Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-qn7h5 Total loading time: 0.402 Render date: 2022-09-30T21:35:00.412Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Heritage bureaucracies and the modern nation state. Towards an ethnography of archaeological systems of government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2016


Drawing on examples from the West (Flanders) and developing East (Siberia, Russia), this paper investigates the subtle and often overlooked entanglements between the nation state and archaeology. Drawing on careful ethnographic assessments mapping the impact of the state on archaeological practice in Russia and Flanders, this paper illustrates that we need to transcend our traditional focus on nationalism and also look at the impact of bureaucratic procedures and documents. These at first sight benign systems of government greatly enmesh archaeologists with the nation state and its myriad of agendas, ultimately impacting both heritage management and academic research.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Anderson, B., 1983: Imagined communities. Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, London.Google Scholar
Aretxaga, B., 2003: Maddening states, Annual review of anthropology 32, 393410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahrani, Z., 1998: Conjuring Mesopotamia, in Meskell, L. (ed.), Archaeology under fire. Nationalism, politics and heritage in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, London, 159–74.Google Scholar
Balzer, M.M., 2010: Indigenous politics, economics and ecological change in Siberia, Georgetown journal of International Affairs 11 (1), 2736.Google Scholar
Bendix, R., 2013: The power of perseverance. Exploring the negotiation dynamics at the World Intellectual Property Organization, in Müller, B. (ed.,) Organisations, the gloss of harmony. The politics of policy-making in multilateral organisations, London, 2345.Google Scholar
Bendix, R., Eggert, A. and Peselmann, A., 2012: Introduction. Heritage regimes and the state, in Bendix, R., Eggert, A. and Peselmann, A. (eds), Heritage regimes and the state, Göttingen, 1120.Google Scholar
Brück, J., and Nilsson Stutz, L., 2016: Is archaeology still the project of nation states?, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombé, P., and Robinson, E., 2014: 14C dates as demographic proxies in Neolithisation models of northwestern Europe. A critical assessment using Belgium and northeast France as a case-study, Journal of archaeological science 52 (2), 558–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, W., Bats, M., Bourgeois, J., Crombé, P., De Mulder, G., De Reu, J. and Herremans, D., 2012: Development-led archaeology in Flanders. An overview of practices and results in the period 1990–2010, in Webley, L., Vander Linden, M., Haselgrove, C. and Bradley, R. (eds), Development-led archaeology in northwest Europe, Oxford, 2955.Google Scholar
De Clercq, W., Dumoulyn, J. and Haemers, J., 2007: Vivre noblement. The material and immaterial construction of elite identity in late medieval Flanders, Journal for interdisciplinary history 38, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Reu, J., Plets, G., Verhoeven, G., De Smedt, P., Bats, M., Cherretté, B. and De Maeyer, W., 2013: Towards a three-dimensional cost-effective registration of the archaeological heritage, Journal of archaeological science 40 (2), 1108–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diachenko, A., 2016: Archaeology and the nation state. The case of eastern Europe, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz-Andreu, M., and Champion, T., 1996: Nationalism and archaeology in Europe, London.Google Scholar
Dietler, M., 1994: ‘Our ancestors the Gauls’. Archaeology, ethnic nationalism, and the manipulation of Celtic identity in modern Europe, American anthropologist 96 (3), 584605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donahoe, B., Habeck, J.O., Halemba, A. and Santha, I., 2008: Size and place in the construction of indigeneity in the Russian Federation, Current anthropology 49 (6), 9931020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engovatova, A., 2010: The impact of the economic crisis on rescue archaeology in Russia, in Schlanger, N. and Aitchison, K. (eds), Archaeology and the global economic crisis, Tervuren, 97102.Google Scholar
Engovatova, A., 2012: Спасательная археология в России (к 40-летию отдела охранных раскопок Института археологии РАН), Российская археология 4, 141–50.Google Scholar
Exell, K., 2014: No collecting an alternative world. The Sheikh Faisal Bin Qassim Al Thani Museum in Qatar, in Exell, K. and Rico, T. (eds), Cultural heritage in the Arabian peninsula. Debates, discourses and practices, Farnham, 5170.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J., 1990: The anti-politics machine. ‘Development’, depoliticization and bureacratic power in Lesotho, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J., and Gupta, A., 2002: Spatializing states. Toward an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality, American ethnologist 29 (4), 9811002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M., 1991: Governmentality, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds), The Foucault effect. Studies in governmentality, Chicago, 87104.Google Scholar
Gazprom 2015: Southern Corridor Gas Pipeline System, at Scholar
Gel′man, V., 2015: Authoritarian Russia. Analyzing post-Soviet regime changes, Pittsburgh, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goode, P., 2011: The decline of regionalism in Putin's Russia, Oxford.Google Scholar
Goudswaard, B., Bos, J., van Roode, S. and Pape, H., 2012: Forward with reverse archaeology. On a new method for utilizing the past in spatial planning, Heritage & society 5 (1), 101–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A., 2012: Red tape. Bureacracy, structural violence, and poverty in India, Durham, NC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafsaas-Tsakos, H., 2011: Ethical implications of salvage archaeology and dam building. The clash between archaeologists and local people in Dar Al-Manasir, Sudan, Journal of social archaeology 11 (1), 4976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halemba, A., 2004: The Telengits of southern Siberia. Landscape, religion and knowledge in motion. London.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2007: The nation and its ruins. Antiquity, archaeology and national imagination in Greece, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hare, L., 2015: Excavation nations. Archaeology, museums, and the German–Danish borderlands, Toronto.Google Scholar
