CONTENTS
Chapter 8 . On the Stage and Behind the Scenes: Greek
Archaeology in Times of Dictatorship . . . .
Dimitra Kohhinidou and Mananna Niholaiàou
Chapter 9 . Dealing with the Devil: The Faustian Bargain
of Archaeology Under Dictatorship . .
I55
Chapter
191
I
Bettina Arnold
Index.
......2r3
The Practice ol Archaeologlr
Under Dictøtorshtp
Mrcu¡¡l_ L. Gm-cry eNo Cn¡nL¡s WarxlNsoN
A people lives happily in the present and furure so long
as
it is awa¡e of is past and
the greamess of its ancesto¡s.
Heinrich Himmle¡ (1936), quoted in Hassmann (2002:84)
Hisrory is self-interest
Lucy Marsden in Oldest l-iving
ConJeàerate Widow TeLIs
All
(Gurganus, 2OOl:124)
In recent decades, we have come to understand that archaeology and archaeologists
been-ro paraphrase phil Kohl and claire Fawcett-macú to
can be and often have
circumstances (Hamilakis and Yalouri, 1996). Tha¡ said, however, ir does seem ro
twee
more intense, perhaps
si
and
in
torship, notably when
rted ideologies, ofren,
face
Dictators have long rearízed the ideologrcal imponance of the past and have
sought to wield archaeology as a political tool. There are numerous examples
MIcHAEL
L
GAr-ATy
.
Cri¿mes W¿rxt¡lsor.¡
Millsaps College
o American
School of Classical Srudies ar Athens
2
MICHAELL. GAIATY AJ{D CHARLES WÁTKINSON
of this, and they have been well described and analyzed: German archaeolory
under Hitler (Amold, 1990, 2002a; Amold and Hassmann, 1995; Hárke, 2002;
Hassmann, 2002; Junker, 1998; Wiwjona, 1996), for instance; or the Sovietstyle archaeology that formed under Stalin (Dolukhanov, 1996; Shnirelman, 1995,
199ó; Tngger, L989:207-243). In each case, the past was deliberately and systemadcally manipulated (Kohl and Fawcett, I995b:ó). Sometimes the material record
itselfwas distorted or destroyed (as has also occurred in recent years in the Balkans
and Middle East; see examples in Meskell, 1998a; Chapmart, 1994), but more often archaeological concepts and theoretical positions were appropriated, some
being privileged over o¡hers. As it advances under totalitarian dictatorship, this
process-the offrcial, often legislated promotion of one version of the past to the
exclusion of others-may be disastrous fo¡ archaeology, and for some archaeologists it becomes deadly According to Ascherson (1996:ix), Stalin murdered or
enslaved eighty-five percent of Russian archaeologists between 1930 and 1934
(see also Arnold, l99O:473).
In addition, and with perhaps more relevance to the cunent geopolitical
situation, dictatorial propaganda designed to influence a nation's understanding of
lts past often will reverberate long after the dictator has departed, or been forced
from offrce (Amold and Hassmann, 1995; Kohl and Fawcett, 1995b:7). Even when
a nation has experienced a complete political rransformation-from dictatorship to
democrac¡ for example-individuals, especially archaeologists, continue to have
a very large stake in the creation of a national history and identity lronically,
offrcial versions of a nation's past are not automatically discredited after the fall of
a dictator; rather, they may be even more strongly asserted For this reason, we
would argue that the study of archaeology as it evolved under modem dictatorships
Ís today, more than ever, of critical importance In many European countries,
for example, those who practiced archaeology under dictatorship are retiring or
d¡ng. ln some places, their intellectual legacy is being pursued uncritically by a
younger generation of archaeologists. Now is the ¡ime, therefore, to understand
how archaeologists have supported, and sometimes subverted, dictatorial political
ideologies.
I.
DICTATORSHIP DEFINED
Whereas recently, several book have addressed the interplay of nationalism and/or the formation of national identity and archaeology (e.g., Abu El-Haj,
2001 ; Atkinson, Banlcs, and O'Sullivan, 1996, DÍaz-Andreu and Champion, 199óa;
Hall,2OO0; Härke,2OO2; Kohl and Fawcett, 1995a; lvleskell, 1998a; Reid,2002;
Silberman, I989), to the best of our knowledge none have focused exclusively on
the particular effects dictatorship has on archaeology and archaeologists. How then
is the study ofnationalism and archaeology different from the study ofdictatorship
THEPRACTICEOF ¡NCjTAEOLOGY
LNDERDICTÁTORSHIP
3
and archaeology, and how mighr dictatorship be best defined when compared r.o
other political types?
Nationalism is one particular form of ideology that may be used by a nation to build and reinforce unity (DÍaz-Andreu and Champion, 1996b; Kohl and
Fawceu, 1995b; Triggea 1984). Because a narionalisr ideology is often consrrucred
based upon a people's undersranding of its past, history and archaeology make
key contributions to its creation; in fact, some have gone so far as to argue
that a close reladonship berween archaeology and narionalism is inevitable and
perhaps unavoidable, and that archaeology owes its very existence ro the processes whereby modem European nation-states were formed (DÍaz-Andreu and
Champion, 1996b:18-2i; Kohl and Fawceu, I995b:8). A diccatorship is a political
type, one among manx that may choose r.o employ narionalism. Dictators often
use natiornlism to bolster support for rheir agendas and, therefore, may cultivate
an interest in archaeologlr
In a dictatorship, an individual (or small group of individuals) creares and
enforces, sometimes violently (Arendt, ),973),astare-sponsored ideology-which
maysometimes rely on rhe nationalistsentiments of the citizenry-thereby controlling and manipulating all forms of cuhural and social life (Linz, 2000:Chapter 2).
Tlpicall¡ ideology is promulgated through various forms of propaganda, including
state-sanctioned artworks (music, Iiterature, painring), the building of museums,
and control of mass media our.lers (releusion, radio, print) (Arendt,I973:34L41;
Liru,200}:76-78). In addirion, many dicrators have found it useful ro manipulare
the built environment, constructing or restoring monuments, for example (Amold,
1997-8242; Galaty et al., 1999). In resroring ancient monuments, a dicrator often seeks to link his regime to what is perceived to be a glorious past, one with
which he seeks a connection and from which, in forgrng a connection, he gains
legitimacy For this reason, archaeologists are useful to dicrato¡s: They idenriþ (or
imagine) the past ro which the dictatorship lays claim, and in many cases they are
very well rewarded for their services.
In contrast, the leaders of a democratically elecred govemment may also seek
to manipulate the archaeological record (DÍaz-Andreu and Champitrn, 1996b:7;
Trigger 1984), but because they often do not possess exclusive control over artistic
and communications media, ideological propaganda may be less effective. Furthermore, political dissent in a democrary in general may be more widespread.
As a result, archaeologists may question official versions of rhe past with less
rÍsk to themselves. For instance, in most democracies an archaeologist or the
archaeological community can protest govemment-sponsored reconstruction of a
national monument, or the government's interpretation of the nation's history (see,
for example, Amold [1997-€:239] and Brown [2000:39] with regard to changes
made to the Smithsonian's Enola Gay exhibir ar the insistence of rhen-Speaker
of the House Newt Gingerich). Of course, even in a democracy an outspoken
archaeologist m y p y a price; she might lose her job or funding for research
MICrIAELL. GALATY AND CHÁRLES WAflüNSON
might be curtailed. For example, at the World Archaeological Congress-3 held
in lndia in 1994 participants were asked by the conference organizers not to discuss the destruction by Hindu militants of the large mosque at Ayodhya (Colle¡
1995; Hassan, 1995). In modern India, the world's largest democracy, it is very
diffrcult for scholars to study the country's Muslim and Mogul-period architecture
and to protest nationalist interpretations of Indian archaeolory ln Japan, a democratic country since the end of World War II, archaeologists are not allowed to
investigate the origins of the Japanese monarchy, by excavating royal tombs, for
example (Fawcett, L995.32).5uch limitations exist in most, if not all democracies
(e.g., Abu Et-Ha.¡, 2001 regarding modern Israel; Reid, 2002 regarding modern
Egpù
By focusing on the practice of archaeology under dictatorship, we dô not
mean to suggest that other political types, such as capitalist democracies, do not
actively seek to control the past. Rather, we would argue that there exists a conlinuum. Govemments at one end of the scale may routinely manipulate and will
often distort the archaeological record (e.g., Soviet Russia under Stalin, Germany
under Hitler). Historical data of all kinds may become key components in offrcial, overarching ideological stn¡ctures. For govemments at the other end of the
scale (e g., some westem democracies), archaeolory and political ideologies are
only loosely articulated, and the connection is almost never legislated (though
the United States' "Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act" [i.eNAGPRAI presents an interesting excePtion; see Amold, 1999:2). On the whole,
rhe relationship between archaeology and ideology tends to be more strongly expressed in totalitarian regimes, whereas in democracies this relationship can be
much more subtle, and in some cases aimost absent. The study of dictatorships
and archaeology specifically picks out in high relief the effect ofpolitics on archaeologists in all nations and political systems. Ìn this way dictatorships may provide
a baseline for the study ofpolitics and archaeology generally.
Nor are all dictatorships created equally. There are distinct differences between dictato¡s who take and mainuin power by force (such as Afghanistan's
former rulers, the Taliban) and those who rule with the consent or approval of the
citizenry (Stamps, 1957:lÇ29). Sometimes a dictator, such as the former lraqi
leade¡ Saddam Hussein, will garn power and then, through a popular "vote," will
rule as president for life. An elected dictator's intelest in or association with the
pasr is usually no less acure than that of any other dictator (as with Hussein:
Baram, 1991; see also Pollock and Lutz, 1994:27I,278-279' 282)Ì, though his
relationship ro rhe archaeologÍcal community may develop in quite different directiotìs. In addition, we also do not mean to imply that all dictatorships employ
identical tactics. They do in fact vary in the manner whereby they control behavior
and rhoughr, which strongly depends on the particular social circumstances (see
Linz, 2000). For example, it has been amply demonstrated by Marla Stone that
Mussolini in the 1930s was very differenr from Hitler in his attitude to the arts.
THE PRACTICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY LTNDER DICIÁTORSHIP
In cont¡asl to the other inrerwar dictatorships to which ltalian
Fascism is
often compared, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the legacy of Fascisr
intervention in the a¡ts was less the story of ruptures and purges and more a
complex tale of accommodation and collaboration. (Srone, l99B:257)
Through time and as he sought ro build srronger ries wirh Hitler, Mussolini changed
his attitude to the arts as well as his relationship to archaeologiss and archaeolog¡r
Strategies employed by dictarors can indeed change during the course of their
rule (DÍaz-Andreu 1993; DÍaz-Andreu and RamÍrez Sánchez, this volume;Junker
1998), sometimes capriciously As a result, in rhe social environment cultivated
by dictators, which often depends on fear and intimidation (Arendr, 1973), archaeologists must continuously negotiare their posirion, both within the political
economy and with respect to their professional goals and values.
Because the past may be of great importance to a dictato¡ the roles played by
archaeologists under dictatorship are many, their acrions complex, multifaceted,
and quite often adaptive (cf. Knapp and Antoniadou, 1998:I7). In some circumstances, archaeologiss rrray play the pan of victim, seemingly forced to communicate to the public mistaken or fabricared interpretations of their nation's archaeolog¡r Though archaeologists have certainly been victimized by dictators-bullied
into deliberately doing "bad science"-it is incorrect to characterize all archaeologists who have worked for dictators as victims. ln some cases, archaeologists have
willingly worked with dictators, and this raises rhe more general qr¡estion of v/hy
anyone might cooperate with a dictator (cf. Maischberger,2002; Nrkolaidou and
Kokkinidou, this volume) As Arnold (I990:47I) has discussed in some detail,
several prehistorians working fo¡ the Nazis "became high-ranking party officials":
These individuals consciously panicipated in what was at best a distortion
of scholarship, and at wo¡st a contribution to the legitimation of a çnocidal
authoritarian regime They were cenainly aware of what they were doing, and
they must have been equally aware that much of the work they were producing
unde¡ the auspices of Nazi ideology had absolutely no basis in archaeological
fact. (Amold, 1990:27 I)
Does the ideology of dictatorship work so well that all people, even archaeologists,
become brainwashed senants of the state (i.e. "useful fools;" Kohl and Fawcett,
1995b:6), cogs in the dictatorial machinery? Or, do individuals, including archaeologiss, possess free will, even unde¡ the harshest of regimes (cf. Maischberger
2002X How often have archaeologists, and through them archaeological research,
"been co-opted to ratify and reify genocide" (Amold, 2002b:95), as was the case
in Germany?2
\Mith regard to the practice of archaeology, we must further ask whether
under pressure from a dictator an archaeologist will consciously change his or
her own ideas about the past in order to meet the dictator's ideological needs,
or if in fact the beliefs of the archaeologist might mirror those of the dictator
MICHAEL L- GAI-ITTYAND CHARTES WATIüNSON
from the start. For example, a dictato¡ might construct a nationalist ideology that
depends a[ least in part on archaeological (versus m¡hic or literary) support
Archaeologists might then be enlisted to conduct research aimed at validating the
state's ideology An archaeologist pressed into service by the state could respond,
broadly speaking, in three ways.3 He could (1) refuse service, riskinghis livelihood,
perhaps even his life. He might do so because he disagrees with the political motives
of the dictatorship, or more specifrcally, he might be unwilling to compromise his
understanding of the archaeological record. Altematively, she might (2) embrace
the opportunity to work for the state, either because she believes in the goals
of the regime, or because the regime's positions with regard to the past are the
same as her own. Finally, he might (3) try to ride the fence, neither agreeing nor
disagreeing with the state's offrcial position, maintaining a low proflle by working
on less well-known sites or on a less-contested historical period.
In the frrst case, the archaeologist might fully disagree wi¡h the dictator's
narionalist position and./or be unwilling to compromise his own beliefs in order to
satisfy the needs of the state (see examples in DÍaz-Andreu, 1993:79). Following
the end of the regime and if he has managed to p¡eserve his career (let alone his life),
he may then set about rehabilitatÍng his ideas about the past. This may not be easy
as those archaeologists
who did collabo¡ate with the regime--case number two,
above-will likely presewe their positions and power af¡er is demise. They may
have been nationalists before the dictator's rise to power and will continue to be
so after his fall. Collaborators also have
much to gain in terms of research funding
(Amold, 1990:467-€). In those countries that have made the transition from
cómmunism to capitalist democracy, relatively more archaeology was conducted
under the totalitarian govemment. Money flowed freely as long as the excavation
results supported the state's position (see Begg, this volume). For instance, in the
3rd Reich there was an increase from 13 lecturers in Pre- and Protohistory in 1928
to 52 in 1941 (Hassmann, 2002:88).
-
The¡e is no denying that, given the limited size of the discipline, Pre- and
Protohistory from amongst the frelds of leaming, was selected for promodon
under the Nazi regrme, on account of its ideological usefulness. fu Veit concludes, the tragedy is'thatjust as prehistory achieved its greatest importance,
it also came in for its greatest misuse'. (Hassmann, 2002:88)
The thi¡d and frnal case rs perhaPs the most typical. The archaeologist remains
flexible, ready to say what the dichtor wants to hear, if that becomes necessary
(see Shaw, this volume). Adapting Stone's frwerful description of the experience
of arrists under Mussolini, the practice of archaeology under dictatorship is often
marked by "accommodation and collaboration" (1998:257). The dictator needs
the archaeologrst, and the archaeologist needs the dictator. Given this scenario,
the archaeologist may be either a hapless victim or he may actively work the
system, though more often than not he operates somewhere in between these
THE PRACTICE OF ¡NCT'áEOLOGY UNDER DICT4.TORSHIP
two extremes. Flexibihty is an adaptive response, a survÍval mechanism, and this
behavior often continues into the post-toralitarian period, following the end of
dictatorship. Those archaeologists who rode the fence under a dicutor may prosper
after his fall, especially with the advent of wesrem-style democrary and capitalism,
which typically reward moderarion and flexibility
Most of the totalitaian dictarorships established in rhe first half of rhe 20th
century many of them European, have now collapsed. While functioning democracies have been created in some of these (e.g., Germany, Italy, Spain), others
have had trouble curbing autocratic tendencies (e.g, Russia, Serbia). Of course,
many dictatorships still operate in the Middle East, Africa, and various parts of
Asia, as well as in the West (e.g., Cuba). To a great extent, howeve¡ the study of
post-totalitarian govemments, especially those in countries that were once part
of the Soviet Union, is still maturing and there is no clear consensus regarding the causes of collapse and the lasting effects of totalitarianism (Linz, 2000:7;
Saltemarsh, 200I; for particular case studies, see Dolukhanov, 1993: ex-USSR;
Miraj and Zeqo,1993: Albania; Neustupni, 1993: Czechoslovakia; Schild, 1993:
Poland). Recently, though, archaeologists have made great strides, pushed along
by post-processual theoretical currents (Meskell, I998b:4-7), in the study of archaeological institutions both before, during, and after dictatorship.
