Dzino National Identety in Bosnia

7/29/2019 Dzino National Identety in Bosnia

1/13

A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w f r o m C a m b r i d g e

Volume 27.2 November 2012

Edited by Russell Ragin and Ctlin Nicolae Popa

Archaeology and the

(De)Construction

of National and

Supra-National

Polities


2/13

Archaeological Review from CambridgeV o l u m e 2 7 2 . N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2

A r c h a e o l o g y a n d t h e( D e) C o n s t r u c t i o n o f

N a t i o n al a n dS u p r a - N a t i o n a l P o l i t i e s

Edited by Russell Ragin and Ctlin Nicolae Popa


3/13

AboutARCThe Archaeological Review from Cambridge is a bi-annual journal o archaeology.It is run on a non-prot, voluntary basis by postgraduate research students at theUniversity o Cambridge.

Although primarily rooted in archaeological theory and practice,ARCincreasingly invitesa range o perspectives with the aim o establishing a strong, interdisciplinary journalwhich will be o interest in a range o elds.

Archaeological Review rom CambridgeDivision o Archaeology, Department o Archaeology and AnthropologyUniversity o CambridgeDowning StreetCambridgeCB2 3DZUK

http://www.societies.cam.ac.uk/arc

Volume 27.2 Archaeology and the (De)Construction of National and Supra-

National Polities

Theme Editor Russell Ragin and Ctlin Nicolae Popa

Production Ctlin Nicolae Popa

Cover Image Designed by Barbara Hausmair. Original picture romhttp://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Breog%C3%A1n_y_Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules.jpg

Published in November 2012. Copyright remains with the authors. Opinions expressed incontributions do not necessarily refect the opinions o the editors.

All images are the authors own except where otherwise stated.

ISSN 0261-4332Committee,Archaeological Review from CambridgeNovember 2012

General EditorDominic Walker

TreasurerDanika Parikh

SecretaryKate Boulden

Book ReviewsKatie Hall

Layout and DesignCtlin Nicolae Popa

SubscriptionsSarah Musselwhite

Publicity and EventsRussell RaginPaul van Pelt

Back Issue SalesSarah Evans

IT ManagerKathrin Felder


4/13A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w r o m C a m b r i d g e - . -

Danijel Dzino

Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, [email protected]

Commentary: Archaeology and the (De)Constructionof Bosnian Identity

The assessment o the relationship between the past and interpretationo the past has gained increased interest and popularity amongstarchaeologists. The inuence o ideology, colonialism and nationalism

on archaeological research and interpretation o material evidence isperhaps its most attractive and most popular aspect (Daz-Andreu 2007,Daz-Andreu and Champion 1996, Fawcett and Kohl 1995; Galaty 2004).There is a strong connection between archaeology and the projects oconstruction o nations. They both developed at the same timethelate eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Nationalism was a creativeproject o Western intellectual elites which were creating imaginarycommunities connected by perceptions o common origins, history,

traditions and destiny (Anderson 1991). These projects were initiallyinternal developments, ultimately resulting in the creation o Western


5/13

Commentary: Archaeology and the (De)Construction o Bosnian Identity

A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w r o m C a m b r i d g e . :

nation-states. However, the experience with nation-making projectsproved to be very useul during European colonial expansion in thenineteenth century, as one tool or imperial domination over colonized

peoples, such as colonial constructions o Arican nations (Young 1994).

Nationalism needed history to provide biographies or thoseimaginary communities, to describe their birth and tell the story otheir development. Archaeology, which also developed as an academicdiscipline in the nineteenth century, was initially used as an auxiliarydiscipline illustrating with arteacts the historical narratives o writtensources. Historical arteacts, but also monuments, landscapes and sites

separated rom their original historical contexts transorm into images andsymbols helping the wider audience to visualize the past. These imagesand symbols produce experiences o the past, which can be perceivedas authentic and true, bringing the public into direct contact with theirancestors and their past (Russell 2006). The construction o nationalbiographies was efectively provided in museums, where images othe past were selectively placed in a particular, well-dened order, with

the purpose o illustrating historical narratives, stories o nationstheirbirth and development (Kaplan 1994). Apart rom museums, the ideas onations as communities were also transmitted through historical sites,landscapes and monuments, new places o pilgrimage, which createshared experiences o the past or members o the imagined community.

Examples o the relationship between projects o nation-making

and archaeology are very diverse, not only in their historical andregional contexts, but also whether national identity was constructed byoutsiders or insiders. To demonstrate this diversity in a brie sketch, I willtouch upon the use o archaeology in the attempts to construct Bosnianidentity in two diferent historical periods in order to illuminate severalwider issues connected with the relationship o archaeology and theconstruction o nations.