Herremans, D., and De Clercq, W., 2013: The current state of post-medieval archaeology in Flanders, Post-medieval archaeology 47 (1), 83105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzfeld, M., 1992: The social production of indifference. Exploring the symbolic roots of Western bureacracy, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, E., 1993: The new threat to history, New York review, 63.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1991: Archaeological theory in Europe, London.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2005: Theory and practice in archaeology, American journal of archaeology 99, at Scholar
Hull, M., 2012: Documents and bureaucracy, Annual review of anthropology 41, 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human, H., 2015: Democratising world heritage. The policies and practices of community involvement in Turkey, Journal of social archaeology 15 (2), 160–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klejn, L., 2012: Soviet archaeology. Trends, schools, and history. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, P., and Fawcett, C., 1995: Nationalism, politics and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kohl, P., Kozelsky, M. and Nachman, B.-Y., 2008: Selective remembrances. Archaeology in the construction, commemoration and consecration of national pasts, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kradin, N., 2011: A panorama of social archaeology in Russia, in Lozny, L. (ed.), Comparative archaeologies. A sociological view of the science of the past, Berlin, 244–71.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2009: Contract archaeology in Europe. An experiment in diversity, World archaeology 41 (4), 641–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., 1996: On actor-network theory. A few clarifications, Soziale Welt 47 (4), 369–81.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005: Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory, Oxford.Google Scholar
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar, 1986: Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Loveluck, C., and Tys, D., 2006: Coastal societies and identity, AD 600–1200. Rethinking the social distribution of material culture along the Channel and North Sea coasts, International journal of maritime archaeology 1–2, 140–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luke, C., and Kersel, M., 2013: U.S. cultural diplomacy and archaeology. Soft power, hard heritage. London.Google Scholar
Macdonald, S., 2013: Memorylands. Heritage and identity in Europe today, Oxford.Google Scholar
McNiven, I., and Russel, L., 2005: Appropriated pasts. Indigenous peoples and the colonial culture of archaeology, Oxford.Google Scholar
Makarov, N., Belayev, L. and Engovatova, A., 2015: Археология в современной России. Перспективы и задачи, Российская археология 2, 515.Google Scholar
Meskell, L. (ed.), 1998: Archaeology under fire. Nationalism, politics and heritage in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskell, L., 2002: The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology, Annual review of anthropology 31, 279301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskell, L., 2005: Archaeological ethnography. Conversations around Kruger National Park, Archaeologies 1 (1), 81100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskell, L., 2012: The nature of heritage. The new South Africa, Oxford.Google Scholar
Meskell, L., Liuzza, C., Bertacchini, E. and Saccone, D., 2014: Multilateralism and UNESCO world heritage. Decision-making, states parties and political processes, International journal of heritage studies, at Scholar
Mikhailov, D.A., 2013: Алтайский национализм и археология, Этнографическое обозрение 1, 3751.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T., 1999: No society, economy, and the state effect, in Steinmeltz, G. (ed.) State/culture state-formation after the cultural turn, Ithaca, NY, 7697.Google Scholar
Monaghan, A., 2012: The vertikal. Power and authority in Russia, International affairs 88 (1), 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munchaev, R.M., 2004: 30 лет Отделу охранных раскопок. Труды отдела охранных раскопок, Tula.Google Scholar
Newcity, M., 2009: Protecting the traditional knowledge and cultural expressions of Russia's numerically-small indigenous peoples. What has been done, what remains to be done, Texas Wesleyan law review 15, 357414.Google Scholar
Patterson, T., 1999: The political economy of archaeology in the United States, Annual review of anthropology 28, 155–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plets, G., 2015: Ethno-nationalism, asymmetric federalism and Soviet perceptions of the past. (World) heritage activism in the Russian Federation, Journal of social archaeology 15 (1), 6793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plets, G., 2016: Heritage statecraft. When archaeological heritage meets neoliberalism in Gazprom's resource colonies, Russia, Journal of field archaeology 41 (3), 368–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plets, G., Gheyle, W., Plets, R., Dvornikov, E.P. and Bourgeois, J., 2011: A line through the sacred lands of the Altai mountains. Perspectives on the Altai pipeline project, Mountain research and development 31 (4), 372–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plets, G., Konstantinov, N., Soenov, V. and Robinson, E., 2013: Repatriation, doxa, and contested heritages, Anthropology and archaeology of Eurasia 52 (2), 7398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plets, G., Verhoeven, G., Cheremisin, D., Plets, R., Bourgeois, J., Stichelbaut, B., Gheyle, W. and De Reu, J., 2012: The deteriorating preservation of the Altai rock art. Assessing three-dimensional image-based modelling in rock art research and management, Rock art research. The journal of the Australian Rock Art Research Association (AURA) 29 (2), 139–56.Google Scholar
