"When questions of belonging enter the forefront of political debates, so too does heritage. From different ends at the political spectrum, people invoke the past to validate their stance on immigration, equality and security. In the wake of European crises and a polarized US political landscape, heritage is invoked to both halt and embrace immigration, as well as to resist and further globalization. Essays demonstrate how ancient monuments and sites, bygone eras and political regimes, even your genetic ancestry, can become wrapped up in polarized political debates. Together, the texts pave the way for a better understanding of the role of the heritage in society"--
The aim of this thesis is to show how Europe is constructed at the intersection between archaeology, money and politics within EU cultural actions. Ever since the 1970s, the European Community has invested money and prestige in the idea of a common cultural heritage for Europe. Alongside symbolic attributes such as the flag and anthem, archaeological sites have been used as rhetorical fuel to create a sense of European belonging, much like in national identity building. As a result, archaeologists and heritage professionals have benefitted from EU funding for restoration of sites, training schools and cooperation projects since 1976. In order to address this mutual engagement, the research in this thesis explores the ways that EU grant systems in culture have fostered specific approaches to Europeanness, and how supported projects have responded to notions about a common heritage. By considering EU officials, expert reviewers, consultants and archaeologists as co-creators of the frameworks they participate in, this study raises the idea of financial ties as a place of interaction. The study takes an ethnographic approach and uses discourse analysis and tools from Actor-Network Theory. The material consists of observations made during an internship at the European Commission, 41 interviews with different actors, as well as policy documents, budgets and collected information about 160 supported projects with archaeological themes. This research demonstrates how the expectations linked to archaeology have turned it into both a problem and a promise in the search for a 'usable past' for the EU. On the one hand, archaeology has functioned as an anchor, mooring the notion of a common heritage to something solid. On the other, because of its strong commitment to nationhood, what archaeology claims for its own has often undermined the very idea of a shared European inheritance. Projects benefitting from EU support have taken advantage of the expectations placed upon archaeology to help create a European identity, using buzzwords and 'application poetry' in their proposals. Many projects continuously used EU goals and symbols in their outputs. Sometimes a European past and present was connected by rhetorically tying archaeological periods (such as the Middle Ages and Roman Era) and phenomena (rock art or landscapes) to the EU political project. This link was more manifest in public settings than in academic ones. Taken together, the considerations brought up in this study show that funding matters. The EU strategy of vagueness, in which instructions and evaluation criteria foremost decide the frames but not the content of the projects, has inspired applicants to 'think Europe without thinking.' Once an application is written and submitted, a chain of translations by different actors works to depoliticise the act of constructing Europe. The EU, just as other funding bodies, has become entangled in the political ecology of archaeology. An entanglement which is unavoidable, but which needs to be critically addressed. Funding sources matter for the way we understand both the past and the meaning of archaeology in the present. ; Denna avhandling undersöker hur Europa skapas i gränslandet mellan arkeologi, pengar och politik inom den Europeiska Unionens kulturpolitiska finansieringsprogram. Vid sidan av symboliska attribut såsom flagga och nationalsång har företrädare för den Europeiska Gemenskapen och EU engagerat sig i idén om ett gemensamt europeiskt kulturarv, på ett metaforiskt såväl som ett materiellt plan. Politisk legitimitet har sökts med hänvisning till en mångtusenårig samhörighet. I samband med detta engagemang har arkeologer och kulturarvsarbetare sedan 1970-talet erhållit finansiellt stöd för restaureringsprojekt på platser av europeisk betydelse och transnationella samarbetsprojekt som kan skapa europeiskt mervärde. Studien undersöker banden mellan EU och arkeologi genom att lyfta finansiering som en plats för interaktion och meningsskapande. En etnografisk metod har tillämpats, där empirin består av fältobservationer från en praktikantperiod på Europeiska kommissionen, 41 intervjuer med olika aktörer, samt policydokument och arkeologiska texter. En databas med 160 arkeologiska projekt har även skapats. Diskursanalys och nätverksteoretiska begrepp såsom översättningar och svarta lådan har använts för att lokalisera och begreppsliggöra iakttagelser och meningsfulla skärningspunkter i materialet. Studien visar hur EU-tjänstemän, expertgranskare, konsulter och arkeologer alla deltar i utformandet av arkeologiska problemställningar och byggandet av professionella nätverk. EUs mjuka strategier, inom vilka instruktioner och utvärderingskriterier främst bestämmer ramarna men inte innehållet i de finansierade projekten, har inspirerat sökande att tänka Europa utan att tänka. När en ansökan skrivs och lämnas in startar en kedja av översättningar som leder till att olika aktörer avpolitiserar skapandet av Europa i samtiden. I resultaten framkom att arkeologiska projekt, genom att använda EUs målformuleringar i sina projektansökningar, ofta har utnyttjat EUs förväntningar på arkeologi om att skapa en europeisk identitet. I flera projekt knöts en europeisk samhörighet i det förflutna samman med dagens EUropa. Dessutom fortsatte många projekt att använda EUs mål och symboler i sina outputs. Här var EU-kopplingen tydligare i publika sammanhang än i akademiska. Sammantaget visar studien att val av finansieringskälla spelar stor roll. EUs finansieringsprogram har blivit en del av arkeologins politiska ekologi, en sammanflätning som är oundviklig men viktig att kritiskt uppmärksamma. Dessa band påverkar både vår syn på det förflutna och samhällets syn på arkeologi idag.
To declare that funding matters for research — archaeological or otherwise — would be to state the obvious. Less obvious, and sometimes not even recognized, are the ways in which the source, form, and practices connected to financial support affect and perhaps even more, interact with research. In this essay, I argue that if we do not engage with the role of funding practices beyond its function as mere fiscal recourse and enabler, we lose sight of one important aspect of how academia interacts with society and a vital factor in knowledge production. In a wider perspective it is also a question of maintaining and expanding the range of critique in the humanities, whose authority above all lies in critical thinking. Taking the discipline of archaeology and the field of archaeological heritage as my point of departure, I will address this topic from a cultural perspective and in the context of EU funding, using the European Commission funding programme Raphael as a basis for the discussion.
Ever since the Council of Europe's campaign 'The Bronze Age – The first Golden Age of Europe' was carried out in the 1990s, archaeologists have from time to time expressed concern about periods or interpretations being used as tools for forging a collective identity tied to the geographical, political and ideational entity of 'Europe'. While narratives of a pan-European unity in prehistory have often been disregarded or deconstructed by the research community, discussions on increasing cross-border cooperation and harmonization of practices is still on-going. Both of these directions warrant continuous critical consideration, especially since it is suggested that a future 'Archaeology of Europe' rely in part on the opportunities for financial support offered by the European Commission. European Commission enabling structures, especially within the field of culture, still talks of a common European past. By focussing on 'European added value', the first award criteria for achieving funding under the European Commission Culture programmes, this paper discusses what meanings such a value evoke in relation to archaeology and cultural heritage. It also provides some examples of how such meaningscan become visible in the narratives of co-funded archaeological projects.
SSR gratefully acknowledges M.J. Walsh, J.-L. Renaud, and another anonymous col- league for comments on this manuscript. MB would like to thank P. Pavúk, N. Vlhová, and M. Havlíková for reading and commenting on his paper. KK grate- fully acknowledges the editorial help of his friend Sappho Haralambous-Howe. Naturally, the views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of other agencies. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF
