Everyone has their own understanding of history, and an understanding of where they are right now in time. When any of us receives news of anything, whether it is political, social or (in this case) archaeological, we automatically sort that news out in our minds and make sense of it in our own way. Historiography, the history of history itself, has shown that archaeology has been manipulated every which way for political ends, from allusions to Rome during Napoleon's regime to reinterpretations of the Vikings in racist Nazi ideologies before the Second World War (see the German recruitment poster below).
Last night I watched a documentary that explored this very subject: Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou's Bible's Buried Secrets (promotional image below). Throughout she explored archaeological evidence that suggests the empire of King David never existed, despite it being a major source of legitimacy for the modern Israeli state, and concludes the following:
"My search has shown me that the events of David's life, as described in the bible, probably never took place. But in some ways that shouldn't matter. It's the meaning of the story of David that has proved so resilient. Even now it's a source of hope and solidarity for modern Israelis and the Jewish faith. It's incredible that a 3000 year old story should continue to play such a pivotal role in the identity politics of a modern state like Israel. But I sense dangers here, both to archaeology and to Israel's identity...this may still be a promised land for the Jewish people, but the use of science to try and prove ancient divine rights to this territory is a dangerous exercise"
In one sense she is right: research is manipulated for nationalistic ends. But she claims archaeology to be an objective endeavour that has been compromised, as well as a science. A science the excavation may be, but the dissemination of its findings is not scientific -as I mentioned, everyone sorts the archaeology out in their own heads first. Zionists will always use archaeological information for their own ends, and making archaeology so distant and objective will only make it voiceless.
Archaeology needs to challenge assumptions, not play into them. We should not advocate pro or anti Zionist stances, but seek to undermine both -how cultures co-existed in the past can become an inspiration for how they should live right now.
On the other hand, you might say that it's too dangerous for archaeologists to play politics. Ever since the crisis in Libya, with Gaddafi's anti-colonial diatribes on TV almost ever day, I've been thinking about the message DJ Mattingly's work in that region sends to people. In several articles, including one in his Dialogues in Roman Imperialism, he links Roman occupation with the later Italian colonisation, and frequently feels the need to defend the Libyan everyman from outside oppression. I just wonder how much things like that are used by people like Gaddafi as a historical basis to justify their own violent, nationalistic regimes. There is a balance, here, and we need to get it right.
Whatever we do, though, people are going to seize it for their own agendas. From what I can see, we can either join in, stay silent or challenge everyone. If we don't make archaeology relevant, soon enough someone else will.
In one sense she is right: research is manipulated for nationalistic ends. But she claims archaeology to be an objective endeavour that has been compromised, as well as a science. A science the excavation may be, but the dissemination of its findings is not scientific -as I mentioned, everyone sorts the archaeology out in their own heads first. Zionists will always use archaeological information for their own ends, and making archaeology so distant and objective will only make it voiceless.
Archaeology needs to challenge assumptions, not play into them. We should not advocate pro or anti Zionist stances, but seek to undermine both -how cultures co-existed in the past can become an inspiration for how they should live right now.
On the other hand, you might say that it's too dangerous for archaeologists to play politics. Ever since the crisis in Libya, with Gaddafi's anti-colonial diatribes on TV almost ever day, I've been thinking about the message DJ Mattingly's work in that region sends to people. In several articles, including one in his Dialogues in Roman Imperialism, he links Roman occupation with the later Italian colonisation, and frequently feels the need to defend the Libyan everyman from outside oppression. I just wonder how much things like that are used by people like Gaddafi as a historical basis to justify their own violent, nationalistic regimes. There is a balance, here, and we need to get it right.
Whatever we do, though, people are going to seize it for their own agendas. From what I can see, we can either join in, stay silent or challenge everyone. If we don't make archaeology relevant, soon enough someone else will.
No comments:
Post a Comment