Junker (1998) describes the largely pohtical strategies ¡hat allowed the
German Archaeological Institute (the Deutsches Archaologþches Insfiftrt or DAI),
which was founded in 1829, to survive the National Socialist era. The Nazi parry
supponed the archaeological activities of two new organizations, dre National Institute for German Prehistory under the direction of Alfred Rosenberg, and the
SS's Ausgrcbungswesan (excavation section) atd Ahnenerbe ("Ancestral Heritage")
wing, controlled by Heinrich Himmler (Junker, 1998:287-8). Rosenberg's outfit
(which never really got off the ground; Amold, 1990:469) worked exclusively in
Germany and sought to prove the cultural primacy of the German (Aryan) peoples.
Himmler saw the ideological value of archaeology and sought to collect (or, if necessary, fabricate) archaeological da¡a for the purposes of propaganda. Generally
speaking, the DAI's mission changed very little, rather changes to the structure
of the organization were required (e.g., decisions were to be made by a director,
rather than by corsensus). The DAI managed to adapt to the realities of National
Socialism without greatly compromising its scholarþ integrity and international
reputation (for example, by neglecting to address the question of race; Junker,
1998:289). The members of the DAI, in effect, rode the fence, neither supponrng the Nazi agenda too much, nor too little. Consequentþ the DAI survived the
collapse of the Third Reich, whereas the National Institute for German Prehistory
and the archaeological units of the SS, obviously, did not.
DÍaz-Andreu and RamÍrez Sánchez describe in this volume the practice of archaeology in Spain under Franco and draw direct comparisons to archaeology in
Germany under Hitler. Many of the strategies employed by the German DAI were
MICHAELL. GAIATY AND CIIÁRLES IVÁTKINSON
similarly developed by the sp anísh comisaríaGarcral de Excavaciones ArqueolÓg¡cas
(CGEA). However, the quality of archaeological research under Franco-who
was apparently rather ambivalent when it came to Spanish archaeology-aPPears
to have suffered, primarily due to a system of patronage that promoted nonprofessional archaeologists, though this was a problem that had emerged well before the Spanish civil war and persisted after the end of the CGEA' As in Germany,
the status quo in Spanish archaeology was maintained; however, the poor quality
of archaeological research under Franco appears to have been the result of a shrinking, rather than expanding, budget (unusual, as in most dictatorships, the budget
for archaeology grows) and was encouraged by the director of the CGEA, Julio
MartÍnez Santa-Olalla, who worked the political system to his own advantage' In
shorr, Spanish archaeolory's system of patronage was able to flourish under tótalirarianism, a political system in which key officials are typicaþ granted exclusive
decision-makingpowers (see also DÍaz-Andreu, 1993:7Ç77)' ln 1955, the CGEA
was abolished by decree and the Spanish archaeological system was re-vamped,
but the fall of the CGEA had as much to do with inept archaeological research as
it did with the fall of Santa-Olalla himself.
2. ALBANIAN ARCH,AEOLOGY AND ENIVERHOX}IA
Not only should you love and always pay artenrion ro your country and sute, for they
bore and have educated you, but you should also defend and save them, even with
blood.a
Gjergi lGstrioti Skanderbeg (1405-f 4ó8)
our interest in this topic-archaeology trnder dictatorship---stems from our
understanding of archaeolory as it was Practiced in the Balkan nation of Albania
under.the communist dicutorship of Enver Hoxha.5 As attested in his written
THE PRACTICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER DICIá,TORSHIP
t lesson and legacy, and precisdy herein
must be soughr one of rhe sou¡ces of the vitaliry of our people, of their ability
to withstand the most fe¡ocious and powerful enemies and occupiers and to
generatÍon to generation as a gte
avoid assimilation by them. (Hoxha,
I984:lI)
Hoxha also emphasized the autochthonous ethnogenesis of the Albanians,
tracing their origins to the ancienr Illyrians (cf Slapsak and Novakoric, 1996:2692721.or examples of the political appropriation of "Illyrian" archaeology and history
by the Slovenian state). At his insistence, Albanian linguists and philologists connected the Albanian language, unlike any orher in Europe, ro rhe exrincr language
of the lllyrians. Physical anthropologisr.s sought to prove rhar Albaniar¡s were biologically distinct from orher Indo-European populations (now dis-proved through
genetic analysis; see Belledi et aI.,2000). Moneypouredinro rheAlbanianAcademy
of
Science, specifically earmarked
for investigarions of lllyrian archaeology
(Miraj and Zeqo, 1993). The developing archaeological framework, sancrioned
and enforced by the Hoxha govemment, made clear that the ancestors of modemday Albanians had once possessed a unique culture and, more importantly, had
controlled a large and unified territory Under Hoxha, Albanian archaeologisrs argued that southem Albanian Iron Age urban centers, often indistinguishable from
Greek-style poleis, were in reality wholly llþan, and that more often rhan nor,
Greeks were the beneficiaries of lllyrian ideas and innovarions, as opposed to the
other way around. For example, the names of the majoity of Greek gods and
goddesses were said to stem from lllynan, not Greek, root words.
The links between archaeology and polirics that Hoxha sponsored are described by Muzafer Korkuti, one of the dominant figures in post-war Albanian
archaeology and now Director of the Institute ofArchaeology in Tirana.
Archaeology is pan of the politics which the party in power has and this was
understood better than anything else by Enver Hoxha. Folklo¡e and archaeology were respected because they are the indicators of rhe ¡ration, arÀ. a party
that shows respect to national identity is listened to by the people; good or
bad as this may be. Enve¡ Hoxlu did this as did Hitler. In Germany in the
I930s there was an increase in Balkan studies and languages and this too was
all pan o[natiornlism. (Interview l0thJuly 2002)
were subject to externai domination: by Romans, Byzantines, VenetÍans, Normans,
Ottomans, Austrians, ltalians, Nazis, Greeks, and Serbs. lnstead of rejecting this
history Hoxha embraced it, usrng ir ro argue for the importance of a strongly
centralized, aurhorirarian govemmenr, a xenophobic foreign poliry and a powerful
military
Through all the centuries of their history the Albanian people have always
striven and fought to be united in the face of any invasion which threatened
thei¡ freedom and the mothe¡land. This uadi¡ion was handed down from
of "accommodation and collaboration" which doing archaeology
under Enver Hoxha's patronage required is vividly described by Korkuti.
The complex mix
For as long as the pany at the time gave you money to do archaeolog¡r you
had to suppon the party line and go alongwith it. In a lecture I gave about the
Illyrians in 1972 I had to cite some wo¡ds f¡om Enve¡ Hoxha but the ¡est of
the lectu¡e had nothing to do wirh whar he said For me it was imponant the
help he gave me to study and the possibilities ro exchange experiences with
othe¡ cultures so I had to acknowledge his words (lnterview l0thJuly 2002)
10
MICHAELL. GALAÍY AND CHARLES W,{TKINSON
As many of the contributors to this book show, the practice of archaeolory under
dictatorships had and has its benefits. Where the past is such an importanr part of
the political toolbox, funding, for the right sort o[ ¡esearch, becomes no problem
(cf. Miraj and Zeqo [1993] with regard to Albania). Korkuti, remembering his
eariier tenu¡e as Director o[ the Archaeological Institute, describes the activity of
that period.
.
'
-
Between 1978 and 1988 we had around 20 projects working (though of
course not all of them big) and the State was paying the workers and every
project had no fewer than 20-30 workers...just workersl The¡e were also
photogaphers, illust¡ato¡s our restnctions were the personnel ¡ather than
the money. (lntewiew, July l0th 2002)
The almost invisible gloved hand of patronage substituted for the iron fist of
repression in the Albanian situation (compare the Albanian situation to that of
Franco's Spain, described by DÍaz-Andreu and RamÍrez Sánchez, this volume).
In a small country where an in¡ellectual elite knew each other intimately, the
"disappearances" which a Stalinist Russia absorbed could not pass un-noticed.
But, despite the light touch, clear boundaries had been drawn around certain
areas of investigation.
During this time scholars had ro defend seve¡al hot issues; the lllyrians being
the most ancient people in the Balkans and the age of the Ilþan language, for
example These were the hot spots and there was meant to be a single opinion.
For othe¡ issues, outside these ones, the scholar was free to conclude what
they would. Look at the question of the Kosovar territory: we had to defend
the idea that the Slavs arrived after the llþans. ln this case Enver Hoxha
only permitted one opinion. One of the other restrictions was on talking
too much about influences f¡om the Wesi The dictator wanted to restrict
Wesrem influence But for ever¡hing else he gave free pass to balance these
restrictiors. Nothing was visibÌe at first sight, but looking back you can see
these restrictroris in
place (lntewiew, Juiy I2th 2002)
under rhe communisr govemmenr, Albanian archaeologists found themselves
ina potentiallydifficultposition. Theyhad to toe the partyline, orriskPunishment,
rhe mosr common being inremal exile (though Korkuti could not recall a single
:iiî:ï::'l;i#ïÊl,iTJT:åi'äî:Tì.i',Jl:11îi
ravel to other communist countries, but also to the west;
Korkuti, for example, studied
made archaeologiss both valu
with the fall of che communis
politicians-Neritan Ceka, a member of the Albanian Parliament, being a good
example (cf. similar examples of this phenomenon from the former soviet
union in
Chemykh, I995:I44). Archaeologists were among the limited number of cicizens
THE'PRACTICEOF
ANCNAEOLOGYUNDERDICTá.TORSHIP
11
who possessed knowledge of westem-style democracies and capitarisr economic
systems, and who also had contacts in the outside world. They naturally moved
into positions of political leadership.
The political crises of rhe late 1980s and early I990s saw rhe end of the fl-
s
(Mira.¡
Albania,
take on
to modem Russia). Because ir was inrended ro help build an Albanian national identiry,
it could serve the same purpose in a capitalist democracy that it had in a communist dictatorship. However, in the dangerous environment of the post-communisr
Balkans, building a narional identity might easily slide into narionalism and inflammatory calls for terrirorial expansion (cf. stapsak and Novakovic, r99ó). For
Albanians, the connecrion between nationalistic politics and archaeology is especially strong in Kosovo, a region of Serbia nominally claimed by Albania, and
in southem Albania, a part of Albania claimed by Greece, so-called ,.Nonhem
Epirus." In 2001 and 2002, reams of Albanian archaeologists from Tirana traveled to Kosovo to undertake archaeological research, but the trips might more
accurately be seen as a political statement: "We, Albanians, now control Kosovo's
past." Ethnic Albanian scholars from Kosovo also attended the recent intemarional
symposium "Archaeological Year 2002" held in Tirana, Albania. Their Albanian
colleagues, having escaped dictatorship in 1991, rurored rhem on rhe difficul¡ies
of the transition to democracy, often referring to the new "nation" of Kosovo. In
these situations, Albanian archaeology, especially archaeological interpretarions of
the Ilþians, are ofren (though, not always) applied uncritically and in general
are still not open ¡o serious debate. As rhe Croarian scholar Predrag Marvejevic
noted-prophetically and rarher marrer-of-factly-in his 1987 book, published in
the United States in 1999 under th e title Mediterranean: A Culãral Landscape: "The
multiplicity of peoples in Ilþa will make for major problems when the rime for
narion-building comes to the Balkans" (198).
Whereas the older generarion of Albanian archaeologiss had built repurations based on very natrow interpretatiors ofAlbania's archaeological record, the
younger generation of archaeologists, especially those trained in rtre west, does nor
necessarily feel the same degree of loyalty ro rhe received archaeological tradirion.
Some young archaeologists do, for a variety of reasons, at leasr pay lip sewice
to that tradition. In some cases, they are themselves nationalists, or they recognize that they may not get a job in archaeolory if rhey rake a corLûary position. In
this waf archaeological theoretical frameworks formed under communism, Iargely
untested and perhaps incorrect, have survived intact in ¡he "new'Albania.
However, there is in Albanian archaeology today at least a willingness to
change. To some extenr, western archaeologists working in Albania can question
rote interpretations of the Albanian archaeological record, in pan because they
12
MICHAEL L. G,{I.ATYÁND CIIARLES WATKINSON
fund archaeological research
chaeologists are thernselves
2002, a colloquium was held
of America entitled "Decons
(see published abstracts in the Amencan Journal oJ Arclneolog I0ó:279-8I)' ln
rhis session, several young Albanian archaeologists presented a developing vision
for a future, more reflexive Albanian archaeology. They spoke of an Albanian sci-
the University of Tirana. Doing so, they admit,
will not
/.¡.:CN¡EOLOGYUNDERDICTATORSHTP
13
they labored together to understand their new narion's past. Now, Albanian archaeologiss largely depend on rhe support of foreign (American, Brirish, French,
Italian) projects in order to conduct research. This, of course, has created on rhe
pan of many Albanian archaeologists a sense of loss: loss of control over the investigation and interpretation of their own pasr. For some Albanian archaeologists,
there has in recent years been retrenchment, and a drive to reassert the centraliry of the research they conducted under Hoxha. Younger generarions ofAlbanian
archaeologiss, studentsinparticular, seem, forthe mostpan, tobe respondingpositively to this process, sharing in their menrors'nostalgia, in some cases extribiting
a degree of anomie, directed in large part at rhe failures in Albania of westernstyle capitalist democracy, including capitalisr, democratic styles of archaeological
research.
be easy.
Given developments such as rhese, it has been suggested thar auacking
post-totalitarian archaeologies in young developing nations constitutes a form
ofneo-colonialism (see discussions in Meskell, 1998b:4-5; Trigger, 198,1:3ó8-9).
3. CONCLUSION
we can no longer afford to take rhat which was good in the past and simply call it our
heriuge, to disca¡d the bad and simply think of it as a dead load which by itself time
will bury in oblivion
Hannah A¡endt , The Ong¡ns ol Totalitar.anísm
THEPRACTICEOF
(I973:ix)
Operating from positions of power (financial, technological, ideological, etc.), representatives of "imperialist" national archaeologies (cf. Trigger, 1984) may build
support for their own interpretations of the past by disparaging those of archaeologists who once served under dictators. At the same time, some post-processual
archaeologiss have called for a relarivist approach ro the pasr, informed by the
post-modem critique (cf. Meskell, Ì998b:4-5). Given this approach, all inrerpretations of the archaeological record are potentially equaþ valid, those produced
in democracies as well as those produced under dictatorship. However, as Kohl
and Fawcett (f 995b:L9) have argued, we must as professional arctraeologists face
these issues with some sense of responsibility There are still today situations in
which archaeology is being grossþ distoned for purely political reasons (e.g., in
the Republic of Georgra; Kohl and Tsetskhladze, I995)-if anythrng, modem archaeological techniques (such as radiocarbon dating) and approaches (emplo¡ng
multiple and competing hypotheses) have made it possible to rurrow the scope of
possibilities, eliminating some of the more outlandish archaeological nationalistic
claims (TrÍgger, 1995'.273-77). As Amold (2OO2a:405) has argued:
Attempts to give aII interested panies an equal voice, irrespective of whether
thei¡ claims can be supponed by the empirical evidence, can lead to only one
outcome: if all opiniors are equaþ valid, then rhe group best able ro stille
opposition will be the group whose opinion becomes dorninant. This is the
defrnition of dictatorship.
The study of archaeology and dictatorship raises other interesting questions
for all archaeological practitioners. We might also ask what the implications of
the study of archaeolory as practiced under dictatorship are for studies of those
archaeological records created under dictatorship. fu Colin Renfrew has recently
said (2001:19):
MICHAELL. GAIATY AND CHÁRLES 1VATIüNSON
14
Well, that's not what I mean or meant by social archaeology, but I'm begiming
[o feel that's what social archaeology may be taken to mean by many toda¡
namely the role of a¡chaeology in contemporary society. I'm sure that's an
interesting ñeld, and I can see that there are many archaeologists who frnd it
really attractive Bur I think if you really want to do Politics, why not go and
do politics? Why sit around being an archaeologist? My motÑation for doing
archaeology is to frnd out about the Past.
Also, if indeed modem dictators typically have used the past for ideological purposes, it seems equally apparent that Past dictators have done so as well (Trigger,
I995'.266;see also Schnapp, 2OO2:L35-6 for several intelesting examPles). For insrance, Ali Pasha of Tepelena, who ruledportions of Greece andAlbania in the earþ
lgth century mined ancient archaeological sites for architectural materials uded to
embellish his palaces (Galaty et al., 1999:207). What effects might such behavior
have had on archaeological sites throughout the world? Are there methodological
implications for the practice of archaeology in legions once conrrolled by dictators? lt is also quite clear that ancient dictators, such as Julius Caesa¡ produced
political propaganda based on biased understandings cf "barbarian" histories and
cultural behãviors (Amold, 2002b:10ó). In many cases ìòday, these texts, such as
Caesar's Commentanes on the battle for Gaul, written 52-58 BC, are still employed
as primarysources of information on non-Roman, indigenous European cultures of
the late Iron Age. Can our more nuanced understanding of modem dictatorships,
informed by oral history and derailed documentation, Sive us new insighß into
the marerial and documentary records of ancient states from all periods of history?
