96063 - National Identities, Historical Memory and Archaelogy in Western and Central Asia

Learning outcomes

Archaeology as a scientific discipline is quite new to Western and Central Asian countries, it was brought there during the colonial domination, direct or indirect, of the 18th and 19th centuries. Being a discipline which can produce new sources regarding each country’s past, it has played an important role in the process of formation of the national identities of some countries and it has been subjected to the necessities of politics sometimes without too much concern for the scientific aspects of research. By the end of the course, the student: knows how and on which methodological bases archaeology has developed as a scientific discipline in the various countries of Western Asia and Central Asia; is capable of understanding how often USA and European countries have used archaeology with a post-colonial approach, also from the point of view of the methodologies applied in those countries, frequently less accurate than Western standards, and has the critical tools for understanding the ideological biases which have influenced archaeological research both in the Asian countries and in Europe.

Course contents

Within each lesson, a brief introduction to the geography, culture, and modern history of the country under discussion will be provided, followed by an overview of its archaeological history and a discussion of issues related to cultural heritage and national identities.The lesson programme is as follows:

Lesson 1
A brief introduction to archaeology and Orientalism.

Lesson 2
A brief historical introduction to Western and Central Asia between the 18th and 20th centuries.

Lesson 3
The birth of modern states after the dissolution of the colonial empires: Ottoman-Turkish, British, French, and Russian-Soviet legacies.

Lesson 4
Turkey: when a millenary archaeological heritage cannot fully support Turkish nationalism.

Lesson 5
Syria: the flourishing of archaeological research under a secular regime, the civil war, and the devastating impact of ISIS on archaeological heritage.

Lesson 6
Lebanon: Phoenician identity and the centrifugal forces of a profoundly "European" country.

Lesson 7
Palestine, Jordan, and Israel. Biblical and Christian archaeology: the political instrumentalisation and confessional dimensions of archaeology in the "Holy Land".

Lesson 8
Iraq: Mesopotamia as a supplier of antiquities to major European and American museums. Kurdistan (KRG) and the alleged Median ancestors as a nationalist ideology.

Lesson 9
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: archaeology and identity in the republics of the Caucasus.

Lesson 10
The birth, development, and role of archaeology in the Arabian Peninsula.

Lesson 11
At the roots of modern and contemporary Iranian identity: the role of archaeology.

Lesson 12
The former Soviet Central Asian republics: from the great excavations of the Soviet era to the creation of new identities.

Lesson 13
Afghanistan between France and the Soviet Union, followed by the Taliban’s impact on archaeological heritage. Pakistan and the development of a post-colonial archaeology.

Lesson 14
Archaeology and conservation: the destruction of heritage and the erasure of historical memory as tools of ethnic cleansing.

Lesson 15
The political and cultural presence of Western countries and their role in the archaeology of West and Central Asian countries. The consequences of European post-colonial policies.

Readings/Bibliography

For a general introduction to the history of Western Asia, students are encouraged to consult:

J. L. Gelvin, The Modern Middle East: A History, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 2020.

For the examination, students are required to study five texts selected from the bibliography below. The selection must include at least one text focusing on one of the countries covered in the course and at least one text addressing the broader themes shared across post-colonial Asia:

1- Bernard Knapp, “Ideology, Archaeology and Polity”, in Man, New Series, 23/1, 1988, pp. 133-163, https://doi.org/10.2307/2803037 available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2803037

2- B.W. Porter, “Near Eastern Archaeology: Imperial Pasts, Postcolonial Presents, and the Possibilities of a Decolonized Future”, in J. Lydon & U.Z. Rizvi (eds.), Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology, London 2010 (on-line 2016), available at https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315427690.ch3

3- M. Stobiecka, “Archaeological heritage in the age of digital colonialism”, in Archaeological Dialogues, 27/2, 13/11/2020,available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/archaeological-dialogues/article/archaeological-heritage-in-the-age-of-digital-colonialism/656C0B0B42262DE846FBFAD34654397F

4- A. Galitzine-Loumpet, S. Gorshenina & C. Rapin, “Archéologie(s) en situation coloniale”, in Les Nouvelles de l'archéologie, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 2011, 126 (Déc.), pp. 3-8.

5- R. Boucharlat, “L'archéologie de la Perse éternelle dans la République islamique d'Iran”, in J.-C. David & S. Müller-Celka (eds.), Patrimoines culturels en Méditerranée orientale : recherche scientifique et enjeux identitaires. 2e atelier (27 novembre 2008) : Identités nationales et recherche archéologique : les aléas du processus de patrimonialisation (Levant, pays du Golfe, Iran) (Rencontres scientifiques en ligne de la Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, 2008), Lyon 2011, pp. 1-16-

6- R. Daroogheh-Nokhodcheri, Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology: The Case Study of Iran, Durham theses, Durham University 2014. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10658/1/thesis_alll_(hand-in_copy).pdf?DDD6 +

7- S. Gorshenina & C. Rapin, “De l’archéologie russo-soviétique en situation coloniale à l’archéologie postcoloniale en Asie centrale”, in Les Nouvelles de l'archéologie, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 2011, 126 (Déc.), pp. 29-33.

8- S. GORSHENINA, «L’archéologie française dans l’Asie centrale soviétique et post-soviétique» L’archéologie française en Asie centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels (Cahiers de l’Asie centrale, n°21-22), Éditions de Boccard, Paris 2013, pp. 25-40.

9- R. BESENVAL, «Les années noires du patrimoine archéologique d’Afghanistan (1980-2001). Chronologie d’un désastre». L’archéologie française en Asie centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels (Cahiers de l’Asie centrale, n°21-22), Éditions de Boccard, Paris 2013, pp. 69-91.

10- L. Olivieri, Sir Aurel Stein and the ‘LORDS OF THE MARCHES’ New Archival Materials, Sang-e-Meel Publications, vol. 1, Lahore 2015.

11- Ch.W. Jones, “Understanding ISIS's Destruction of Antiquities as a Rejection of Nationalism”, in Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology & Heritage Studies, 6/1-2, 2018, pp. 31-58.

12- H. Weiss, “Archaeology in Syria”, in American Journal of Archaeology, 95/4, 1991, pp. 683-740.

13- N.J. Bussemake, “Imperialism’s Stepchild: Dura-Europos and the Political Uses of Imperialism’s Stepchild: Dura-Europos and the Political Uses of Archaeology in the French Mandate of Syria, 1920–1939 Archaeology in the French Mandate of Syria, 1920–1939”, Elischolar, May 2020, available at https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=mssa_collections

14- Y. Kanjou, “The Role of Syrian Archaeologists and Foreign Archaeological Missions in the Protection of the Syrian Heritage”, in A. Otto, M. Herles & K. Kaniuth (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Wiesbaden 2020, pp. 339-350. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv10tq3v9.31 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10tq3v9.31], available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341096139_The_Role_of_Syrian_Archaeologists_and_Foreign_Archaeological_Missions_in_the_Protection_of_the_Syrian_Heritage

15- L. Gillot, “Towards a Socio-Political History of Archaeology in the Middle East: The Development of Archaeological Practice and Its Impacts on Local Communities in Syria”, in Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 20/1, 2010, pp.4–16. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/bha.20102

16- T. Tanyeri-Erdemir, “Archaeology as a Source of National Pride in the Early Years of the Turkish Republic”, in Journal of Field Archaeology, 31/4, 2006, pp. 381-393.

17- P. Kohl & G. Tsetskhladze, “Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology in the Caucasus”, in P. Kohl & C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 149-174, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511558214.010

18- E. Cunliffe, B. Isakahn, L. Ventkatesh, Submission to Study on Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage Heritage Destruction in the MENA region, available at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/CulturalRights/DestructionHeritage/NGOS/EndangeredArcheology.pdf

19- N. Abu El-Haj, “Archaeology and Power during the British Mandate of Palestine”, in Memory and Identity in Israel: New Directions (Israel Studies, Summer, 2002, Vol. 7, No. 2), pp. 33-61;

20- R.S. Hallote, A.H. Joffe, “The Politics of Israeli Archaeology: Between 'Nationalism' and 'Science' in the Age of the Second Republic”, in Memory and Identity in Israel: New Directions (Israel Studies, Summer, 2002, Vol. 7, No. 2), pp. 84-116;

21- I. Maffi, “The Emergence of Cultural Heritage in Jordan: The Itinerary of a Colonial Invention”, in Journal of Social Archaeology, February 2009, DOI: 10.1177/1469605308099369

22- L.G. Tahan, “Challenging Colonialism and Nationalism in Lebanese Archaeological Museums”, in Near Eastern Archaeology, June-September 2010, Vol. 73, No. 2/3, pp. 195-197;

23- Gh.J. Sayej, “Palestinian Archaeology: Knowledge, Awareness and Cultural Heritage”, in Present Pasts, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010, 58-71, doi:10.5334/pp.22

24- A. Ferrari, L'Armenia perduta. Viaggio nella memoria di un popolo, Roma 2019.

25- L. Khatchadourian, A.T. Smith, I. Lindsay, H. Ghulyan. Heritage Forensics: Culture on the Front Lines of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict. Cornell University Press, 2026.

26- J.F. Goode, Negotiating for the Past: Archaeology, Nationalism, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1919–1941. University of Texas Press, 2007.

Teaching methods

Lessons will be conducted through lectures accompanied by slides presenting major archaeological monuments and related materials. During the lessons, moments of seminar discussion will be organized, allowing students to examine the issues presented from different perspectives.

Active participation by students will be encouraged through the voluntary preparation of brief presentations on the essays assigned by the lecturer.

Assessment methods

The examination consists of an oral exam covering the entire syllabus. The aim of the interview is to assess the methodological and critical skills acquired by the students. Students are allowed to bring useful maps to support their explanations during the exam.

Given the importance of class attendance for an effective learning process, two distinct grading scales are applied: one for attending students and one for non-attending students.

 

Attending students

Attendance and participation count for 30% of the final grade.

In particular, the ability of the student to participate actively in class, also using multimedia and collaborative tools provided within the course, will be assessed; such capacity, if combined with the achievement of a coherent framework of the topics developed during the lessons , the application of critical sense and suitable means of expression will be considered and evaluated with the maximum grading = A (27-30 con lode).

Attendance, if joint to a predominantly mnemonic acquisition of course's contents and discontinuous language and logical skills will be assessed in a grading range from good (B = 24-26) to satisfactory (C = 21-23).

Attendance, with a minimum level of knowledge of the course contents, combined with training gaps or inadequate language and logical skills, will get as grade ‘barely passing' (D = 18-20).

The absence of a minimum level of knowledge of the course contents, combined with inadequate language and logical skills and training gaps, will produce a fail (E) grading, even in spite of an assiduous attendance.

 

Non-attending students

Non-attending students will be assessed primarily on the ability to use literature made available in order to properly expose the contents of the course. This ability, when combined with the achievement of a coherent framework of the course's themes, the application of critical sense, and suitable means of expression will be considered and evaluated with the maximum grading = A (27-30 con lode).

A predominantly mnemonic acquisition of course's contents along with discontinuous language and logical skills will be assessed in a grading range from good (B = 24-26) to satisfactory (C = 21- 23).

A minimum level of knowledge of the course contents, combined with training gaps or inadequate language and logical skills, will get as grade ‘barely passing' (D = 18-20).

The absence of a minimum level of knowledge of the course contents, combined with inadequate language and logical skills and training gaps, will produce a fail (E) grading.

Regarding the assessment of learning, limited, declared and non-substantial use of AI (artificial intelligence) is permitted for support activities, such as translation, summarisation and rephrasing. Substantial use of AI to complete any part of the assessment is not permitted.

Teaching tools

Projection of slides and distribution of plans and maps.

Students with a form of disability or specific learning disabilities (DSA) who are requesting academic adjustments or compensatory tools are invited to communicate their needs to the teaching staff in order to properly address them and agree on the appropriate measures with the competent bodies.

Office hours

See the website of Emad Matin