The role of archaeology in the construction of national identity

The question of who owns cultural heritage is a contentious one. In the past, archaeology has
been used in a variety of ways including forming political, religious and ethnic identity as well
as helping some communities reclaim rights over land that were lost in previous centuries.
However, this comes at a cost as archaeological evidence has also been used to justify
violence and even incite the destruction of priceless ancient monuments and artefacts.
Historically, politicians have used archaeology as a tool to legitimise political power. The
archaeological record itself has also been manipulated and falsified in order to justify their
ideologies, such as those of Heinrich Himmler, a leading Nazi politician and founder of the
Ahnenerbe. He used alleged evidence of a superior Aryan race to justify the extermination of
minorities that they saw as weakening their race. Bog bodies were arbitrarily decided to be
examples of the legal execution of homosexuals, leading to the mass execution of LGBT
groups during the Holocaust. Himmler's Ahnenerbe also identified distinctive pottery styles
that could be traced back to ethnic groups, as well as racial differences from skeletal remains.
Furthermore, the Nazis used archaeological evidence of artefacts found in Poland of Germanic
origin, and bowls marked with swastikas (which was in fact an ancient Indian symbol that had
been misappropriated) as legal justification for Hitler's invasion of Poland. Additionally a
mosque at Ayodhya in India was razed to the ground by a group of Hindu fundamentalists in
1992. This was because the 16th century Muslim temple was built over the ruins of a Hindu
temple from the 11th century. This incited riots across India by Muslims who were angered by
their actions, resulting in many fatalities. Despite the horrific actions of the vindictive radicals,
the result was a unification of Indian citizens over the loss of their cultural heritage, and thus
a strengthening of their national identity While destruction of archaeological remains is never
justified, the other side to this is that although archaeology should not be adopted for the
means of furthering political agendas due to the inevitable corruption, it is incredibly powerful
in uniting a community against oppressive forces. It could be further argued that this
unification should not be restricted to national identity, but a worldwide recognition of our
past as something that needs to be shared and preserved.
Since the 1960s, many religious groups have attempted to use ancient monuments for
various religious rituals, and even claiming the monuments as their own. A particularly active
group is The Druids, a 19th century order who have interpreted Iron Age beliefs and
translated them into ceremonies that they, as well as various pagan groups, use to claim sites
as sacred, and theirs for personal use. British cults have been successful at varying levels,
especially with Stonehenge, but other such groups further abroad have employed much more
violent means to secure religious sites as their own. In 2001, the Bamiyan Buddhas in
Afghanistan were destroyed by the Taliban due to their religious conviction. This deliberate
and wilful destruction of many statues and ivories, which dated to the Hellenistic period,
meant that many Afghan people lost their heritage. This is not an isolated incident; in March
of this year, ISIS extremists bulldozed the ancient city of Nimrud, dating to 1250BC. Jihadists
pillaged the 3000 year old site in an attempt to erase Iraq's pre-Islamic heritage. War zones
are a hotspot for terrorists to wipe out any religious icons which contradict their own beliefs,
also serving to demoralise the inhabitants. While in Britain, the needs of various druidic and
pagan groups are carried out with much less violence, there is an argument that in war zones
the combination of archaeology and religion often leads to the destruction of national identity
and therefore the two factors should be separate. The actions of the oppressors are less
telling than the reaction of the oppressed. The fervour of the response from the citizens of the
targeted areas was notable, and their righteous anger resulted in large scale attempts to
prevent further destruction.

Archaeology has also played and continues to play a significant role in the construction of
ethnic identity. This can been seen in the events surrounding the Torres Strait Islanders in
2011. The Australian aboriginal group inhabiting the Torres Strait demanded the return of their
ancestral tribe members, whose remains were taken from them by Christian missionaries over
400 years ago, as they still felt a spiritual connection to the remains. An outspoken cultural
sociologist, Tiffany Jenkins, objected strongly to their request and the subsequent
acquiescence of the Natural History Museum, claiming that the body parts had become a
vehicle that groups use to achieve their political agenda. By bringing up a reminder of their
past colonisation and the non-consensual seizing of the remains, and tugging at the heart
strings, museums are guilted into repatriation. Tiffany Jenkins' view is that this is a method for
raising awareness for social justice issues that the indigenous people groups are facing, and it
is a way for them to have a voice. Human remains have the potential to be symbolic objects
that make a political point. Her opinion is supported by the fact that campaigning for
repatriation of human remains is a relatively recent phenomenon, only taking place in the
past 50 years or so, being used to ask for cultural recognition and legitimacy. This creates a
shift in the museum community, in which museums are now keen to repatriate in order to
right past wrongs. This begs the question as to whether the repatriation is in fact done out of
respect, or guilt, in an attempt to distance themselves from their own past. Tiffany Jenkins
suggests that the solution is not repatriation, as defining themselves by something a century
in the past is not forward looking. This, however, ignores the fact that the motivation behind
the repatriation request is ultimately irrelevant if the issue is an ethical one. Despite this,
identity must be founded on integrity, and if the demands are not genuine and there is an
ulterior motive underlying the request, this is the wrong foundation upon which to build one's
identity. This particular case also raises the issue of whether ethnic identity should trump
scientific advancement. The skeletal remains of the Islanders could provide answers about an
epidemic currently plaguing the community, but the repatriation request also entails the loss
of all scientific records. However, further scientific analysis would mean the destruction of the
remains.
A notable, media centric example surrounding repatriation and cultural identity is the
controversy surrounding the Elgin Marbles. These friezes, taken by Lord Elgin following the
destruction of the Parthenon are currently on display in the British Museum. Recently the new
Greek government has requested their repatriation, to be displayed in their newly renovated
Parthenon Museum. This high profile repatriation would undoubtedly lead to demands for
repatriation of all artefacts to their place of origin, and encyclopaedic museums such as the
British Museum would cease to exist and instead give rise to national museums. James Cuno,
an opinionated art historian and curator, has argued that this will disadvantage many people
as they will no longer be able to be educated on the diversity of different cultures across and
throughout the history of the world. He fails to take into account, however, the inability of
developing third world countries to curate encyclopaedic museums. Both approaches are
fundamentally divisive - encyclopaedic museums are only accessible to those living in
countries that can afford them, and national museums mean a lack of diversity and education
about world heritage. A temporary solution could be rotating exhibitions, with their home
museum being their country of origin.
Overall the wrongful appropriation of archaeology as a means of constructing political and
religious identity has often served to raise awareness about political and religious issues, and
results in communities working together to bring about social change. Archaeology, while
recognising and integrating religious and ethnic elements, would be more meaningful in the
context of world heritage, rather than nationally constructed identity, which tends to isolate
and cause division.