Can insights into the ways dictators have controlled the past and the Plactice of
archaeology in the middle of the 20rh cenrury help our colleagues in 2lst-century
dictatorships like North Korea or Zimbabwe (see Garlake, 1984) understand their
exPeriences?
-
The questions thar the contributors ro this volume raise are perhaps more
numerous than the answers. But, in conclusion, we believe that the benefrts of
a comparative, diachronic approach to arehaeology under dictatorship are made
clear in a volume such as this. As the archaeologists of young democracies continue
ro struggle with the legacy and challenges of totalitarian pasts, it is useful to
remembãr and to remind that they do not struggle alone. And furthermore, that
successful solulions implemented in one nation may prove useful in others.
Notes
1
.
Pollock and Lutz (1994) make the very interesting argument that during the ñrst Gulf War,
PurPoses'
THE PRACTICE OF ARCN¡EOLOGY UNDER DICTÁÎOR5HIP
t5
2. Amold (2002b) provides descriptions of other modem states in which archaeology has
been used to underwrite genocide, in particular in Cambodia.
3. Amold (7990:470-3) proposes a similar scheme to categorize the response of German
prehistoriars to the Nazis in the 1930s. She describes "... the party-liners; the acquiescent
and passive majority; and the critical opposition" (470). See also Maischberger (2002:21011), regarding "victim(s)... culprit(s)... (and) opportunist(s). -. "
4. Translated from the Albanian by Mr. Ols Lafe; attributed to Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg
(1405-1468), Albania's greatest culture hero, who defended the country f¡om the Ottoman
Turks. From a display in the museum built by the communist regime in 1982 at Kruja,
Albania, the Kastrioti family's ancestral castle.
5. In a recently published collection of papers by cultural anthropologists working in postsocialist nations (De Soto and Dudwick, 2000), authors touch on many of the same challenges to which we have responded in Albania. In particular, Brown (2000) describes
the rigid, academic hierarchies still operating in the Macedonian Institute for National
History and the desi¡e on the part of his Macedonian colleagues to be recognized by
Westemers as legitimate scholars in their own right, despite the difficult legacies of
totalitarianism.
Bibliography
Abu El-Haj, N , 200 I, Facts on Lhe Grounà: Archaeolo$cal Practice andTerntonal SelJ Fashíoningin Israeli
Society University of Illinois Press, Chicago
Arendt, H, I97 3, The Ong¡ns oJ Totalitan¿nism Harcoun Brace, New York
Amold. B , 1990. The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi Gemany Antiquíty 6+.46478
Arnold, B , i997-8, The Power of the Past: Narionalism and Archaeology in 20th Century Gemany
Archaeolog¡a Polona 35-36:237
-253
Amold, B, 1999, The Contested Pasr AnthropologToday L5:I4
Amold, B , 2002a, A Transatlantic Perspective on German Archaeology ln Archaeolog, Ideolog and
Society:TheGermanExpenence,editedbyH
Hârke,pp 39842I Perert-âng,Frankfun
.{rnold,B,2002b,JustifyingGenocide:ArchaeologyandtheConstn¡ctionofDifIercnce In.Annihilating
DilJerence: The Anthropolog oJ Genocide , edited by A Hinton, pp 95-I ló University of Califomia
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Arnold, B , and Hassmann, H , 1995, Archaeology in Næi Gemany: The legacy of the Faustian
Bargain In Nation4lism, Polítics, and the Practice oJ Archaeolog, edited by P Kohl and C Fawcett,
pp 70-81 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ascherson,N,1996,Foreword InNat¡onalismandArchaeolog,editedbyJ
J. O'Sullivan,
Atkirson,J
Baram, A
,
pp v-ix Cruithne
Atkinson,
l.Bank,and
Press, Glasgow.
Banks, I., and O'Sullivan,J , I996, Nationalism andArchaeolog Cruithne Press, Glasgow.
the Fomation oJ Ba'thßt lraq, 1968-89 S[ Manin's
, I99I, Cuhure, Hisøry and ldeolog ín
Press, New York
Belledi, M , Poloni, E, Casalotti, R, Conterio, E, Mikerezi, I., Tagliavini,J , and Excoffier, L, 2000,
Matemal and Patemal Lineages in Albania and the Genetic Structure of lndo-European Populations European loumal oJ Human Genetics 8:+80-186
Brown, K , 2000, Would the Real Nationalists Please Step Foruard: Destructive Nâ¡ration in Macedonia
lnFieldworhDilemmas:Anthropologis¿sinPos¿-SocialistStates,editedbyH DeSoroandN Dudwick,
pp 3l-48 University olWisconsin Press, Madison, WI
Chapman,J , 1994, Destruction o[a Common Heritage: The Archaeology of \'¡r'a¡ in Croatia, Bosnia,
and Hercegovina. Antiquíty 68: 120-ó
16
MICTIAELL.
GAIAII
AND CTIáRLEs IVI4.TIüNSON
chernykh, E., 1995, Russian Archaeology After rhe collapse of the ussR ln Narionalism, politícs, and
the Practíce oJ Archaeolog, edíredby P Kohl and c Fawceu, pp 139-148 cambridge universiry
Press, Cambridge
THE PRAC,TICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY LTNDER D
ICTATORSHIP
17
Maischberger, M , 2ooz, German Archaeology During
rhe Third Reich, 1933-45: A case study Based
on A¡chival Evidence. AnLiquity 76:209_lg.
Colley, S , 1995, Whar Happened atWAC-}. Antíquity 69:15-18
De soto,
.
H,
and Dudwick,
N
(edirors), 2000, Fieldworh Dilemmas: Anthropologists Ín post-socidlisr
Slates. Universiry of WisconsÍn Press, Madison,
WI.
Diaz-Andreu, M , 1993, Theory and tdeology in Archaeology: Spanish Archaeology Under the Franco
Régime. An¿iquiry 67
:7
4-82
DÍaz-Andreu, M , and Champion, T' (edirors), 1996a, N¿tionalism and Archnzolog ín Europe Westview
Press, Boulder, CO
Diaz-Andreu, M , and Champion, T., I996b, Narionalism and Archaeology in Europe: An lntroduc¡ion.
In N ationalßm and Archaeolog in Europe, edired by M DÍaz-Andreu and T. Champion, pp I-23
Westview Press, Boulder, CO
Dolukhanoq P, 1993, Archaeology in rhe ex-USSR: Post Perestroyka problems An:iquíty 67:l5O-5ó.
Dolukhanov, P, 199ó, Archaeology and Na¡ionalism in Tomlitarian and post-Toralitarian Russia In
N¿tionalism and Archaeolog, edited byJ Arkins r, L Bank, andJ O'Sullivan, pp.200-213
Cruùhne Press, Glasgow.
Fawcett, C., 1995, Nationalism and Postwar Japanese Archaeolog¡z ln Nation4lism, politics, and, the
Practice oJ Archaeolog, edited by P Kohl and C. Fawceu, pp 232-248 Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
M , Stocker, S , and Wa¡kinson, C , 1999, Beyond Bunkers: Dominance, Resistance, and Change
in an Albanian Regional Landscape. Joumal oJ Mediterranean Archaeolog !2:I97-2I4.
Garlake, P, 1984, Ken Mufuka and Grear Zimbabwe. AnLíquity 58:l2I-3
Galaty,
Miraj, L., and Ze
Neustupny, E.,
Pollock, S., and
';:gn::;'**r
r
67:123-5.
waL Critique oJ Anthropolog
t4:263-g4.
Reid, D. , 2002, whose pharaohs?: Archaeolog, Mus¿ums
and Egptian National ldenürr Berkerey, universiry of Califomia press.
Renfrew, C., 200r' From Social to cognitive Archaeorogy:
An InErview wirh corin RenfrewJournar
oJ Soctal Archaeolog l:13-34.
D'' 2ool, Iàentity in a Post-Communíst Balha¡ State: An Albanian village
Study Aldershot,
UK, Ashgate.
Schild, R., 1993, Polish Archaeology in Trarsition. z{nriquity 67:146_50.
schnapp, A ,2oo2, Berween Anriquarians and Archaeo'rogisrs-continuities
and Ruptures. Antiquíty
Saltemarsh,
76:134-40.
200l, Oldest Living ConJederate Wiàow Tells AIl Vintage Books, New york.
Hall, M , 2000, ,{rchaeolog and the Moàem World Rourledge, London and New York
Hamilakis, Y , and YalouÉ, E , I99ó, Anriquiries as Symbolic Capiral in Modem Greek Society. Anti4rit)
Gurganus, A.,
70:l17-I/9
Härke,
H
(editor), 2002, Archaeolog,Ideolog and
Society: The
Geman Expenenc¿ (Second Edirion)
Peter Lang, Frankfun
Pa*
Antiquity 69:87N
877.
Hassmann,H.,2002,ArchaeologyandrheThirdReich lnArchaeolog,IdeologandSocíety:TheGerman
Expenence, edited by H Hârke, pp ó5-139 Perer Lzng, Frankfun.
Hoxha, E , 1984, Iqing the Foundations oJ the New Albania Nentori Publishing House, Tirana
Hoxha, E , 1985, Two F¡iendþ People Nentori Publishing House, lrana
Junker, K, 1998, Research Under Dictarorship: The German Archaeological lrr*iture 1929-1945.
Antiquity 72.:282-92
Knapp, B., and Antoniadou, S, 1998, Archaeology, Polirics, and rhe Cultural Herirage ofCyprus. In
Archaeolog Und,er Fire: Nationalism, Politics, and Hentage ín the Eßtem Medítenanean and Middle
E¿st, edited by L Meskelt, pp 13-+3 Rourledge, London and New York.
Kohl, P, and Fawcett, C (edirors), 1995a, Nationalism, Politics, and Lhe PracLice o[ Archaeolog Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Kohl, P, and Fawcett, C , 1995b, Archaeology Ín the Sewice o[ rhe State: Theorerical Consideratiors
ln Nation¿lism, Polítics, and the Practice o[ Archaeolog, edired by P Kohl and C. Fawcetr, pp 3-20
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Kohl, P, and Tsetskhladze, G , 1995, Nationalism, Polirics, and [he Pracrice of Archaeology in the
Caucasus. l¡Nationalism,Politics,andthePracticeoJArchaeolog,editedbyPKohlandC
149-17ó Cambndge, Cambridge University
8.,
logrcal
and T.
Slapsak,
Hassan, E, 1995, The World Archaeological Congress in India: Poliricizing rhe
Press
Linz, J , 2000, Totalitarian and, Authoritarian Rrglmes Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner
Fawce¡t,
Is There
National
our Na¡ionalism? Archaeo_
edited by M. Diaz-Andreu
. Boulde
stamps, N., 1957, why Democracies FaíI: A crítical Evaluation ol the
causes Jor Modem Dictatorship
Notre Dame, lN, University of Norre Dame press.
Stone, M , 1998' Th¿ Patron state Cukure antl Politics in Fascßtltaly princeton, prirrceron
Press.
universily
ce
ty
Wiwjona, I., I99ó' German Archaeology and lß Relation to Nationalism
and Race. In NdtÍona¡ism ¿nd
Archaeologr inEurope, edÍted by M. Diaz-Andreu and r champion,
pp. 16,r=Igg. Bourder, co,
WesMew Press.