Popa, C.N., 2016: The significant past and insignificant archaeologist? The case of Romania, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 2839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, C., 2016: Is there an alternative to the nation state? Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riles, A., 2000: The network inside out, Ann Arbor, MI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riles, A., 2006: Introduction. In response, in Riles, A. (ed.), Documents. Artifacts of modern knowledge, Ann Arbor, MI, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, C., 2002: Federalism and democratisation in Russia, Manchester.Google Scholar
Sanders, J., 2016: Archaeology within, archaeology without, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SB-RAS, 2012: Прокладка газопровода ‘Алтай’ не приведет к утрате памятников, at Scholar
Schlanger, N., 2016: ‘If not for you’. The nation state as an archaeological context, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 4870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnapp, J., Shanks, M. and Tiews, M., 2004: Archaeology, modernism, modernity, Modernism/modernity 11 (1), 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoup, D., 2006: Can archaeology build a dam? Sites and politics in Turkey's Southeast Anatolia Project, Journal of Mediterranean archaeology 19 (2), 231–58.Google Scholar
Scott, J., 1998: Seeing like a state. How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and McGuire, R., 1996: The craft of archaeology, American antiquity 61 (1), 7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, A., and Gupta, A., 2006: Introduction. Rethinking theories of the state in an age of globalization, in Sharma, A. and Gupta, A. (eds), The anthropology of the state. A reader, Oxford, 141.Google Scholar
Sheperd, R., 2006: UNESCO and the politics of cultural heritage in Tibet, Journal of contemporary Asia 36 (2), 243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shevel, O., 2011: Russian nation-building from Yel′tsin to Medvedev. Ethnic, civic or purposefully ambiguous, Europe-Asia studies 62 (2), 179202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shnirelman, V., 2005: Politics of ethnogenesis in the USSR and after, Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology 30 (1), 93119.Google Scholar
Shnirelman, V., 2008: Archaeology and the national idea in Eurasia, in Hartley, C.V., Yazicioğlu, G.B. and Smith, A.T. (eds), The archaeology of power and politics in Eurasia. Regime and Revolutions, Cambridge, 1536.Google Scholar
Shore, C., 2000: Building Europe. The cultural politics of European integration, London.Google Scholar
Silberman, N., 1989: Between past and present. Archaeology, ideology, and nationalism in the modern Middle East, New York.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A.-M., 1997: The real new world order, Foreign affairs 76 (5), 183–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L., 2004: Archaeological theory and the politics of cultural heritage, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stammler, F., and Wilson, E., 2006: Dialogue for development. An exploration of relations between oil and gas companies, communities, and the state, Sibirica 5 (2), 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarasov, A., 2012: Труба Алтаю, Novaya Gazeta, at Scholar
Taushek, M., 2012: The bureacratic texture of national patrimonial policies, in Bendix, R., Eggert, A. and Peselmann, A. (eds), Heritage regimes and the state, Göttingen, 195212.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 2004: Archaeology and modernity, London.Google Scholar
Tishkov, V., 1997: Ethnicity, nationalism and conflict in and after the Soviet Union. The mind aflame, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B., 2006: A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ucko, P., 1995: Theory in archaeology. A world perspective, London.Google Scholar
Van den Dries, M., 2011: The good, the bad and the ugly? Evaluating three models of implementing the Valletta Convention, World archaeology 43 (4), 594604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Linden, M., and Webley, L., 2012: Introduction. Development-led archaeology in northwest Europe – frameworks, practices and outcomes, in Webley, L., Vander Linden, M., Haselgrove, C. and Bradley, R. (eds), Development-led archaeology in northwest Europe, Oxford, 18.Google Scholar
Watkins, J., 2003: Beyond the margin. American Indians, First Nations, and archaeology in North America, American antiquity 68 (2), 273–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M., 1987: Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Willems, W., and van den Dries, M., 2007: The origins and development of quality assurance in archaeology, in W. Willem and M. van den Dries, Quality management in archaeology, Oxford, 112.Google Scholar
Wimmer, A., and Glick Schiller, N., 2002: Methodological nationalism and beyond. Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences, Global networks 4 (2), 301–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wouters, W., 2012: Development-led archaeology in Flanders. The legal framework, in Webley, L., Vander Linden, M., Haselgrove, C. and Bradley, R. (eds.), Development-led archaeology in northwest Europe, Oxford, 2228.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, L.J., 1996. Epilogue. A new and different archaeology? American Indian quarterly 20 (2), 297307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Heritage bureaucracies and the modern nation state. Towards an ethnography of archaeological systems of government
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Heritage bureaucracies and the modern nation state. Towards an ethnography of archaeological systems of government
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Heritage bureaucracies and the modern nation state. Towards an ethnography of archaeological systems of government
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *