Language
Country/Area
No result found
The Impact of Nationalism: How Can Cultural Historical Archeology Become a Political Tool?
Cultural-historical archeology is an archaeological theory that emphasizes the division of historical societies into different ethnic and cultural groups based on material culture. It originated in the late 19th century, when cultural evolutionism fell out of favor with many antiquarians and archaeologists. In the mid-twentieth century it was gradually replaced by processual archeology. In other parts of the world, however, ideas from cultural historical archeology continue to dominate the field.
The defining characteristic of cultural historical archeology is its revelation of shared perceptions of ancient cultures, their qualities, and their description of how they relate to the material record.
The rise of cultural historical archeology is closely related to the social background of the 19th century. The advancement of the Industrial Revolution led to the emergence of large urban centers in many countries, and society was filled with a poor working class. These emerging working classes began to develop a political voice through socialism, threatening the existing political order in many European countries.
With the rise of the Renaissance movement, many intellectuals began to express criticism of the Industrial Revolution, believing that this economic and social change destroyed the existing structure of society. Their views prompted a review of antiquity and established a wave of advocating an idealized agricultural society.
In this context, cultural historical archeology gradually emerged as an effort to respond to the decline of cultural evolutionism. Archaeologists began to emphasize the geographical variability of artworks and Archeological Records, and absorbed the anthropological concept of "culture" to further develop an emphasis on the classification and types of ancient cultures.
The development of cultural historical archeology was partly due to the rise of nationalism and racism, which emphasized ethnicity as a major shaping factor of history.
Nationalist trends have also had an impact on cultural history and archaeology. Many intellectuals hope to emphasize the sense of national unity amid social unrest. At this time, archeology was used as a tool to support nationalist political agendas, with many countries trying to emphasize links to ancient ancestors through archaeological evidence. The French, for example, often emphasize their descent from ancient Gauls, while the British maintain the same claim to the Anglo-Saxons.
These nationalist sentiments reached a climax in the 20th century when the Nazi Party came to power, and the Nazis used archeology to support their claims of racial superiority. This is an extreme example of how cultural historical archeology can become a political tool.
The early development of cultural historical archeology
In 1869, the Association for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistoric Archaeology was established in Germany. This organization was led by the famous pathologist and politician Rudolf Verhof. He advocated the integration of prehistoric archeology with cultural anthropology and ethnology, attempting to identify prehistoric cultures through material records and link them to peoples who later appeared in written records.
In 1911, the antiquarian Gustav Kosina gave a lecture in an attempt to link the tribes that relied on the Rhine and Vistula rivers in 100 B.C. to Neolithic cultures. Advocates the methodology of cultural historical archaeology. His publications focused mainly on German nationalism and attempted to usurp antiquarian discourse.
Concepts and criticisms of cultural historical archeology
The core point of cultural historical archeology is that human beings can be divided into various cultures, and each culture is mostly considered to be a different nation. These cultures are often considered unique and can be distinguished based on their material culture—such as pottery styles or burial forms. In the view of some archaeologists, these cultural changes were due to the diffusion or migration of ideas rather than self-sufficient cultural changes.
However, this theory has also been criticized for focusing too much on societies from the Neolithic Age and beyond, neglecting earlier human eras where cultural differences are less evident in the archaeological record.
The limitations of cultural historical archeology are obvious. When it encounters more complex social phenomena, it is often unable to provide in-depth explanations. This has also prompted the rise of process archeology, which attempts to integrate more sociological and anthropological aspects. perspective, seeking better explanations for dealing with the complexity of prehistoric societies.
In this controversial history, how cultural historical archeology operates within the national political agenda and what impact it may have on the interpretation of contemporary cultural heritage is still worthy of our consideration and exploration, which forces us to ask, Should culture be used as a political tool?
