture in the Childean sense of a correlation between a constantly recurring assemblage of artefacts and a people. T h e intertwining of sources from widely different times and places into a h o m o g e n e o u s 'Celtic past' (Fitzpatrick 1991) provides a comfortable environment for specialist archaeological studies of settlements, ceramics and subsistence. M u c h work is devoted to filling in the details of a grand

Copyrighted

Material

246

A n d r e w P. Fitzpatrick

Figure 16.3a Third-century BC sword and scabbard from the deposit from 'Galitdl'/Forker Laas Riegel, Carinthia, Austria with detail of 'dragon pair'. Length of sword c. 730mm (Photograph: Romisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz)

order which is interpreted top-down; the important questions being thought to have been resolved already. The importance of the correlation between an archaeological culture and a people in the interpretation of the 'Celts', and the weaknesses of it are evident. Consequently it can be tempting to dismiss the correlation out of hand, but it should be clear: the ancient evidence remains to be explained rather than explained away. That evidence poses a fundamental question; 'why did peoples widely distributed across central and western Europe make material cultures which were different in some respects but essentially similar in others?'

Copyrighted

Material

'Celtic' Iron Age Europe

247

Figure 16.3b Distribution map of sword scabbards decorated with 'dragon pairs' (after Schaaff 1990, Abb.4) It is as well to restate the wide-ranging character and scale of these archaeological distributions. T h e y include the typical Middle La T e n e flat-grave inhumation cemeteries of continental Europe (Lorenz 1978), the so-called 'Waldagesheim style' decoration of fourth/third century BC date which is usually found on metalwork, most often weaponry (Verger 1987, see esp. figure 8), the distribution of Middle—Late La T e n e Celtic coinage (Allen 1980), the distribution of Middle—Late La T e n e oppida which were perhaps the first urban sites in temperate Europe, the second/first century BC depositional patterning of 'St Louis type' hoards containing gold torques and coins (Furger-Gunti 1982), and the acceptance of certain R o m a n goods, such as wine, in the Late La T e n e w h e n they were rejected by the ' G e r m a n i c ' peoples (Fitzpatrick 1993). As we have seen, some of the clearest examples of these distributions are found in weaponry where certain weapons, and the styles of decoration they bear, are widely distributed. This is well illustrated by a single group from 'GailtalVForker Laas Riegel in Carinthia, Austria (Neugebauer 1992: 86; Schaaff 1990). T h e composition of this fourth/third century BC hoard or deposit is, in many ways typical of the patterns of association and deposition across 'Celtic' Europe in that it is composed exclusively of weapons (Fitzpatrick 1992). Some types in the deposit, such as the pilum-like spearheads, have relatively

Copyrighted Material

248

Andrew P. Fitzpatrick

restricted distributions, in this case in the Alpine region (Schaaff 1990: 20, Abb. 11, w h o does not wish to consider them as 'Celtic' for precisely this reason), while other types such as the conical helmets with neckguards are found from France to R o m a n i a (Schaaff 1990: 10, Abb. 1). T h e 'Gailtal'/Forker Laas Riegel group also includes one of the clearest examples of a pan-'Celtic' distribution (Schaaff 1990: 10—18, Abb. 6—7) (see Figure 16.3); swords whose scabbards were decorated with incised decoration in the form of opposed beasts just below the scabbard m o u t h . These so-called 'dragon pairs', which may have had a lucky or apotropaic significance, are found from Hungary to Spain, from Italy to England (Szabo 1989; Szabo and Petres 1992; Megaw and Megaw 1990). T h e widespread distribution of this motif is striking, yet it occurs throughout the area over a period of 200 years o n locally-produced weapons which incorporate important local variations in their manufacture. T h e significance of some of these distributions, particularly those of decorative styles, remains to be agreed (Champion and C h a m p i o n 1986). It has been pointed out, correctly, that a 'Celtic' brooch need not have an ethnic significance (Collis 1984: 14), although the style of costume it fastened might. It is not, however, just a matter of character and meaning, but also one of scale; the groups of materials which share similarities across eastern, central and western Europe are small in number, and are largely restricted to metalwork (Megaw 1982). T h e clear differences both chronologically and conceptually between the Hallstatt and La T e n e 'art' styles (Pauli 1985) should be emphasised, but the significance(s) of these materials to the peoples w h o made, used, and formally deposited them are important issues. Part of the explanation for these widespread, yet also localised, distributions may lie in shared ideas or beliefs whereby only certain peoples could make, use or o w n , or dispose of goods decorated in certain ways. T h e symbolism signified by the decoration may have been imbued with a religious significance (Megaw 1982; Pauli 1985), signifying beliefs shared, perhaps by only small groups, across much of Europe. This might be involved in the identification of an elite or a caste with relatively wide contacts, but it is not only a question of similarities, but of differences also. T h e sharing of certain elements does not make all the persons w h o used them members of the same ethnic group, but it may have allowed the constitution of a larger Celtic Koine or 'grouping' to which they could belong. Many of the significances of these distinctions may have lain not so m u c h in the grand narrative as in the small-scale, local routines of everyday life where repeated practices made the everyday by reproducing and transforming knowledges (Barrett 1988). O n l y a small part of these routines may have been associated with being 'Celtic' and w h e n they defined themselves those peoples may not have recognised themselves as being part of a larger grouping. Yet elements of these repeated routines

Copyrighted Material

'Celtic' Iron Age Europe

249

Ni^feJ^Mftal i^ -mjm,

Figure 16.4 Reconstruction of an Iron Age warrior displayed in the Museum of the Iron Age, Andover, Hampshire, Great Britain. The museum displays focus on the hillfort of Danebury but the weaponry of the warrior incorporates types from widely different times and places in continental Europe (Photograph by courtesy of the Museum of the Iron Age: Hampshire County Council: Photograph: David Allen)

Copyrighted

Material

250

Andrew P. Fitzpatrick

may have simultaneously created the 'other,' whether 'German', 'Thracian' or 'Persian'. The appearance of a certain style of material culture and of linked depositional practises, in areas and at times when those places were said, by the classical authors, to be inhabited by 'Celts' (or peoples with similar names), could be coincidental; but this is unlikely. However, this should not be construed as being an apology for the construction of a timeless and traditional 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe, for it does not require the assumption that those peoples spoke a Celtic language and therefore that they were a single ethnic group. CONTEMPORARY

CELTS

It has been argued that the ideas of an Iron Age, of Europe, and of Celticity are topics whose value has to be reassessed. Some of the key concepts used to construct Celticity in the Iron Age: (i) language; (ii) art; and (iii) the classical literary sources are often chronologically disparate. Although they are not united by a coherent or cogent theory of ethnicity, many students of these key areas share beliefs, at best poorly defined, of a 'culture' and a 'people' united by a common language, and archaeological data has been used to inform this construct. This has created 'a past-as-wished-for' whose grand narrative is closely linked to classicism. It has been argued that many current studies of the British, and to a lesser extent of the continental European, Iron Age recreate a present past readily interpreted through the 'Celts' and their 'Celtic Spirit'. In these critiques, by Merriman (1987), and Hill (1989), it is argued that interpretations of the Celts are perceived as being essentially similar to contemporary British audiences. The ways in which this makes the ancient Celts appear accessible to a contemporary audience — to us — and the ways in which they are studied (see Figure 16.4), result in the Celts being regarded as owe ancestors. The ensuing results are almost genealogical; which has been taken by some to be a bad thing. As well as genealogy, the obvious presence of nationalism in many nineteenth-century interpretations of the Celts has also been criticised. In some parts of Europe this interpretation may be identified and distinguished as a thing of the past (Champion 1987), but, for example, in France it remains true of many current interpretations, where France is synonymous with 'Gaul' (Duval 1989; and see Fleury-Ilett, chapter thirteen). Studies of Vercingetorix, the leader of the national [sic] revolt against Julius Caesar and first leader of the resistance constitute a minor academic industry (Amalvi 1984; Moisset 1976). It has also been pointed out that many modern readings make and place the 'Celtic fringe' as the periphery in symbolic opposition to the core (Chapman 1992: 69). The arguments can be taken further. Studies of 'the Celts' can be seen as Eurocentric, creating an essentially modernist fantasy (Rowlands 1986;

Copyrighted Material

'Celtic' Iron Age Europe

251

1987), but less intellectual labour has been expended by Eurocrats and car manufacturers in making the same point in exhibitions and their associated events where sponsors can be seen to have deliberately sought a history in which the Celts are regarded as 'the first "Europeans" '. O n e facet of this has been a tendency to stress unity rather than variability (e.g., Megaw and Megaw 1992). In identifying genealogy, modernism and nationalism such critiques address some important concerns within structural Marxism and post-structuralism. However, as has been argued previously (Fitzpatrick 1991), there might also be reservations about these arguments. While some studies can be characterised as nationalistic, the fact that they concentrate on Celtic material rather than, say, Germanic, does reflect the past. M o d e r n Europe is heavily indebted to ancient Europe and major, ancient, cultural groupings provide some of the principal intellectual materials for European p r e - and proto-history. T h e Celts of the European Iron Age may be obscured by m o d e r n studies; but they are not entirely a product of nationalistic myths, nor are they purely a creation of imperialistic ethnic definition in the nineteenth century. 'Celtic', 'Iron Age' and 'Europe' remain important ideas and criticisms of m o d e r n interpretation do not invalidate the ancient sources themselves. Instead, they demand a willingness to examine the regional variation and to explore the archaeology of the Iron Age whilst recognising that it is a theoretical construct, instead of merely the filling in of the details of a grand, united, scheme of 'Celtic' Iron Age Europe. R a t h e r than solely reading these ancient sources to ourselves, we should also try reading t h e m back for the ancient peoples w h o made them, for they were part of the languages by which they wrote and constantly rewrote their worlds. However inadequately it has been formulated by m o d e r n scholarship, making Celtic material culture and being Celtic was part of that ancient language.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to D r Colin Haselgrove, D r Jeremy Hill, Professor Vincent Megaw and Professor Barry Raftery for their comments on an earlier version of the text, and to David Allen, Hampshire M u s e u m Service, Dr Ulrich Schaaff, Romisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz and the Musei Capitolini, R o m e for providing illustrative material.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, D.F. (1980) The Coins of the Ancieni Celts. I). Nash (cd. posthumously), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Amalvi, C. (1984) 'De Vercingetorix a Asterix, de la Gaule a de Gaulle, ou les metamorphoses ideologiques et culturelles de nos nationales.' Dialogues Histoirc

Copyrighted Material

252

Andrew P. Fitzpatrick

Ancienne 10: 285-318. Barrett, J. C. (1988) 'Fields of discourse: reconstituting a social archaeology.' Critique of Anthropology 7, 4: 5—16. Bittel, K. (1976) 'Die Galater in Kleinasien archaologisch gesehen.' In D. Pippidi (ed.), Assimilation et resistance a la culture greco-romaine dans le monde ancien, Travaux dcs VI.e Congres international d'Etudes Classiques, Madrid 1974.: 241—9. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Bohner, K. (1981) 'Ludwig Lindenschmidt and the Three Age System.' In G. Daniel (ed.), Towards a History of Archaeology.: 120—6. London: Thames and Hudson. Champion, T.C. (1987) 'The European Iron Age: assessing the state of the art.' Scottish Archaeological Review 4: 98-107. and S.T. Champion (1986) 'Peer polity interaction in the European Iron Age.' In C. Renfrew and S.J. Sherman (eds), Peer Polity Interaction and Sociopolitical Change.: 59—68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapman, M. (1992) The Celts: the Construction of a Myth. London: Macmillan/New York: St. Martin's Press. Coarelli, F. (1979; second edn) 'II "grande donario" di Attalo I.' In / Galli e ITtalia (Exhibition Catalogue).: 231—55. Rome: De Luca. Collis, J.R. (1984) The European Iron Age. London: Batsford. (1986) 'Adieu Hallstatt! adieu La Tene.' In A. Duval and J. Gomez de Soto (eds), Revue Aquitania Supplement 1/Actes du VHIe colloque sur les ages durfer en Trance non-Mediterraneenne.: 327—30. Cunliffe, B.W. (1988) Greeks, Romans and Barbarians: Spheres of Interaction. London: Batsford. Dietler, M.D. (1990) 'Driven by drink: the role of drinking in the political economy and the case of Early Iron Age France.' Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9, 4: 352-406. Dillon, N. and M. Chadwick (1967) The Celtic Realms. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson. Duval, P.-M. (1989) 'Pourquoi nos ancetres les gaulois?' In A. Duval (ed.), Travaux sur la Gaule (1946-1986): Textes Revus et Mis a Jour.: 119—217. Paris and Rome: Collection de 1'Ecole Francaise a Rome 116(i). Fischer, F. (1977) 'Die Kelten bei Herodot: Bemerkungen zu einigen Geographischen und Ethnographischen Problemen.' Madrider Mittcilungen 13: 109—24. (1988) 'Celtes et Achemenides.' In A. Duval (ed.), Les princes et la mediteranee.: 21—31. Paris: La Documentation Francaise. Fitzpatrick, A.P. (1991) ' "Celtic" (Iron Age) religion — traditional and timeless?' Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 123—8. (1992) 'The Snettisham, Norfolk, hoards of Iron Age torques: sacred or profane?' Antiquity 66: 395-8. (1993) 'Ethnicity and exchange: Germans, Celts and Romans in the late Iron Age.' In C.J. Scarre and F.M.A. Healy (eds), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe.: 233—44. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 33. Frey, O.-H. (1991a) 'The formation of the La Tene culture in the fifth century BC.' In S. Moscati et al. (eds), Tlie Celts.: 127-46. Milan: Bompiani/London: Thames and Hudson. (1991b) 'Einige Bemerkungen zu den durchbrochenen Friihlatenegurtelhaken.' In A. Haffner and A. Miron (eds), Studien zur Eisenzeit im

Copyrighted Material

'Celtic' Iron Age Europe

253

Hunsmck-Nahe-Raum.: 101—11. Trier: Trierer Zeitschrift Beihefte 13. Furger-Gunti, A. (1982) 'Der "Goldfund von Saint-Louis" bei Basel und ahnliche keltische Schatzfunde.' Zeitschrift fur Schweizerische Atch'dologie und Kunstgeschichte 39: 1-47. Hartog, F. (1980) Le miroir de Herodote: essai sur la representation de I'autre. Paris: Editions Gallimard. (Eng. trans., 1988 llu Mirror of Herodotus: the representation of the other in the writing of history. Berkeley: University of Los Angeles Press.) Hildebrand, H. (1870) Bidrag till Spennets Historia. Stockholm: Antikvansk Tidskrift for Sverige 4. Hill, J.D. (1989) 'Re-thinking the Iron Age.' Scottish Archaeological Review 6: 16-24. Jope, E.M. (1987) 'Celtic art: expressiveness and communication through 2500 years.' Proceedings of the British Academy 73: 97-124. Kruta, V. (1982) 'Aspects unitaires et fades dans l'art celtique du IVe et Hie siecles avant notre ere.' In P.-M. Duval and V. Kruta (eds), L'art celtique de la periode d'expansion.: 33—75. Paris: Ecole practique des Hautes Etudes. Kunzl, E. (1971) Die kelten des Epigonos von Pergamon. Wurzburg: Beitrage zur Archaologie 4. Lenerez de Wilde, M. (1991) Iherica Celtica: Archaologische Zeugnisse keltischer kultur auf der Pyrenaenhalbinsel. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Lorenz, H. (1978) 'Totenbrachtum und Tracht: Untersuchungen zur regionalen Gliederung in der friihen Latenezeit.' Bericht der Romisch-Cermanischen Kommission 59: 1-380. Mallory, J.P. (1989) In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson. Megaw, J.V.S. (1981) 'Kelti kommt!' Antiquity 55: 125-7. (1982) 'Finding purposeful patterns: further notes towards a methodology of pre-Roman Celtic art.' In P.-M. Duval and V. Kruta (eds), L'art celtique de la periode d'expansion: 213-29. Paris: Ecole practique des Hautes Etudes. and R.M. Megaw (1990) "'Semper aliquid novum...": Celtic dragon pairs re-reviewed.' Acta Archacologica Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 42: 55—72. (1993) 'Cheshire Cats, Mickey Mice, the New Europe and ancient Celtic art.' In C.J. Scarre and F.M.A. Healy (eds), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe.: 219—32. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 33. Megaw, M.R. and J.V.S. Megaw (1989) Celtic Art: from its Beginnings to the Book of Kelts. London: Thames and Hudson. (1992) 'The Celts: the first Europeans?' Antiquity 66: 254-60. Meinander, O F . (1981) 'The concept of culture in European archaeological literature.' In G. Daniel (ed.), 'towards a History of Archaeology.: 100-11. London: Thames and Hudson. Merrinian, N. (1987) 'Value and motivation in prehistory: the evidence for "Celtic" spirit.' In I. Hodder (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings.: 111-16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moisset, M.-T. (1976) 'L'iconographie de Vercingetorix a travers le manucle d'Histoire.' Antiquites Nationales 8: 84-90. Momigliamo, A.D. (1975) Alien Wisdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mortillet, G. de (1871) 'Les gaulois a Marzabotto dans l'Apenin.' Revue Archeologique 1870-71: 288-90.

Copyrighted Material

254

Andrew P. Fitzpatrick

Nash, D. (1985) 'Celtic territorial expansion and the Mediterranean world.' In T.C. Champion and J.V.S. Megaw (eds), Settlement and Society: aspects of West European prehistory in the first millenium BC: 45-67. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Neugebauer, J.-W. (1992) Die kelten im Osten Osterreiches. St Poten/Vienna: Wissenschaftliche Schriftenreihe Niederosterreich 92-4. Pare, C. (1991) 'Furstensitze, Celts and the Mediterranean world: developments in the West Hallstatt Culture in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57:183-202. Pauli, L. (1985) 'Early Celtic society: two centuries of wealth and turmoil in Central Europe.' In T.C. Champion and J.V.S. Megaw (eds), Settlement and Society: aspects of West European prehistory in the first millennium B.C.: 23—43. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Peschel, K. (1984) 'Kriegergrab, Gefolge und Landnahme bei den Latenekelten.' Ethnographisches-Archaologische Zcitschrift 25: 445—69. Piggott, S. (1975 [1968]) The Druids. London: Book Club Associates. Powell, T.G.E. (1980, new edn [1958]) The Celts. London: Thames and Hudson. Prosdocimi, A.L. with P. Solinas (1991) 'The language and writing of the early Celts.' In S. Moscati et al. (eds), The Celts.: 51-9. Milan: Bompiani/London: Thames and Hudson. Rankin, H.I). (1987) Celts and the Classical World. London and Sydney: Croom Helm. Rodden, J. (1981) 'The development of the Three Age System: archaeology's first paradigm.' In G. Daniel (ed.), Towards a History of Archaeology.: 51-68. London: Thames and Hudson. Renfrew, A.C. (1987) Archaeology and Language: the Problem of Indo-European Origins. London: Thames and Hudson. Rolle, R. (1989) The World of the Scythians. London: Batsford. (First published as Die Welt dcr Skythen, 1980, Lucerne and Frankfurt: Bucher.) Rowlands, M.J. (1986) 'Modernist fantasies in prehistory.' Man 21: 745-6. (1987) 'The concept of Europe in prehistory.' Man 22: 558-9. (1990) 'Repetition and exteriorisation in narratives of historical origins.' Critique of Anthropology 8, 2: 43—62. Schaaff U. (1990) Keltische Waffcn. Mainz: Kultur Stiftung der Lander/ Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum. Shaw, B.D. (1982-83) '"Eaters of flesh, drinkers of milk": the ancient Mediterranean ideology of the pastoral nomad.' Ancient Society 13/14: 5—31. Sorensen, M.L.S. and R. Thomas (eds) (1989) Hie Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 484. Szabo, M. (1992) Les Celtes de I'Est: le Second Age du Per dans la Cuvette dcs Karpates. Paris: Errance. and E.F. Petres (1992) Decorated Weapons of the La Tene Iron Age in the Carpathian Basin. Budapest: Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 5. Taylor, T.F. (1991) 'Celtic art.' Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 129-32. (1992) 'The Gundestrup cauldron.' Scientific American 266, 3: 66—71. Tierney, J.J. (1960) 'The O k i e ethnography of Posidonius.' Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Section C 60: 189-275. Verger, S. (1987) 'La genese celtique des rinceaux a trisceles.' Jahrbuch dcs Rdmischcs-Germanisches Zentralmuseums Mainz 1987 (1989): 287—339.

Copyrighted Material

'Celtic' Iron Age Europe

255

Wells, P.S. (1980) Culture Contact and Culture Change: Harly Iron Age central Europe and the Mediterranean world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1984) Farms, Villages and Cities: Commerce and Urban Origins in late Prehistoric Europe. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. (1990) 'Iron Age Temperate Europe: some current research issues.' Journal of World Prehistory 4, 4: 437-76. Woolf, G.D. (1993) 'The social significance of trade in Late Iron Age Europe.' In C.J. Scarre and F.M.A. Healy (eds), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe: 211-18. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 33. Wozniak, N. (1976) 'Die ostliche Randzone der Latenekultur.' Germania 54: 382-402.

Copyrighted Material

CHAPTER

SEVENTEEN

BRITAIN AFTER ROME Between multkulturalism and monoculturalism JOHN

HINES

INTRODUCTION T h e r e are several good reasons w h y Britain in the first millennium Al> should provide a rewarding case-study for the themes with which this b o o k is concerned. T h e island conveniently forms a discrete study area whose limits are unambiguous, so that procedural choices which could seriously affect the study o f heterogeneity within some other nominated unit, like ' G e r m a n y ' or 'Scandinavia' or 'Eastern Europe', pose n o problem. T h e important relationship (according to modern conceptions) in geographically large-scale cultural systems between centre and periphery is represented on the island, by an agriculturally rich South which historically has repeatedly integrated and re-integrated itself with the dominant cultural trends of adjacent Continental Europe, and a N o r t h and West that seem equally ready to persist in being different. In the first millennium AD Britain moved from the prehistoric Iron Age to the historical Middle Ages, and at the same time passed under the successive dominance of three major 'powers': that is, of the Celtic, the R o m a n and the Germanic cultural identities that dominated late prehistory, ancient history and early medieval history in Western Europe. It was nevertheless with some scepticism that I initially viewed the idea of including a study of this area in a collection of essays on 'multicultural societies'. For both theoretical and empirical reasons, I have difficulty in believing that what could properly be called a multicultural society existed in this phase of European p r e - and proto-history. N o entity can assert an identity without distinguishing itself from a context; the identification of local homogeneity must thus depend upon a wider heterogeneity (see Laclau 1995). But if that wider heterogeneity maintains a stable, or at least a functioning, networked system of communities, w h y should we insist upon its essential mtiWculturalism rather than regarding it as a diversified single culture? Yet, despite these reservations it is possible to identify, at the end of R o m a n Britain and the beginning of Anglo-Saxon England,

Copyrighted Material

Britain after Rome

257

a good historical example of a contrast between quasi-multiculturalism and assertive monoculturalism. These multi- and monoculturalisms emerge as tendencies rather than states of being, and the differences between what they produce as trends impart some reality to the implicit proposition of this book: that multiculturalism exists. B R I T A I N UNDER ROME: I M P E R I A L I S M CULTURAL DIVERSITY

AND

Late Iron Age Britain was subject to a certain amount of romanising influence from the Continent before the Claudian invasion of AD 43 and the subsequent Imperial conquest. The Roman occupation, however, introduced a new material culture to Britain, and a diverse if often transient alien population serving in various social capacities. Both archaeologically and historically, the Roman Period in Britain ended in the early fifth century AD. It would be difficult to offer a recognisable summary of the state of affairs in Britain by that time, after roughly four centuries within the Roman Empire, without giving the impression that two powerful cultural trends had been romanisation and the survival of native traditions. Could that duality constitute some form of multiculturalism? Late Roman Britain is usually represented in terms of a number of dichotomies (e.g., Johnson 1980: 1-41; Millett 1990). The island itself is divided topographically between a highland and a lowland zone. The human population lends itself to division into a series of binarily opposed categories, such as town against country (the latter represented by villas, villages and farms), and military against civilian. The island was divided politically too. By the early fourth century, the diocese of Britain was divided into four provinces. The exact extent of each of these provinces behind the defined frontier of Roman Britain, marked by Hadrian's Wall, is unknown. The very division itself — a secondary division under Diocletian after the original province of Britain had been divided into two under Severus at the end of the second century — may, inter alia, reflect the practical desirability of different political arrangements in each province. Reconstructions of Late Roman Britain usually postulate what is in effect a separate military zone within the diocese, where romanisation was largely limited to military occupation (of varying intensity) and taxation, and where the population otherwise remained significantly 'native' — perhaps indeed with some 'native' or 'tribal' political organisation matching that of groups beyond the Wall (see Higham 1989; Welsby 1982). Historical sources suggest that there were shifting political groupings north of the Wall, particularly on the evidence of names going out of use (e.g., the Caledonii) and coming into history (the Picti). These sources also give some notion of the possible function of such groups, as the Picts repeatedly raid and attack fourth-century Britain (Dickinson 1961: 23-42; Hanson and Maxwell 1983, esp. 3-19; Keppie 1989).

Copyrighted Material

258

John Hines

T h e archaeological map of Britain in the R o m a n Period does not disagree radically with this framework of polarities, but it tends to make it fairly clear that the oppositions concerned are essentially conceptual entities: they are idealisations rather than oppositions which were clearly embodied in reality. It is only possible to be really confident that symbolic identification with a particular culture group (which in this case can be interpreted as a claim upon a certain ethnic identity) was fully developed in respect of those w h o identified as ' R o m a n ' . For them, a romanised lifestyle with characteristic settlement types, clothing and dress-accessories, occupations, behaviour, values, language, and so on, was available (Ling 1986). This Romanitas, it can be safely assumed, was a polythetic p h e n o m e n o n of the type defined by Clarke (1968: 35—8). As long as we work on the basis that ethnic identity is an essentially ideological p h e n o m e n o n , the symbolic assertion of ethnicity in material culture is always easiest to identify in a historical context. W r i t t e n sources can provide us with explicit descriptions of the material characteristics of an identity - as is the case with Romanitas - or with ethnographic maps that can be compared with material culture distributions, as with the Anglo-Saxon peoples (see below pp. 264—5). T h e tendency in m o d e r n archaeology to dismiss the potential ethnicity of cultural groups out of hand is not really justified if we accept that real (i.e. functionally significant) ethnic identities can be both externally- and self-attributed. T h e expensive, intensive and distinctive deposition of material within an historical framework can be interpreted as the active synibolisation of identity although that may not be its only, nor even its major, function. O f course, a people without written history can also have a sense of ethnic identity. But can such a people express its ethnic identity in a historical context without adopting history (cf. Hedeager 1993)? Equally in R o m a n Britain we could expect a symbolic expression of an alternative native cultural identity to be expressed in terms commensurate with those of Romanitas. T h e characteristics of Romanitas establish contrasting features — like round 'huts' — that make up the British/'native' part of the R o m a n o - B r i t i s h whole, or by association are characteristically 'native' beyond the Wall. But, south of the Wall, the creeping romanisation of, for instance, building types and field systems, across various social groups, and the incipient restriction of traditional types to relict areas hardly supports an interpretation of this native culture as assertive expression of identity (cf. also Jones 1991 on burial rites). A different matter may however be the innovative 'Celticising tendency' of the Picts that is persistently evident in studies of, for instance, Pictish art and language, which played some part in the growth and redefinition of this group (see Alcock 1987; Fraser 1987). If Celticity was cultivated and emphasised in Britain beyond the Wall, then a contrast to the Romanitas of R o m a n Britain was being promulgated. At the same time, however, the unification of groups and exploitation of material culture

Copyrighted Material

Britain after Rome

259

and language in this way would, as anticipated, be a direct parallel to the perceived status and function of Roman culture and could thus themselves be regarded as instances of romanising influence. The Wall was not a simple and absolute frontier between Roman and barbarian Britain. Aside from the 'military zone' behind it, there were outpost forts in a semi-military zone beyond it and, no doubt, treaty relationships with client groups such as the Votadini. Here, as on the Continent, Roman products (like the Traprain Law treasures) could serve the needs of 'barbarian' social elites as prestige goods, so that the relationships between societies north and south of the nominal frontier were at least capable of being symbiotic rather than antagonistic. From this, it is possible to suggest tentatively that a profound characteristic of imperialism, which may itself have become an intrinsic element of Romanity, was the harmonisation and integration of cultural diversity to a unified end (Millett 1990). It is a very difficult matter to retrieve a Roman political theory of empire when there are no sources that deal with the issue directly. It was, however, the celebrated, self-acclaimed achievement of the Empire to embrace and civilise far-flung lands and people in the face of barbaric resistance (see, for instance, from either end of the Imperial period, Hardie 1986, esp. 336—86, on Virgil, and Ammianus Marcellinus XIV.6.6). At the pinnacle of this process stood the model of the capital city of Rome, offering a share of glory and mastership to all who could claim her citizenship. An alternative, barbarian world was needed to maintain, by contrast, a consciousness of the nature of civilisation as an achievement, and two such worlds were available: the 'native' world within the Empire and the 'barbarian' without. Thus the polarities and divisions within the Roman world do not just reflect the complexity of the imperial state and modern historians' pragmatic responses to that complexity, but were crucial in maintaining an ideology of Empire: a consciousness of Roman civilisation as a complex but structured and balanced, 'architectural' whole. It would be very useful to have some reliable insight into the selfperception of the majority of the inhabitants within the Empire in respect of conscious Romanitas. Branigan (1991) has recently provided an exploration of the evidence for attitudes to Romanitas in Roman Britain. Despite the sparse and indirect nature of this evidence he can still reasonably conclude that 'many natives of Rome's northwestern provinces, from all points on the social ladder, perceived the Romans and their empire as broadly beneficial to them' (Branigan 1991: 104). One crucial area, however, which his insights leave obscure, is how such attitudes, self-perceptions and identifications would have fared in the context of the divisive, oppressive, and possibly widespread development in Late Roman agrarian organisation, of tenants and tied farmers (coloni) subject to wealthy aristocratic landowners (Millett 1990: 186-211; Salway 1981: 605—6). Amongst others, the Late Roman settlement complex at Catsgore,

Copyrighted Material

260

John Hines

Somerset, has been cautiously, but plausibly, discussed in terms of the contrasting social levels dwelling side-by-side (Leech 1982: 33—9). T h e possible interpretations of such differentiation are diverse. A shared R o m a n identity could have served to override the conflict of interests in this unequal situation. Alternatively, a difference between Romanitas and nativeness could have been invoked to justify a separation of, and discrimination between, the two groups. A third major possibility is that the b o n d or tenant farmers simply had n o particular sense of identity. I am unaware of any symbolism in the material record that favours any one of these possibilities by the criteria suggested above. For a deeper understanding of early p o s t - R o m a n Britain, however, it would be worth re-assessing this issue; and if the material symbolism of the relevant contexts remains as unyielding, to assess w h e t h e r that fact bears any quantifiable implications.

'THE L A N D OF THE E N G L I S H ' T h e r e is another radical change in the direction of cultural development in Britain in the fifth century A D . Temporarily, the divisions within Britain are reinforced, as m u c h of the lowland zone sees the start of the Anglo-Saxon period, while new and apparently interrelated structures and practices appear in the West and N o r t h (Alcock 1971 is still the best comprehensive summary). T h e ranges of material characteristic of the archaeology of both zones — principally pottery and metalwork — change from those of the R o m a n Period, as does the set of sites of activity (settlements and cemeteries) that archaeology can attribute to this period. T h e volume and range of detectable continuity in what had been R o m a n Britain is surprisingly thin. Both early Anglo-Saxon and p o s t - R o m a n 'British' deposits are familiar enough in the final phases of old R o m a n towns, villas and so on, but this late element is never demonstrably a link in an unbroken history. Astonishingly, La T e n e art styles re-emerge as dominant in the northern and western zone, and the existing evidence for the maintenance and development of R o m a n period material culture in the lowland zone of the South and East, as in the Anglo-Saxon Q u o i t brooch style, is conspicuously slight. T h e strongest case for continuity has been made in respect of the agrarian landscape: that field-systems and agricultural practices, and even whole estates, could and frequently did pass without radical change from the R o m a n Period to the p o s t - R o m a n (for contrasting views, see Fowler 1975 and Welch 1985). T h e Germanic settlements of the fifth (and probably the sixth) century set in train a process of linguistic, cultural and political anglicisation that has n o w embraced virtually all of the British Isles and is still continuing in some areas. According to the archaeological and historical record, the first stage of this process was both rapid and powerful. By the early sixth century, the outline of the earliest geographical entity that can properly

Copyrighted Material

Britain after Rome

261

be called England had been established, represented most clearly by a territory covered with the ubiquitous furnished cemeteries of Germanic Migration period culture of the late fourth to later sixth centuries (see Figure 17.1). Within this region the situation is not, of course, uniform: areas with few or no early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries (e.g., around London) lend themselves to interpretation as possible 'enclaves', but it is necessary to be careful about what that term might mean in any particular case. Furnished burial was not simply symbolically Germanic (indeed it may not have been symbolically Germanic at all). Such burials are primarily regarded as a context for competitive ritual consumption and should therefore be under-represented in any areas where competitive consumption was functionally redundant: that is where power relations involving a Germanic culture group were stable rather than subject to competition which was fought out in terms of traditional Germanic culture. Some tiny 'British enclaves' have been identified, for example, those represented by English place-names such as Walton and Comberton (= 'British village': Gelling 1978: 87—105). For a general perspective, however, it is instructive to remember that Gildas, the Briton, writing in the sixth century, thought primarily in terms of the expulsion or enslavement of the Britons in the Anglo-Saxon lands, and he makes no condemnation of any Britons consorting or collaborating with the pagan Saxons. For much of the sixth century, English culture seems to consolidate its hold on the territory it had occupied by early in the century rather than continuing to expand (see Figure 17.2). The increase in the number of sites on this map could represent consolidation behind these boundaries involving a significantly limited form of settlement expansion, and it might also reflect the adoption of Germanic culture by more members of the population within this area. Insofar as the continuation of widespread furnished burial does reflect a continuation of social competition, this is likely to be intra-Germanic in nature, rather than between Germanic and British communities. The expansion of Engla-land ('the land of the English') westwards and northwards from the end of the sixth century is poorly documented in archaeology and history and seriously under investigated. Some glimpses of the process involved are probably afforded by existing records of battles fought between kings or political elites: the sixth-century battle of Dyrham by which Gloucester, Bath and Cirencester are alleged to have fallen; the defeat of the warriors of Manau Gododdin around 600; the fall of Elmet to Edwin of Northumbria by the 630s; the driving of the Britons of Dumnonia back to the River Parrett, in Somerset, in 658. Other evidence is provided post-factum, by charters and other records, for instance of ecclesiastical appointments or incidents: the Mercian bishopric in Worcester being founded in 680; Cuthbert's sojourns in Carlisle in the mid-680s; Boniface entering a monastery in Exeter before 690. There is good reason to suppose that by the seventh century the English kingdoms

Copyrighted Material

262

John Hines

Figure 17.1

Map of Anglo-Saxon cemetery sites dated up to c. AD 525

Copyrighted

Material

Britain after Rome

263

Figure 17.2 Map of Anglo-Saxon cemetery sites of the Migration Period; i.e., dated up to c. AD 5 6 0 / 5 7 0

Copyrighted

Material

264

John Hines

were expanding by political conquest, and that anglicisation followed in their train. Land holdings in the conquered territories may have been given as rewards to royal supporters — and eventually, indeed, to the C h u r c h — but the level of resettlement from the east to the west that may have been involved is irretrievably obscure. And if, indeed, there was n o massive change of population in the new territories, anglicisation must primarily have taken place as a process of assimilation. W h a t seems remarkable then, is h o w very thorough it was (see below pp. 266—7). T h e extent of assimilation may appear somewhat less remarkable, and more understandable, w h e n we consider h o w strong the force of conformity was within just that English culture that was expanding in Britain. Assimilation to English culture was not just a matter of adopting various external p h e n o m e n a such as pots, building styles, a language, social structures and so on, but more profoundly a matter of adopting an identity that enjoined a thorough respect for certain norms. This factor may well also have been important in respect of the creation and expansion of Anglo-Saxon culture in the Migration Period, given that there is little evidence for the level of immigration from the C o n t i n e n t involved, while there is scattered evidence that s u b - R o m a n culture was still very much alive in some areas w h e n the Anglo-Saxon Period began (for instance from excavations at St Albans and Heybridge, and from the fifth-century Life of St Germanus of Auxerre). T h e formation of political confederations, which became ethnic groups, and their symbolisation in material culture, were powerful and widespread trends in the Continental Germanic cultures that the Anglo-Saxon culture(s) were derived from. T h r o u g h Classical authors, mainly from Caesar onwards, it is possible to trace substantial changes in the set of named groups that the Germani as a whole were divided into (first comprehensively described and analysed by Tacitus in his Germania at the end of the first century At)). While some relatively small ' g r o u p ' identities, such as Angle and Jute, survive through the R o m a n Period, a set of ostensibly n e w major confederations, such as the Franks, Saxons, Danes and Goths, emerge in the late second/early third centuries. T h e organisational structure of such groups can be explored archaeologically, as it has been most thoroughly in respect of D e n m a r k (Hedeager 1992). However, in respect of symbolic self-identification, the Danes never seem to have distinguished themselves from a considerably larger N o r t h Germanic/Scandinavian group, even t h o u g h they may have persistently exercised a cultural hegemony within that group. T h e Saxons' use of distinctive brooch-forms and other aspects of material culture to mark their group identity in the fourth century is much clearer. By the mid-fourth century, new brooch-types appear, in quantity, in what is historically identifiable as the heart of Continental Saxony. Their distinctive distribution is reinforced by further new types over the next century, while it apparently starts a trend that is gradually adopted by neighbouring

Copyrighted Material

Britain after Rome

265

groups. By the time that Germanic material culture began to appear widely in lowland Britain in the mid-fifth century, the Saxons, Angles and Jutes were all reasonably distinguishable, from each other at least, by their material culture, and are all unambiguously identifiable in Early Anglo-Saxon archaeology. N o t all of the differences between these groups, of course, can be attributed to deliberate symbolisation of identity. However, the notion of material culture reflecting group-identity had been established, and the immediately subsequent developments in material culture in England are very effectively explained by means of this cultural function. O u r first and most important historical statement of the sense of identity amongst the Anglo-Saxons comes in Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Alongside a strong sense of the unity of the English — the gens Anglorum, he calls t h e m — Bede was fully aware of differences within this group between Angles, Saxons and Kcntishmen. T h e major variables by which these groups are distinguished by Bede are territory/location and language, while traditional histories of the settlem e n t of these territories by Continental Angles, Saxons and Jutes served, mythically, to anchor and explain this system of identities. By an early date, c. AO 500, there is evidence for the formation of new, distinctive material-culture groups that respect the territories of Bede's groups very closely. These developments are most evident in Anglian England and Kent; Saxon England is thus negatively distinguished, being actually less innovative in the symbolic demarcation of its identity. Kent's innovations lie in merging a small c o m p o n e n t of traditionally Jutish material culture with a much more conspicuous range adopted from the Frankish Continent, while the Anglian English culture is a hybridisation of the Saxon, Anglian and Scandinavian traditions introduced by the various Germanic settlers of that area. Here, however, the importation and adaptation of models from outside can be seen to continue far into the sixth century. It may indeed be symptomatic of the intrinsically Germanic nature of this range of ethnic identities that n o external source reflecting the A n g l o Saxon settlement, such as Gildas, the Gallic Chronicles or the Life of Germanus, distinguishes between the different groups involved in the way that G e r m a n i c / A n g l o - S a x o n culture and traditions do. Before long, however, at least the preconditions for the sense of unity a m o n g English people expressed by Bede b e c o m e apparent. Anglo-Saxon material culture undergoes a marked shift towards uniformity around the late sixth century, particularly in art and dress styles where regional diversity had formerly prevailed (Hyslop 1963; Leeds 1936: 96—114). This n e w Anglo-Saxon material uniformity does not, however, simply supersede the previous divisions; rather it can be seen to complement them, and in fact in itself provides a c o m m o n m o d e in which regional differences can still be marked and asserted in new, though much subtler, ways (Hines 1992).

Copyrighted Material

266

John Hines

These changes mark the end of the Migration Period in England as elsewhere. It is widely accepted that the end of Migration Period culture is linked to fundamental social changes, essentially in the form of the consolidation of aristocratic elites in stratified societies that were to evolve into the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (Bassett 1989). T h u s new, powerful interest groups and centres of potential influence were emerging, and it is possible to argue that the manipulation of material culture to assert group identity and difference became increasingly involved in political relations from the seventh century onwards. D u r i n g this phase, w h e n developments were on a nationwide scale, language history becomes available as a practical field of study again. T h e r e is still very little direct evidence for language use in the seventh century at least, but language history is an area in which full language systems (or at least subsystems) can be reconstructed through the principles of comparative philology, and this is highly productive in respect of b o t h O l d English, and the N o r t h - W e s t Germanic language family generally, in this proto-historic phase. T h e r e is evidence that 'branches' of G e r m a n i c language that were not only diverse but also divergent were brought into Britain by the settlers. However, these different varieties were then systematically transformed in a process of convergence, not simply towards a single dominant variety, but towards a newly evolved 'English' form. It was apparently the nature of this form to encourage linguistic usage in keeping with its n o r m s rather than to impose uniformity. T h u s , a n u m b e r of dialects were always able to maintain a degree of distance from it, and from one another, like satellites orbiting a centre of gravity. T h e most significant point to stress here is that linguistic conformity (which is different from uniformity) was an historical fact even while the n e w English language developed with striking rapidity away from the forms of Continental Germanic. This itself is testimony to the strength of its normative power. In terms of material culture, there is very little evidence concerning the nature of shifts which the great mass of the assumed 'native' population of the n e w western areas of England would have had to make to anglicise, nor, therefore, any clear view of h o w rapidly or thoroughly they made those shifts. T h a t the linguistic shift was substantial and thorough is clear. N o significant British substrates, or Anglo-Celtic mixed languages of any form, have ever been discerned. M o r e Celtic place names survive in the South-West, West Midlands and North-West, undoubtedly, but even here they are still a small minority in most places, especially w h e n o n e includes such localised bodies of material as field names (see Gelling 1992: 53—71). T h e 'Bryttonic'/Welsh language did survive in C u m b r i a , the Marches and Cornwall — all of which had been effectively included within English kingdoms by the ninth century — for varying periods after these territories became part of the 'land of the English'. T h e linguistic division in these areas still requires careful investigation.

Copyrighted Material

Britain after Rome

267

What one could readily suppose from the general tenor of relevant studies, but which still needs rigorous examination, is that the 'Welsh' and English language and identity here remained separate. 'Welsh' or 'English' was a choice; perhaps not an equal nor a free one. But there seems to have been no middle ground: no compromise or composite position (see Higham 1986: 267-74; Payton 1992, esp. 43f£; Price 1984, esp. 84-93). The proposition is, then, that conformity was a pervasive trend in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon culture. It is also argued, as a point for special comparison with Roman imperialism as a political theory and strategy, that this trend was eventually adopted by Anglo-Saxon political powers, who attempt to harness it to their interests. A rudimentary form of Anglo-Saxon imperialism does appear by the sixth or seventh century, appropriately reflected in Insular Latin writing, in Adomnan's use of the term imperator of Oswald of Northumbria, and Bede's term imperium for the authority enjoyed by a sequence of Anglo-Saxon kings. This imperialism took the form of hegemony or power over diverse groups including British (Celtic) kingdoms, but it was not, it seems, accompanied by any significant appreciation of cultural diversity. Aspects of the policy of Mercian kings, especially Offa (757—94), in the way that they sought to impose a relatively totalitarian (i.e., anti-pluralistic) rule upon the England they were overlords of, seem to be exemplary. This policy can be traced through a range of manifestations from the purely jurisdictional, such as Offa asserting his sole right to grant so-called land tenure by book, to more symbolic acts, such as having Mercian formulae used in official documents, demarcating the boundary with Offa's Dyke, and the recurrent suppression of independent coin minting traditions, especially in East Anglia (see John 1966: 23-6). Finally, for the purposes of this essay, a convenient line can boldly be drawn across the historical sequence in the mid-790s, with the death of Offa and the Viking raid on Lindisfarne, deferring discussion of the complications effected by the Viking period irruptions and the radical changes they brought about in English cultural history. CONCLUSION This case study seems to offer us a neat example of strongly contrasting social, political and cultural conditions: a contrast between two fundamentally opposed systems of inter-cultural relations. One was benign to cultural diversity. Within the political community such variance was used to accentuate the special character and status of one dominant set of practices and attitudes. This would appear to be a system that is essentially suited to large-scale relationships, and for our case study is represented by Roman imperialism. Contrasted with this was a habit of extensive cultural conformity — material, ethnic, linguistic and perhaps more — that seems to have evolved in certain political circumstances in Germanic

Copyrighted Material

268

John Hines

Europe but soon to have over-spilled the limits of political control, leaving us to observe later kings' attempts to re-harness it to their political interests. A n attempt has been made here to express the 'essence' of successive periods in respect of these contrasts — all too obviously at the expense of complexity and detail, but not, I hope, at the cost of fabrication. At the very least, the characterisations made seem both plausible and important enough to form a hypothesis worthy of further examination. Many pertinent questions readily arise. H o w can this contrast be interpreted and evaluated? Is it a contrast between civilisation and barbarism, or between progress and regression to 'primitive' cultural forms? Is o n e system more 'natural' than the other? D o they alternate historically in a simple cyclical pattern or are special historical stimuli needed for movement in either direction? Strong echoes of the situation of contrast between opposed systems of inter-cultural relations suggested here can be found in a discussion by Laclau of recent political history in terms of the philosophical relation between the universal and the particular (Laclau 1995). In essence, Laclau argues that two fundamental and apparently irreconcilable oppositions cannot exist other than as pairs — subjectivity and objectivity, and universality and particularity. T h e universal is n o more, n o r indeed less, than 'the symbol of a missing fullness', and the particular compromises its particularity as soon as it thinks of or asserts itself as something particular. Laclau s analysis supports the view that these alternatives, however opposed, are ineradicable poles of the fields of h u m a n cognition and culture: the definite, local, subjective and particular identity (i.e., me, this family, this group), and the sense of belonging, relating to and depending on the larger world (Empire, C o m m o n w e a l t h , European C o m m u n i t y or whatever). If this is so, it may be possible, and must certainly be appropriate for us to try to identify and understand the movements that lead to the temporary dominance of either alternative system in history; in this instance between R o m a n Britain and A n g l o Saxon England. England continues to look like a good area in which to conduct that study, n o t least because of the historically continuous problem of finding 'Englishness' itself. Now, as recurrently in English history, the selfidentification of those w h o by various criteria would appear to be well qualified to be called 'English' tends to be with a region of England (e.g., the South, the South-West, the North) a n d / o r to merge inseparably with the category 'British', creating a potentially antagonistic crossing of, inter alia, the self-perceptions of the Welsh and Scots. T h e notion of Britain/Britannia is here taken to be more than simply a geographical entity descended from the R o m a n Period alongside the rudimentary Anglo-Saxon imperialism noted above. It may have been a necessary paradox that the unification of England under the kings of Wcsscx in the tenth century was achieved in the context of 'imperial' policies explicitly targeted upon a notional Britain (John 1966: esp. 35—63).

Copyrighted Material

Britain after Rome

269

True (i.e., perfect) multiculturalism ought to be the concurrent and stable presence of genuinely alternative cultural strategies within a single area. T h e empirically based suspicion expressed in this paper that true multiculturalism is impossible may be correct. If it is correct, however, that may be because the notional alternative to it, the discrete m o n o cultural entity that has to be the basic building block of a multicultural situation, is also unattainable in any conceivable world in which cultural variance is possible.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alcock, L. (1971) Arthur's Britain. Harniondsworth: Pelican. (1987) 'Pictish studies: present and future.' In A. Small (ed.), The Picts: A New Look at Old Problems.: 80—92. Dundee: Graham Hunter Foundation. Ammianus Marcellinus (Rerum Gestarum Libri qui supersunt). In J.C. Rolfe, Ammianus Marcellinus, Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann (3 vols). Bassett, S. (1989) 'In search of the origins of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.' In S. Bassett (ed.), The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.: 3—27. London: Leicester University Press. Branigan, K. (1991) 'Images - or mirages - of empire? An archaeological approach to the problem.' In L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire.: 91-105. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Clarke, D.L. (1968) Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen. Dickinson, W.C. (1961) Scotland, from the Earliest Times to 1603. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons. Fowler, P.J. (1975) 'Continuity in the landscape. Some local archaeology in Wiltshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire.' In P.J. Fowler (ed.), Recent Work in Rural Archaeology.: 121—36. Bradford-on-Avon: Moonraker. Fraser, LA. (1987) 'Pictish place-names - some toponymic evidence.' In A. Small (ed.), The Picts: A New Look at Old Problems.: 68—72. Dundee: Graham Hunter Foundation. Gelling, M. (1978) Signposts to the Past. London: Dent. (1992) The West Midlands in the Early Middle Ages. London: Leicester University Press. Hanson, W.S. and G.S. Maxwell (1982) Rome's North West Frontier: The Antonine Wall. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hardie, P.R. (1986) Virgil's Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hedeager, L. (1992) Iron-Age Societies: From Tribe to State in Northern Europe 500 lie to AH 700. Oxford: Blackwell. (1993) 'The creation of Germanic identity: A European origin-myth.' In P. Brun ct al. (eds), Frontieres d'Empire.: 121—31. Nemours: Memoires du Musee de Prehistoire d'lle-de-France no. 5. Higham, N. (1986) The Northern Counties to AD 1000. London: Longman. (1989) 'Roman and native in England north ot the Tees: acculturation and its limitations.' In J. C. Barrett et al. (eds), Barbarians and Romans in Northwestern Europe.: 153—74. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 471.

Copyrighted Material

270

John Hines

Hines, J. (1992) 'The Scandinavian character of Anglian England: An update.' In M.O.H. Carver (ed.), The Age of Sutton Hoo.: 315-29. Woodbndge: Boy dell. Hyslop, M. (1963) 'Two Anglo-Saxon cemeteries at Chamberlain's Barn, Leighton Buzzard, Beds.' Archaeological Journal 120:161—200. John, E. (1966) Orbis Britanniae and Other Studies. London: Leicester University Press. Johnson, S. (1980) Later Roman Britain. London: Book Club Associates. Jones, R.F.J. (1991) 'Cultural change in Roman Britain.' In R.F.J. Jones (ed.), Britain in the Roman Period: Recent Trends.: 115—20. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications. Keppie, L. (1989) 'Beyond the northern frontier: Roman and Native in Scotland.' In M. Todd (ed.), Research on Roman Britain 1960-89.: 61-73. London: Britannia Monograph Series No. 11. Laclau, E. (1995) 'Universalism, particularism and the question of identity'. In J. Rajchman (ed.), The Identity in Question. London: Routledge. Leech, R. (1982) Excavations at Catsgore 1970-1973. A Romano-British Village. Bristol: Western Archaeological Trust. Leeds, E.T. (1936) Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ling, R. (1986)) 'The art of living.' In J. Boardman et al. (eds), The Oxford History of the Classical World.: 718—47. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Millett, M. (1990) The Romanization of Britain. An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Payton, P. (1992) The Making of Modern Cornwall: Historical Experience and the Persistence of 'Difference'. Redruth: Dyllansow Truran. Price, G. (1984) The Languages of Britain. London: Edward Arnold. Salway, P. (1981) Roman Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Welch, M.G. (1985) 'Rural settlement patterns in the early and middle AngloSaxon periods.' Landscape History 7: 13—25. Welsby, D.A. (1982) The Roman Military Defence of the British Provinces in its Later Phases. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 101.

Copyrighted Material

INDEX academic c o m m u n i t y , 29; censorship, 118 academic expertise, 211 acculturation, 77, 233 Acheulean, 50 Acropolis, 105 Adenauer, Konrad, 107 A d o m n a n , 267 A d o n n i n o , Pietro, 100 Aegean, 141 Aestii, 229 Africa, 10, 15, 40, 109, 130 Afro-Caribbean, 110 Agriculture: vs. hunter-gatherers, 145-67 Aldrovandi, Ulisse, 30, 31 Alesia, 2 0 4 - 5 Alexander, C.F., 82 Alfred the Great, 176 alienation, 42 Almagro, M., 185, 188 Alpine region, 248 amber, 9, 2 3 1 - 2 Amenca(s), 40, 5 1 , 109, 160, 181; 'Indians', 32, 35; audiovisual products as threat, 103; discovery of, 3 1 ; N o r t h , 32; television, 110 American Antiquity, xv Anatolia, 133, 160 Angles, 1 6 7 - 8 , 264, 265 A n g l o - N o r m a n s , 177 Anglo-Saxon, 25, 258, 260—7; assimilation, 264; Britain, 18; cemeteries, 2 6 1 ; England, 257; language, 30; Q u o i t - b r o o c h Style, 260 Anstis, 34 Anthropology, 37, 42, see also ethnicity, nationalism; and ethnicity, 76, 179; and the European U n i o n , 106; definition of ethnicity, 129—30; history of, 49, 63; and 'other

histories', 2 1 1 ; origins, 57; physical, 154—5; and race, 85; synthesis with other disciplines, 143; theories of cultural identity, 5 - 6 , 5 5 - 6 , 66—7, 145—6, 152—3; understanding 'primitives', 139 antidiluvianism, 31 antiquarianism, 34, 5 1 ; 'Classical', 3 2 - 6 ; 28; and field m o n u m e n t s , 'itineraries', 34; Renaissance, 32; scientific, 32 Antiquity (journal), 121 Aquitanians, 204 Arabic: language, 128 Arabs, 58, 155 Archaeologica Britannica CAossography, Lhvyd, E. (1707), 132 archaeology, see also individual periods: as anthropology, xv; and the Celts, 18, 3 1 - 3 , 5 6 - 7 , 173-6; 179-96, 238—55; and class values, 170; cognitive, 122; contextual, 27, 42, 73; decline in overseas research (France), 202; development in France, 196—208; dialogue with local people, 220—4; as ethnography, 217; excavations on Veoy, 220; expertise, 210, 2 2 2 - 3 ; and General Franco, 185—9; future of term culture, 57; gender, 122; and government policy, 196—208; and history, 37; history of, 2 5 - 4 7 , 53, 56, 63—5; imperialism, 139; and language, 142; and the leisure society, 202; multidimensional cultural identity, 75; and narrative, 215; and nationalism, 18, 48, 62; nineteenth-century, 36; normative, 27, 63, 72, 74, 8 8 - 9 , 153; objectivity, 18; O n e World, xv; Polish, 122, 2 2 8 - 3 8 ; politics, 2, 7,

Copyrighted Material

272

Index

archaeology cont 14, 18, 27, 42, 54, 56, 138; (1980s France), 204; politics, east vs. west, 116, 121; politics, ethnic, 1-24, 6 2 - 8 0 , 1 2 5 - 7 , 138-44, 1 4 5 - 5 1 , 1 6 7 - 7 8 , 179-96; politics, responsibility, 135; politics, rightwing, 171; post-processual, 8, 6 3 , 209; practice, 19, 210; east vs. west, 1 1 6 - 2 5 ; processual, 8, 63, 89; and 'other histories', 225; questionnaires, 221; subjectivity, 197; the N e w , 42, 8 8 - 9 , 122, 202; theory, 19, 27, 25, 43, 63; western, 122; use of term culture, 55; vs. folklore, 212 Archeologie nationale, 196, 200 Aristotle, 58, 8 3 , 111, 209; Scala naturae, 82 Armenia, 2, 1 1 , 2 1 , 126 arts: and the European U n i o n , 97; vs. linguistics, 132; social realism, 122 Arveni, 204 Aryans, 5, 13, 4 1 , 135, 173, 189; and Celts in Spain, 185; supremacy, 126 Ashmole, Elias, 44 Asia, 9, 15, 109, 113, 119; border, 117; central, 155; colonialism, 40; South-East, 110 Asia Minor, 153, 159, 181, 244 Asterix and Obelix, 172 Athena, 10 Athena Nikephoros, 244 Atlantic Ocean, 105 Atlantis, 181 Attalus I, King, 244 Aubrey, J o h n , 25, 3 4 - 5 Augustine, Saint, 168 Australia, 42; aborigines, 40, 211 Austria, 2 4 1 , 247 A u t o n o m o u s C o m m u n i t i e s (Spain), 189-90 Avebury, 34 Avebury, Lord, 168 Azerbaijan, 2, 11, 126 Bacon, Francis, 32; empiricism, 33 Baggara, the (Sudan), 67 Balkans, 121, 135; neolithic, 152, 157; N o r t h , 56 Baltic, 156, 231 Baits, 228; ethnic boundaries, 229 Balzac, H o n o r e de, 225 Bank Holidays, 168

Barbarians, 10, 244; and German nationalism, 139; contradictory origin myth, 140; vs. R o m a n s , 259 barbarism, 138; concept of, 143 Baringo District, Kenya, 26, 71 Barrett, J o h n , xvi Barth, Frederick, 66 Basques, 3, 176, 183, 190 Bateson, Gregory, 83 Bath, 261 Beaker Folk, 89 Bede, 168, 265, 267 Beethoven, Ludwig van, 102, 111 Belgae, 176, 204 Belgians, 172 Belgrade, 134 Bentham, Jeremy, 38 Berlin Wall, 119 Bible, 82; O l d Testament, 31 biblical 'civilisation', 139 Bibracte, see also Mont-Beuvray, 202, 204-5 Binford, Lewis, xv, xvi, 42, 89, 171 biology, 37, 40; and biologists, 92; vs. culture, 8, 8 1 , 86, 9 1 ; evolution, 56; and race, 85; and social evolution, 41 Black Death, the, 213, 221 Black Sea, 113, 117, 133 Boemus, J o h a n n , 31 Bohemia, 1 56 Bopp, Franz, 37 Bosch Gimpera, P., 55, 182, 188 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 126, 135 boundaries: Hadrian's Wall, 2 5 8 - 9 ; Vistula m o u t h , 229 Bourdieu, Pierre, 72; 'doxa', 77; the habitus, 68, 88; theory of practice, 67-8 Boxgrove Man, 1 11 Bradley, Richard: mesolithic vs. neolithic, 160 Brahmins, 33 Bretons, 3, 13 Britain, 3, 10, 50, 90, 111, 117, 121, 127, 129, 141, 149, 241, 256-70; vs. Britannia, 268; and the Celts, 132; coins, 30; heritage industry, 111; imperialism, 40; prehistory, 28; British, 142, 146, 167, 172; Empire, 167; idea of Celts, 250 Britons, 30, 32, 3 4 - 3 5 , 2 6 1 ; ' C and ' P ' , 34 Brittany, 172

Copyrighted Material

Index Bronze Age, 133, 135; and European identity, 1 4 - 1 7 , 141; and I n d o European origins, 128; and the entrepreneurial spirit, 141; and the European U n i o n , 105; burial, Veoy, 220; Iron Age transition, 239; Mycenaean, 131; North Germany, 131 Brussels, 16, 99, 101, 112 Bry, T h e o d o r i de, 43 Budapest, 134 Buffon, Georges Louis Leclerc, 33 bureaucracy: and culture, European U n i o n , 109 cabinets of curiosity, see also museums, 31-3 Caesar, Julius, 50, 1 3 1 - 2 , 175, 2 0 3 - 4 , 250, 264; invasion of France, 199 Calceolari, Francesco, 31 Caledonii, 257 C a m d e n , William, 25, 28, 30 Canary Islands, 51 Cantabria, 190 capitalism, 14, 39, 140; and the Bronze Age, 16 Cardial Ware (France), 156

Caribs, 33 Carinthia, 247 Cartesianism, 33 Carthage, 52, 185 Caspian Sea, 113, 117 Castilian, 187; language, 51 Catalonia, 176, 183, 190 Catsgore, 260 Caucasus Mountains, 117 Celtae, 30 Celtiberians, 54, 240 Celtic, 8, 25, 30, 256; art, 243; culture, 15, 56, 232; culture of Irish, Welsh and Scots, 169; Europe; defined, 240—1; European identity, 105, 113; fringe, 250; 2 3 8 - 5 5 ; Iron Age, and European identity, 14-17; Iron Age, timelessness, 244—50; languages, 127-9; p r o t o - , 129; linguistics, 132; nation, 129, 132—3; 105 celticity: and the Picts, 258 Celtoi, 10 see also Oils, Keltoi Celtomania, 181, 190 Celtophilia, 187 Celts, 8, 10, 1 3 - 1 5 , 57, 89, 107, 132, 168, 204, 228, 2 3 8 - 5 5 ; and

273

archaeology, 18, 56—7, 131—3, 173-6, 179-96, 2 3 8 - 5 5 ; and classicism, 241—2; contemporary, 250; ethnicity, 1 3 1 - 3 ; and the European U n i o n , 105; existence of, 128, 2 5 0 - 1 ; and General Franco, 185; and history, 172—3; and Iberians, 179-96; Cervantes, Manuel de, 50 chaine operatoire, 89 C h a m p i o n , T i m o t h y , et al. (eds) Prehistoric Europe (1984), 119 Charlemagne, 107; 'Peace Prize', 102 Chechenya, 11 Chechins, 176 chiefdoms: militaristic, 131 Childe, V. G o r d o n , 15, 27, 4 1 , 42, 43, 4 8 - 9 , 55, 64, 65, 128, 141, 149, 174, 176, 245 China, 141, 216 Chinese, 110 Christianity, 2 1 , 58, 107, 109, 167; Anglican C h u r c h , 169; Christendom, 11; clerical authority, 30; evangelist missionaries, 69; Judeo—Christian tradition, 82; literature, 244; in N o r w a y , 213; Protestant-Catholic conflicts, 43; R o m a n Catholicism, 168, 216; sects of, 170 chronology, 3 1 , 37; of European prehistory, 119; iron age, 200, 239-40 Cirencester, 261 civilisation, see also Classical civilisation: 5 4 - 5 , 138; vs. barbarism, 268; concept of, 143; definition through written evidence, 143; origin of the term, 52; vs. prehistory, 143; vs. the savage, 149 civility: and 'civilisation', 52 Clark, Grahame, 171 Classical archaeology, 201 Classical civilisation, 10, 14, 48, 50, 106, 138, 174; and the European U n i o n , 105; geographers, 131; literature, 29 Classical literature, 180, 2 4 1 - 2 , 244, 264 Clovis, King, 197 C n u t , King, 176 Cold War, 1, 109 collective unconscious, 1 97 Collingwood, R o b i n , 27

Copyrighted Material

274

Index

Collis, J o h n , 177 Colman, 168 colonialism, see also imperialism: 11, 36, 51, 69; collapse of, 140; and ethnicity, 70; and the European U n i o n , 103; Gaul vs. R o m e , 203; post-, 106 Colt Hoare, Sir Richard, 50 C o m b e r t o n , 261 C o m m o n market, see European Union C o m m o n w e a l t h , British, 268 C o m m u n i s m , 110, 1 2 2 - 3 ; post-, 116 Condilliac, 33 Constantine I, 167 Constantinc III, 167 Constantinople, 10 C o r d e d Ware, 156 Corinth, 55 Cornwall, 266 Costa, Joaquin, 54 C o u c h e r o n - A a m o t , William, 216—20 Council of Europe, 12, 15, 20, 176; logo, 101 Crete, 131, 141 Criado-Boado, Felipe, xix critical theory, 43 Croatian, 127, 135, 172, 176 Crollius, 29 Crusades, 109 Crystal Palace, the, 39 Cuchulainn, 169 Cucuteni-Tripolye (Ukraine), 157 cultivate: and culture, 5 1 , 146 cultural identity, see also ethnicity, nationalism and race: boundaries, 17, 6 4 - 7 , 7 3 - 4 ; dialect of traditions, 69; vs. ethnicity, 8; in ethnography vs. antiquity, 35; as historical, 92; homogeneity through contact and interaction, 64; and material culture, 2, 2 5 - 4 7 , 8 1 , 9 1 ; multidimensional, 18, 4 3 , 62, 70, 72, 9 1 ; popular vs. academic, 19; psychoanalytic definition, 202; and resemblance, 30; theories of in anthropology, 4 - 9 , 5 5 - 6 , 6 6 - 7 , 129-30, 145-6, 152-3; culture: in archaeology, 74; and biology, 8 1 ; vs. biology, 86, 9 1 ; and bricolage, 70; as concept, 48—61, 4 9 - 5 2 , 65; cultur, 52; and difference, the 'other', 69; dislocation, 70; as dynamic process, 8 9 - 9 1 ; and ethnicity, 7, 66, 86,

130; vs. ethnicity, 6 9 - 7 1 ; and the European U n i o n , 96—116; as a pathology, 88; as moral and spiritual value, 5 1 ; (France) investment in, 202; h o m o l o g y vs. heterogeneity, 71—4; monothetic vs. polythetic, 9 1 ; structure, 9 1 ; transmission, 153; unitary, 106; culture history, 4, 7 - 9 , 18, 20, 2 6 - 7 , 4 1 - 2 , 4 8 - 9 , 5 1 , 5 4 - 7 , 55, 7 1 , 89, 152, 153, 245; and European prehistory, 121; and material culture, 228; origins, 53; theories of, 63-4 Cultures and Communities of the Past Europe, Koslowski, S.K. (1981), 121 Cumbria, 266 Cuvier, 37 Cymri, 30 Czechoslovakia, 2, 147, 241 Dal Riada, 167 Dama de Elche, 182 Danes, 168, 264 Daniel, Glyn, 56 Danish: kings, 216; National Museum, 54; Public Broadcasting, 225 D a n u b e , 141, 238 Dark Ages, 14 Darwin, Charles, 40, 8 1 - 2 , 8 3 , 84, 92 Darwinism, 82, 83; and economic theory, 82; social, 139 de Gaspari, 107 de Gaulle, General, 197 de Mortillet, Gabriel, 241 Delors, Jacques, 99 Denmark, 3 1 , 37, 54, 264 diffusionism, 141 Dimini, 55 Diocletian, 257 Diodorus, 244 D N A , 154 Dobzhansky, Theodosius, 85 Domestication of Europe, the (Hodder I), 142 Dorset, 177 Druids, 35, 169 Dublin, 177 Dugdale, William, 44 D u m n o n i a , 261 Durkheim, Emile, 98 D u t c h , 43 Dyrham, battle of, 261

Copyrighted Material

Index East India C o m p a n y , 43 Eastern Bloc: events of 1989, 116 Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Bede, 265 economics: and Darwinism, 82; and ethnicity, 67 Edwin, King of N o r t h u m b r i a , 261 Eggers, H.-J., 174 Egypt, 141 Egyptian Copts, 21 Eire, 169, 172 Eisteddfod, 172 Elizabeth I, Q u e e n of England, 4 3 Elmet, 261 ernic: vs. etic nature of ethnicity, 130 Encyclopaedia, 31 England, 3 1 - 3 , 38, 44, 50, 52, 139, 2 0 1 , 248 Engla-land, 261 English, 168-9, 172; language, 52, 55, 169, 2 6 6 - 7 Englishness, 268 Enlightenment, the, 37, 76, 102 Ephorus, 244 Epistemes, 25—47 Erasmus, 111 E R A S M U S programme, 105 essentialism, 49, 75; and the species concept, 83 Ethiopians, 132 ethnic cleansing, 2, 8 1 , 125 ethnicity, see also cultural identity, nationalism and race, 6 - 7 , 8, 17, 2 5 , 51; archaeology and politics, 1—24, 6 2 - 8 0 , 1 2 5 - 7 , 135, 138-44, 1 4 5 - 5 1 , 1 6 7 - 7 8 , 179-96; and biology, 88; as bricolage of culture, 72; boundaries, 72, 88, 9 1 ; Celtic, 131—33; and the chaine operatoire, 90; and colonialism, 70; and culture, 6 6 - 7 , 86, 130; vs. culture, 67, 70, 74; defined, 6 6 - 7 , 1 2 9 - 3 1 ; dichotomy biology vs. history, 86; dynamic of, 67, 8 1 ; and economics, 67; equation with language, 128; and the habitus, 67—9; homology vs. heterogeneity, 71—4; Iberian, 57; and imperialism, 2 5 1 ; instrumental, 67; and material culture, 7 2 - 3 , 8 8 - 9 1 , 152, 2 2 9 - 3 1 ; multidimensional, 7, 70, 72; non-homogeneous, 71; noninstrumental, 68; normative archaeology, 7 3 ; and power, 70, 7 3 ;

275

and proto-history, 179; psychology, 182; and style, 72; selfconsciousness, 66, 130; self-defined, 130, 152; vs. species, 8 1 , 8 5 - 8 ; and territory, 74; in theories of anthropology, 4 - 9 , 6 6 - 7 , 129-30; theory of, 228; vs. tribe or race, 66; and warfare, 87—8; vs. written history, 258 ethnocentnsm, 48, 56, 57; and 'civilisation', 138 ethnography, 3 1 , 3 3 , 42, 56, 67, 130; analogy with prehistory, 49; collections, 35; and cultural identity, 26; and ethnicity, 66, 159; oral vs. written traditions, 222; poetics of, 209-12 e t h n o n y m , 130 ethnos: and 'genos', 49; vs. natio, 49 eugenics: Nazis, 81 Eurocentrism, 250 Europe: 1-24, 9 6 - 1 1 5 , 116-24, 1 2 5 - 3 7 , 138-44, 145-66; barbarian 'uncorrupted', 139; boundaries, 14, 9, 16, 97, 100, 105, 1 1 7 - 1 8 ; prehistoric, 116; Celtic boundaries, 240—1; civilisation vs. barbarism, 138; coinage, 100; construction of, 97; contradictions of, 142; east vs. west, 8 - 9 , 116, 117, 1 1 6 - 2 5 ; eastern, archaeology and politics, 171; eastern, ethnicity and nationalism, 142; eastern, marginalisation, 118; eastern, plus ca change?, 123; eastern, state oppression, 117; eastern, integration and power, 97; myths, Europa, 10; vs. nationalism, 98; neofunctionahsm, 98; the ' N e w ' , 62, 76, 96—115; peoples 'without history', 2 1 1 ; perception in Eastern Bloc, 118; prehistory, 179; unification, 4, 57, 96—116; universal histories, 226; western, supposed freedom, 117 European Academy of Science, 100 European Association of Archaeologists, xix, 12, 142 European chauvinism, 103 European Commission, 12, 20, 97, 102, 109, 112 European C o m m u n i t y , see European Union European Council, 100, 102 European culture: elitism, 109

Copyrighted Material

276

Index

European Economic C o m m u n i t y , see European Union European ideal: and the EuroTAG conference, 127 European identity, 5 3 , 96, 134; and culture, 96—116; and the Bronze Age, 1 4 - 1 7 , 128, 141; and the Celtic Iron Age, 1 4 - 1 7 , 5 6 - 7 , 105, 113; multidimensional, 134; and the neolithic, 14—17, 151—9; prehistory, 105; and the Warsaw Pact, 1 1 6 - 2 3 ; European Parliament, 20, 97, 102, 112; elections, 100 European prehistory, a u t o n o m o u s development, 141 European U n i o n , 5, 9, 11, 16, 19, 20, 57, 9 6 - 1 1 6 , 119, 127, 142, 268; and the arts, 97; and the media, 97, 104; bureaucracy, 104, 109; and culture, 96—116; cultural initiatives, 100—2; culture and political implications, 108; exclusivity, 19; federalism, 3, 97, 112; flag symbolism, 101; founding fathers, 99; historiography, 105; iconography, 102—5; immigration, 3, 109; metaphors, 1 0 4 - 5 ; vs. nationstate, 110; symbolism, 101; and tourism, 97; vs. Warsaw Pact, 116 EuroTAG, xv—xvi, xix, 18, 125, 127, 135, 171 Eurovision Song Contest, Israel in, 119 Evans-Pritchard, Edward Evan, 110 evolution, 56; of'civilisation', 139 exhibition: classical antiquities, 139; 'I Celti', 57, 172; Pans (1855), 39; p o w e r of, 39; the Great (1851), 39; and national identity, 39 exotic, the, 31—32, 3 5 , 5 1 ; taxonomy of, 36 Exposition: Paris (1889), 40 Fakirs, 33 farmers: as ancestors, 145—67 Fascism, 190 Fascists: Italy, 185 Feugians, 31 Fichte, J o h a n n Gottlieb, 4 1 , 53 Finkielkraut, Alain, 225 Finland, 147; prehistory, 147 Finno-Ugrian (language), 134 First W o r l d War, 1 9 7 - 9 Flaubert, Henri, 225

Flemings, 176 Flemish, 111 Fludd, R o b e r t , 43 folk psychology, 222 folk tales, 28 Fontaine, Francoise, 107 Forker, Laas Riegel, 247 Foucault, Michel, 27, 2 9 - 3 0 , 32, 3 3 , 36, 38, 44, 8 2 - 3 , 89; The Order of Things, 28, 82; epistemes, 28; resemblance and concepts of speciation, 85 France, 10, 13, 37, 38, 4 3 , 44, 52, 139, 168, 2 4 1 , 243, 248; and the Celts, 132; and the Gauls, 172; vs. Gaul, 250; museums, 54; neolithic, 156; President of, 196; Franco, General Francisco, 5, 185—89, 190; death of, 189 Franklin, Benjamin, 146 Franks, 197, 264, 265; as Germans, 168 Fredenk III, King of Denmark, 34 French, 109, 110, 146; Franks vs. Gauls, 169; language, 52, 110; R e v o l u t i o n , 5 2 - 4 ; State, 53 Frere, J o h n , 50 Freud, Sigmund, 201 Frobenius, 55 Functionalism, 27 Funnell Beakers, 156 Fur, the (Sudan), 67 Gaelic: language, 168 Gailtal/Forker Laas Riegel, 248 Galatae, see also Gauls, 30, 132; Celts, 131 Galataea, see also Gauls, 244 Galateans, see also Gauls, 243 Galicia, 190 Galindai, 229 Galli, see also Gauls, 30, 243 Gallic Chronicles, 265 G a n g e - R o l v , 221 Gateway communities, 232 G A T T treaty, 146 Gaul, the 'dying', 244 Gaullism, 108* Gauls, 13, 168, 175, 199, 2 4 1 ; described by Strabo, 202 gender archaeology, 122 genetics, 87, 129, 134, 153; allele frequencies, 154; demic diffusion, 154-5; and the neolithic, 155, 158

Copyrighted Material

Index gens: origin of concept, 49—51 Geoffrey of M o n m o u t h , 28 geology, 56 Gepid tribes, 229 Gergovie, 204 German, 52, 111, 250; archaeology, 174; culture, 53; ethnicity, 228; Germania, 169; language, 52; national identity, 147; prehistory, 174 Germani, 4 1 , 176, 264 Germania, of Tacitus, 264 Germanic, 5, 240, 247, 2 5 1 , 256; 'Urvolk', 139; 'race', 174; culture, 54, 147; languages, 129, 266; settlements in Britain, 260 Germany, 54, 129, 139, 2 4 0 - 1 , 256; archaeology and politics, 171; archaeology pre-Second World War, 126; N o r t h , Bronze Age, 131; reunification, 96; unification, 54

Gibson, J.J., 92 Gildas, 2 6 1 , 265 Gloucester, 261 God: 'God's O r d e r ' , 82 Gododdin, 261 Golden Age, 3, 6, 15; Spanish, 187 Goscinny and U d e r z o , 172 Goths, 229, 264 grammar, 33 Graves-Brown, Carolyn, xx Great Chain of Being, the, 82 G r e c o - R o m a n : myth, 107; tradition, 109 Greece, 52, 141, 242; Aristotle, 111; classical, 10, 11, 106, 107, 139, 174; and concept of hero, 205; geographers, 132; influence on Iberians, 182; ' I n d o - E u r o p e a n ' status, 140; perceptions of other cultural identities, 50; culture, 5 1 , 58; ethnicity, 129; Graecia, 169; Mycenaean, 131; myths; 'Europa', 107; nationalism, 3, 54; philosophers, 82 Greenland, 216 Grew, N e h e m i a h , 33—36 G r i m m , 37 gypsies, 1 26, 176 Habitus, the, 73; and cultural identity, 6 7 - 6 8 ; and ethnicity, 6 7 - 6 8 , 7 1 ; and social actors, 68 Hadrian's Wall, 257

277

Hakon Herdebrei (Norse king), 213 Hall, Katherina, xx Hallstatt, 2 3 9 - 4 0 , 242, 248 Hampshire, 172 H a n g h o l m e n , Veoy, 218 Hannibal, 180 Harald Fairhair, King of N o r w a y , 216 Hardy, T h o m a s , 146 Harold Godwinson, 168 Hastrup, Kirsten, 224 Hawkins, William, 43 Helvetius, 33 H e n r y VIII, King of England, 4 3 , 169 Hercules, 101 Herder, J.G., 4 1 , 52, 58 heredity: and 'unity of type', 83; theory of, 83 heritage: invention of, 111 hero(s): and villains, 216; concept of, 205 Herodotus, 57, 129, 2 3 8 - 9 , 244 Heroic society, 131 Herzogenburg, 241 Heybridge, 264 Hildebrand, Hans, 55, 241 H i n d u , 169 historical materialism: and typology, 122 historiography, 180; European U n i o n , 105 history: and cultural identity, 2, 6; literary sources, 30; and ethnicity, 73; vs. ethnicity, 258; historiography, 53; and M o d e r n Europe, 27; and narrative, 209, 212; and the nation, 53; vs. nature, 86, 87; origins, 57; role in imperialism, 140; species as historical entities, 84; Hitler, Adolf, 56, 126, 135, 172, 174 Hobbes, T h o m a s , 3 3 , 35, 44 Hodder, Ian, xix, 7, 2 6 - 7 , 42, 89, 142 H o e m , Edvard, 223 H o l m , N o r w a y , 214 Holocaust, the, 126 Homo Erectus, 105 H o o k e , R o b e r t , 3 3 , 35 Hottentots, 33 H u m a n Ethology, 86; Lorenz, Konrad, 86 Hungarian(s), 125; Europeans vs. Indo-Europeans, 134; language, 134 Hungary, 248

Copyrighted Material

278

Index

hunter-gatherers, 14, 16, 87; vs. agriculture, 145—67; east vs. west, 120; persecution, 146; Star Carr, 148; Huxley, Thomas, 40 hybridisation, 83; and SMRS concept of speciation, 85 / Celti: exhibition, 57, 172 Iberian peninsula, 51, 54, 57 Iberians, 13; and Celts, 179—96; and Europe, 181 Iceland, 216 identity: as an exclusive property of living things, 86; construction in learning and development, 88 ideology, 27, 36, 52; and archaeological research, 143; barbarism vs. 'civilisation', 143; communist symbolism, 122; historical materialism, 122; history and archaeology, 140; nationalism, 53, 56; of 1968 in France, 202; of the neolithic, 150; vs. chronology, 199 imperialism, see also colonialism, 36, 257-60; and ethnicity, 251; Britain, 40; European, 139; Roman, and Anglo-Saxons, 267; vs. nationalism, 200 index, 271-88 India, 90, 110, 141 Indibil and Mandonio, 180 Indo-European, 107, 127, 139, 183, 185, 242-3; 'homeland', 154; languages, 159; and the neolithic, 153; and origin myths, 141; 'people', 128; proto-, 133 Industrial Age, 139 Industnal Revolution, 239 institutions: and archaeology, 54; and the European Union, 99; European, 12; European, archaeological in Mediteranean, 139; in eastern archaeology, 123; nineteenth century, 38; Royal Society, 33 invention of traditions, 1, 3-4, 140 Ireland, 127, 147, 167-78, 243, 244; and the Celts, 132; in Iron Age, 239 Irish, 168; and Guinness, 172 Iron Age, 14, 139, 179, 203, 238-55, 256; and 1980s values, 202; Britain, 128; Celtic, 15, 16, 238-55; Celtic

vs. La Tene, 173; central Europe, 228—38; dating vs. Roman period, 200; defined, 239—40; emergence of chiefdoms, 131; and European identity, 14-17; hillforts, 196; North Western Europe, 131; Spanish, 180; timelessness, 244-50 Iron Curtain, 116 Islam, xix, 11-12, 108-10, 119 Isle of Man, 216 Israel, 75, 118 Italian: Italia, 169; language, 51; pirates, 219 Italic, 241 Italy, 31, 241, 243, 248 James I, King of England (VI of Scotland), 169 Japanese, 109; culture, 103; electronics, 110 Jews, 7, 32, 58, 126, 172, 176; Hebrew (language), 128; Judaism, 11 Joan of Arc, 169 journals: selective coverage of eastern Europe, 121 Joyce, James, 169 Jutes, 167, 264-5 Karadzic, Radovan, 135 Keltoi, see also Celts, 132, 243; Celts, 131 Kentishmen, 265 Klemm, Gustav, 55 Kossinna, Gustav, 26, 40-1, 44, 48-9, 55-6, 63, 126, 147, 174, 176, 185, 228 Kozlowski, S.K., 121 Kurgan, 133, 135 La Rioja, 190 La Tene, 7, 18, 132, 173, 175, 239-40, 242-3, 248, 260; cemeteries, 247; early, 175; origins of, 241; vs. Celtic, 241 Lamark, 44 Landscape archaeology, 170 language(s), 8, 13, 53; Anglo-Celtic, 266; Anglo-Saxon, 30; anglophone, 13; and archaeology, 142; boundaries, 153; Celtic, 127, 129, 242-3; English, 169; and ethnicity, 228; European, dominance of, 119; equation with ethnicity, 128;

Copyrighted Material

Index European, 1 2 7 - 9 ; families, 128; Finno-Ugrian, 134; Gaelic, 168; German, 53; Germanic, 129; historical development, 4 1 ; history in Britain, 266; Hungarian, 134; Indo-European, 109, 127, 133; I n d o - G e r m a n , 147; and national identity, 90; n o necessary link to ethnicity, 129; of European U n i o n , 110; origin of term 'culture', 5 1 ; proto-Celtic, 129; romance, 50—1, 54; shared, and ethnicity, 130; study of, 37; as taxonomic system, 32, 33; universal scheme of, 3 3 ; Welsh, 266 Laon, 197 Lebanese Marinates, 21 legitimation: cultural identity, 3, 63 Leland, J o h n , 2 8 , 30 Lenin, Vladimir, 122 Leroi-Gourhan, Andre, 89 Leubingen, Bronze Age, 131 Libyans, 244 Lindisfarne, 267 Linear Pottery, 157 linguistics, 179; vs. arts, 132 Linneus, 3 3 , 83 Lithuania, 2 Llwyd, Edward, 34, 132 Locke, J o h n , 3 3 , 35 Lombards, 176 Lorenz, Konrad, 86 Lorient, 172 Louis XIV, King of France, 205 Louvre, the, 38, 204 Lovejoy, O w e n , 82 LoWiili, 130 loyalty: to nation, 127 Lubbock, J o h n , 40 Lybia, 113 Maastricht Treaty, 104, 112, 127, 142 Macedonia, 3 Machado, Antonio, 188 Machell, 34 Magga, Ole Henrik, 225 Magnus Maximus, 167 Magyars, 134 Malthus, Thomas, 92 man: concept of, 37 Maravall, Jose Antonio, 5 0 - 1 Marquis of Cerralbo, 182 Martial, 182 Marx, Karl, 20, 25, 37, 39, 86, 92

279

Marxism, 123; Childe, V. G o r d o n , 174 material culture: aesthetic value, 30; artefacts 'collapsed acts', 90; bricolage, 70; and cultural identity, 2, 2 5 - 4 7 , 8 1 , 9 1 ; and culture history, 228; and ethnic boundaries, 229; and ethnicity, 7 2 - 3 , 8 8 - 9 1 , 152, 229—31; coherence of design, 90; congruence with experience, 90; 'finished' artefacts, 89; production and consumption, 39, 42, 72; stone tools, 28, 156; style and ethnicity, 72; and typology in the east, 122; materialism: theory of, 42 Mauss, Marcel, 25 Mayr, Ernst, 84 media: and the European U n i o n , 97; western; and the East, 117 Medieval archaeology, 170, 196, 201 Medieval period, 11, 50, 256; early, 121 Mediterranean, 10, 117, 139, 159, 183, 186, 201 Megalithic civilization, 105 Meiners, Christoph, 52 Mercantilism, 34 Mercian, 2 6 1 , 267 Merovingian, 197 Meseta, 183 Mcsolithic, 16, 120, 145-67; literature, 150-51 Mexico, 59; museums, 54 Meyer, Eduard, 55 microcosm, 31—2, 35; concept of, 29 Middle R a n g e Theory, 89 Migration period, 233, 2 6 1 , 264, 266 Milan, 102 Milosevic, Slobodan, 125, 135 Mitterand, Francois, 113, 196, 202, 204-5 Molde, Norway, 215, 223 monastic literature, 28 M o n n e t , Jean, 99, 1 0 1 - 2 , 107 Mont-Beuvray, 172, 196, 204 Montelius, 175 M o u n t Athos, 105 multiculturalism, 256, 269 Murcia, 190 M u s e u m Francais, 38 museums, see also cabinet of curiosities 3 8 - 9 ; and Veoy, 223; Danish National, 54; France, 54; Mexico, 54; Musee Centrale des Arts, 38;

Copyrighted Material

280

Index

Paris, 54; Pitt-Rivers, 40; Spain, 54; trends in display, 171 Muslim, 169 Mycenae: shaft graves, 131 Mycenaean Greece, 131 myths, 28, 3 1 , 5 1 ; civilisation triumphs over barbarism, 139; and collective memory, 205; Europa, 10, 107; folklore vs. 'science', 2 1 1 ; heroes, 202; heroic, of European U n i o n , 107; indigenous barbarian origins, 139; m o d e r n , the Celts, 132; of European identity, 106; of origin, 63, 88, 138—40; origin and ethnicity, 130; peasant life, 147; the Celts, 172, 190 Napoleon III, Emperor of France, 205 Napoleonic centralisation of France, 203 narrative, 3 1 , 36; academic, 218; and history, 40; childhood memories, 218; fact vs. fiction, 2 0 9 - 1 2 natio: origin of concept, 49—51 nation, 74; as organism, 53; as synomyn for culture, 5 1 ; concept of, 53; loyalty to, 127; personified, 54, 65 nation-state, 6, 20, 64, 74, 140; European transcendance of, 103; vs. chiefdoms, 128; vs. tribes, 128 national archaeology: vs. nationalism, 200-1 National Socialists, see Nazis national sovereignty, 52, 54, 99; and the European U n i o n , 103 nationalism, see also cultural identity, ethnicity and race, 36—7, 40—1; and anthropology, 1; and archaeology, 18, 48, 62; and Celts, 2 5 1 ; and culture, 52—4; cultural, 53—5, 65; cultural identity, 54; and ethnicity, 5, 62, 152, 172; and ethnicity in Britain, 170; and Europe, 74, 143; eastern Europe, 142; exclusive, 2; and the European U n i o n , 99, 108; German, 139; Greece, 3; Kossinna, 174; liberal, 9; and the nation-state, 20, 64, H I ; and national unity, 203; political, 52; post-, 110; separatist, 3, 53; Spanish, 182; Spanish, art and literature, 181; vs. European identity, 17, 176; vs. h u m a n universalism, 127; vs.

imperialism, 200; vs. national archaeology, 200—1 natural history, 3 3 , 35 natural science, 35—6, 91 natural selection: group, 86; kin, 86; theory of, 83 nature: and humanity, 37; vs. history, 86—7; vs. nurture, 8 Nazis, 7, 18, 111, 1 2 6 - 7 , 139, 147, 185, 1 8 9 - 9 0 ; eugenics, 81 Neanderthal Man, 111 Near East: as origin of technology, 141; civilisation, 139 N e m a n river, Poland, 231 Neolithic, 13, 16, 139, 141, 1 4 5 - 6 7 , 147, 202; 'chauvinism', 150; as m o r e 'complex' than mesolithic, 150; diachrony of, 158; and European identity, 14—17; and the European U n i o n , 105; revolution, 8, 14, 105 N e w Archaeology, 42, 8 8 - 8 9 , 122, 202 N e w g r a n g e , 51 Nilsson, 54 Nineveh: competition to appropriate remains, 139 nomadism: vs. transhumance, 149 Normans, 168 normative, 72; approach, 89, 153; archaeology, 88; concept of culture, 27, 6 3 , 74 Norse, 168; sagas, 212 N o r t h e r n Ireland: problem of, 169 Northumbria, 168 N o r w a y , 2 0 9 - 2 8 ; Saami, 150 Numantia, 50, 180 numismatics, 200 objectivity, 18 Offa's Dyke, 267 Offa, King of Mercia, 267 Ogilby, J o h n , 34 O l d English, 266 O l d Testament, 32 Oppida, 247 Orient, the, 12 Oriental: 'civilization', 140 Orientalism, 106 Orwell, George, 111 Oswald, King of Northumbria, 267 other histories, 211 other, the, 66, 130; and ethnicity, 69; Third World, 110

Copyrighted Material

Index O t t o m a n Empire, 11 9 Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe, Cunliffe, Barry (1994): misrepresentation of east and west, 120 P-Celtic, 243 Palaeolithic, 14, 121, 139, 196, 2 0 1 ; Boxgrove Man, 111; literature, 1 5 0 - 1 ; Neanderthal Man, 111 paleontology: and narrative, 209; human, neolithic, 154 pan-Celtic, 188; vs. Iberians, 185 Panopticon, the, 38 papacy, 109 Paris, 54, 182, 2 0 1 ; Mayor of, 204; vs. Mitterand, 205 Parrett, River, Somerset, 261 Parthenon, restoration of, 102 Patagonians, 31 Patrick, Saint, 167 patriotism, 127 People's Europe, 100 people, or nation: concept of, 38, 5 1 ; origin of concept, 50 Pergamon, 244 Pericles, 50 periphery: economic, 139 Persians, 10, 132, 244, 250 phenotype, 90 philology, 143, 266 Phoenicians, 20, 185 Picts, 168, 257; Picti, 257 Pitt-Rivers, General A.L.F., 40 place-names, 261 Plato, 82; theory of species paradoxical, 84; universals, 89 Pliny the Elder, 231 Plot, Robert, 34 Poland, 121, 147, 150, 172; and the N e w Archaeology, 122; archaeology, 122, 2 2 8 - 3 8 populus: origin of concept, 49—51 Portugal, 102, 121, 172 post-structuralism: and subjectivism, 85 post-modernism, 4 3 , 122, 125 post-processualism, 8, 6 3 , 209; critique of, 135 Prague, 134 preformationism, 8 7 - 8 ; and history, 84 Prehistoric Europe, C h a m p i o n et al. (eds) (1984), poor representation of east m, 119 prehistory: and the study of mankind, 170

281

presentism, 56, 57 Pretanoi, 167 Proceedings of Prehistoric Society, 151 processualism, 8, 63 proto-histoire, origin of term, 202 Proust, Marcel, 225 Przeworsk culture, 230 psychoanalysis, 37 publication: access to, 1 2 1 - 2 ; monopolisation of, 123 Purchas, Samuel, 43 Pyrenees, 238 race, see also cultural identity, ethnicity and nationalism, 8, 4 1 , 50, 53, 86; and archaeology, 135; and biology, 85; and inbreeding, 87; boundaries, 87; Caucasian, 109; in archaeological theories, 36; personified, 86; vs. ethnicity, 85 racism, 4, 56, 8 1 , 86, 127, 139, 176; and sociobiology, 87; cultural in European U n i o n , 109; of European histories, 140 Rasp, 37 Ray, Giles de, 33 Re-unification of Germany, 1 Reason, the Age of, 106 recognition, 84, 87, 90; and speciation, 85 regionalism, 176 R e i n e r t h , H., 147 reinforcement, 84; speciation and style, 90 religion, beliefs: and ethnicity, 130, and Europe, 11 Renaissance, 11, 28, 3 0 - 2 , 35, 4 1 , 4 3 , 50—1, 105; and classical civilisation, 138; antiquarianism, 30 Renfrew, Colin, xvi, 142, 151, 153, 159-60, 168, 171 representation, 32—3; p o w e r of, symbolism, 206 reproduction: and heredity, 83; cultural vs. biological, 86; sexual, 92 resemblance, 28, 3 1 - 2 , 82; and S M R S concept of speciation, 85; vs. internal causation, 83 R h i n e , 172, 185, 201 Ricardo, David, 36, 39 R o d v e n , Norway, 214 R o m a n Britain, 9 1 , 2 5 6 - 7 0 ; cultural identity, 2 5 7 - 6 0 ; end of, 2 6 0 - 7

Copyrighted Material

282

Index

R o m a n i a , 248 Romanitas ( R o m a n identity), 256—70 R o m a n s , 5 0 - 1 , 101, 106-7, 138, 139, 167, 174, 185, 190; archaeology of, 196; vs. barbarians, 259; and boundaries of Europe, 118; citizenship, 259; coloni, 259; conquests, 240; culture, 52, 58; Empire, 1 0 - 1 1 , 18, 2 5 7 - 6 0 ; exports to Vistua region, 2 3 1 ; geographers, 132; imperialism, 267; invasion of France, 199; invasion of Gaul, colonialism, 2 0 3 ; and the Iron Age, 239; and Numantia, 180; perceptions of other cultural identities, 49 romanticism, 35—6 R o m e , 242, 259 Romsdal, N o r w a y , 212, 214, 2 2 0 - 4 R o w l a n d s , Mike, xix Royal Society, 3 3 , 34 Russia, 117 R y g h , Olof, 55 Saami (Norway), 150, 225 Sambian Peninsula, 229, 231 Sammes, Aylett, 30 San Jose, J e r o n i m o de, 51 Santaolalla, 185 savagery, 35 Saxon brooch-forms, 264 Saxons, 167, 176, 265 Saxony, 264 Scala naturae: Aristotle, 82 Scandinavia, 117, 121, 141, 149, 174, 212, 240, 256, 264; neolithic, 156 Schegel, 37 Schulten, A., 182 Schumann, R o b e r t , 101-2, 107 Scotland, 167; nationalism, 3 Scots, 1 6 7 - 8 , 172, 176, 200, 268 Scythians, 10, 132, 2 4 1 , 244 Second W o r l d War, 5 5 - 6 , 126, 129, 140, 170-1 Segunto, 180 Sekken, 214 Semitic, 126, 128 Serbia, 125-6, 135 Serbs, 125-7, 172, 176 Sesklo, 56 Severus, 257 Shakespeare, William, 50 Shanks, Michael, and Tilley, Christopher, 225

Shaw, George Bernard, 169 Shennan, Stephen, xx, 152 Sibbald, R o b e r t , 44 Slavic, 240 Slavs, 228 Slovak, 2 Smith, Adam, 3 3 , 82 society, origin of concept, 38 sociobiology, 8 1 , 86, 88, 9 1 ; universalism, 87 S O C R A T E S programme, 105 Soissons m o n u m e n t , 197—9 Sollas, W . Johnson, 146 Solsnes, N o r w a y , 214 Somerset, 260-261 source-criticism, 210 Southampton, xv Southampton University, xix Soviet U n i o n , 8, 9, 97, 109, 116 Spain, 5, 15, 5 0 - 1 , 57, 102, 121, 238, 2 4 3 , 248; critical history, 52; museums, 54; Proto-History, 179-96 Spain is different (slogan), 186 Spanish, 4 3 , 54, 142 Spanish Civil War, 1 8 5 - 9 , 186 speciation: 'pseudo', and race, 86; allopatry and sympatry, 84; and recognition, 85; by 'effect' natural selection, 85; by 'reinforcement, 85; causes, 84 species: and agency, 83; and hybridisation, 83; and variation, 83; as historical entities, 83—84; boundaries, 83—4, 88; characterisation of, 8 1 ; concept as paradoxical, 84; definition, 84; interbreeding, 84; vs. ethnicity, 8 1 , 85-8 Spencer, Herbert, 40 Spengler, Oswald, 54 sport: and the European U n i o n , 97 St Albans, 264 St Boniface, 261 St Germanus of Auxerre, 264 St Louis type hoards, 247 Stalinism, 122 Star Carr, 148 Strabo, 202 Structuralism, 1 22 Stukeley, William, 3 4 - 5 , 50 Sturlusson, Snorri, 213 Stuttgart, 100

Copyrighted Material

Index style: and ethnicity, 72; appropriate, 90; isochrestic, 89; reinforcement and speciation, 90; self expression vs. shared understanding, 92 subjectivism, 66—7, 85, 88; as self consciousness, 85; concept of ethnicity, 86; in archaeological theory, 42; relativism, 85 Sudan, 67 Sudioni, 229 Suez, 9 Sussex, 111 Swedes, 219 Swedish—Norwegian U n i o n , 216 Switzerland, 240-1 Syagrius, 197 symbolism: and celticity, 248; communist ideology, 122; Germanic, 2 6 1 ; of the European U n i o n , 101; p o w e r of, 203—5 Synod of Whitby, 168 Tacitus, 2 3 2 - 3 , 264 Tain Bo Culainge, 169 taphonomy, 152 Tartessians, 183 taxonomy, 32, 34, 8 1 , 83; biological—cultural, 40; human, 33 technocracy: in the European U n i o n , 98; vs. the 'People's Europe', 104 teleology, 87 territory, 50; and ethnicity, 130 Teutons, 107 text, 4 3 ; and printing, 29 Thatcher, Margaret: Bruges speech, 111 theatrical performance, on Ve0y, 223-4 Theoretical Archaeology G r o u p (TAG), xix Thessaly, 55 Third Reich, 126, 135, 174 T h o m s e n , G.J., 37, 239 Thracian, 2 4 1 , 250 T h r e e Age System, 37, 2 3 9 - 4 0 Tilley, Chris, xvi; and Shanks, Michael, 225 Tindemans, Leo, 100 Toland, J o h n , 50 Tolstoy, Leo, 146 tourism: and the European U n i o n , 97 trade: barriers, 98; free, 98 Trade Union CCongress (British), 99

283

Tradescant, J o h n , 34, 43 Transcaucasia, 11 transhumance: vs. nomadism, 149 Traprain Law, 259 Treaty of Maastricht, sec Maastricht Treaty Treaty of R o m e , (1957), 98 Tswana, Botswana (mainly), 69 Turkey, 9, 172; relation to Europe, 119 Turkic, 155 Tusen Ar - Ein Sommardag (play), 224 Tylor, Sir Edward Burnett, 49, 55 typology, 34, 90; and nationalism, 4 1 ; archaeological, normative, 72; classificatory traditions in the east,

122 U c k o , Peter, xx Ukraine: neolithic, 157 Ulster, 169 Ulster Freedom Fighters, 169 uniformitarianism, 89 United States: indigenous populations, 211 universalism, 42, 57, 64, 268; and Plato, 82; sociobiology, 87 universities: English, 171; German, 174 Ural mountains, 9, 105, 113, 117, 121 Urnenfelder, 182 Urvolk, 139 Vallancey, Charles, 50 Venice, 172 Veoy, Norway, 209—28; Futgarden, 218; history and context, 213; Kongsgarden, 218; other histories, 2 1 4 - 1 5 ; storytellers of, 2 1 6 - 2 0 ; theatrical performance on, 223—4; Tingsted, 221 Vercingetonx, 113, 199, 2 0 2 - 4 , 250; as hero, 205 Vienna, 134 Vikings, 168, 267 Virginia, 32 Vinathus, 180 Vistula, Poland, 9, 2 2 8 - 3 8 Volk, der, 4 1 , 52 Votadim, 259 Walbin, the, 42 Waldagesheim style, 247

Copyrighted Material

284

Index

Wallace, Alfred Russell, 82 Walton, 261 warfare: and ethnicity, 130; since 1945, 87 warrior graves, 131 Warsaw, 134 Warsaw Pact, xix, 116, 118; diversity between states, 122 Welsh, 13, 1 6 7 - 9 , 172, 176, 200, 268; language, 266, 267 Welsh Marches, 266 Wessex: 'savage', 148; Kings of, 268 Westbalt culture, 230 Wharram Percy, 170 Wheeler, Mortimer, 148-9 W h i t e , J o h n , 32 Whitsunday, service on Veoy, 223 Wielbark culture, 230 Wilde, Oscar, 169 Wilkins, J o h n , 33

William (Guillaume) I, King of England, 176 William of Orange, King, 169 Williams, R a y m o n d , 58 Wiltshire, 35 Winchester, 170, 176 Winterbourne H o u g h t o n , 177 Worcester, 261 Wordsworth, William, 146 World Economy, 171 W o r m , O l e , 3 0 - 3 1 , 34 Worsaae, J J . A., 37 written evidence: and definition of civilisation, 143 Yeats, W . B . , 169 Yorkshire, 175 Yugoslavia, 2, 7, 125, 126, 135, 176 Zeus, 10 Zodiac, the, 101

Copyrighted Material