The territory o modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina was shaped in1699 rom the reduced Ottoman province (ellayet) o Bosnia, named (but


6/13

Danijel Dzino


not shaped) ater the medieval Kingdom o Bosnia, which was conqueredin 1463 by sultan Mehmed II. Under the Treaty o Berlin, HabsburgAustria-Hungary was permitted to occupy and administer Bosnia and

Herzegovina in 1878, which remained under nominal rule o the sultan.In 1908 Bosnia and Herzegovina was annexed to the Habsburg Empire asa special administrative region, under the joint administration o Austriaand Hungary. Bosnia and Herzegovina is inhabited by three diferentethnic groups: Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats and Slavophone BosnianMuslims (rom 1993 known as the Bosniaks). Bosnian identity was claimedby diferent groups in diferent historical contexts beore the nineteenthcentury, mostly Muslims, but did not exist as a well-dened and shared

identity-discourse bridging all three groups at the same time, apart romthe sense o regional identity (Daja 1984).

Habsburg rule was signicantly afected by the personality oBenjamin von Kllay (Bni Kllay de Nagy-Kll), the Hungarian-bornminister o imperial nances who was appointed as Governor (Ban) oBosnia and Herzegovina rom 1882, remaining in this post until his death

in 1903. His personal agency and inuence shaped the Habsburg colonialenterprise as a civilizing mission, not unlike the contemporary civilizingmissions o European imperial powers in Arica. Certainly, Bosnia andHerzegovina was a special case as it was not an overseas territory butdirectly adjacent to the Empire. In the 1880s and 1890s Kllay pursued theidea o a three-conessional Bosnian identity or clear political reasons.The Habsburg administration eared the politicization o Serb and Croat

identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which participated in the creation oimagined communities o the Serbs in neighbouring Serbia and Croatiansin Austro-Hungarian Dalmatia and Croatia-Slavonia. Certainly this policycannot be seen as a clearly dened repressive imposition o Bosnianidentity, or simplied endorsement o the continuity o medieval Bosniankingdom. It was rather ocused to construct a new Bosnian identity asa multi-conessional and supra-national identity, within an imperialideological ramework, loyal to the Empire, smoothing the transition o

the region to Austro-Hungary (Kraljai 1987; Okey 2007: 55143, 253255).


7/13



The development o archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina mustbe seen in this political and ideological context. While no organizedarchaeology existed under the Ottomans, the period o Austro-Hungarian

rule resulted in signicant investments and results in this eld. Archaeologywas developed as a colonial enterprise, part o the Habsburg civilizingmission, difering rom the archaeological development in neighbouringregions. Its development, excavations and institutionalization, throughthe development o the Provincial (Zemaljski) museum, one o Kllaysideas and pet projects, required signicant material investment which wasreadily available through imperial structures (Novakovi 2011: 402404).The most signicant archaeological work and discoveries were made in

the Iron Age and Roman periods, as well as late antiquity.

Medieval history had a special place in this colonial enterprise,and the Habsburg administration went to considerable length toshape a narrative rom the Bosnian medieval past.1 Steci (sing. steak),characteristic decorated medieval tombstones, were directly linked withthe medieval heretic movement known as the Bogomils, who were chosen

as useul ancestors to the new Bosnian nation because they could notbe linked with either Catholic Croats or Orthodox Serbs. The archaeologyo the medieval period was ocused on steci, rather than on any othermedieval structures apart rom ortresses, while the existence o Christianchurches rom the twelth century onwards was usually denied (Truhelka1914: 227252). The positioning o the lapidarium with steci within thenewly built museum complex in Sarajevo (opened in 1913) emphasizes

their importance as contemporary symbols (Truhelka 1914: 249-252).They were placed in the botanic gardens, between the archaeologicaland ethnological pavilions o the Museum, which displayed the past andpresent o Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, they directly connected themedieval kingdom o Bosnia and the duchy o Hum (Herzegovina) withthe Austro-Hungarian present, skipping over our centuries o Ottomanrule, which was not present in any Museum exhibitions or structures (c.Novakovi 2012: 57). Furthermore, the discovery o an elite male burial

under steak in Arnautovii by Carl Patsch, ascribed to the medieval

1 The Habsburgs did not have monopoly on these narratives, see or example Evans (1877: xxiiiciv).


8/13

Danijel Dzino


Bosnian king Tvrtko I, had not been published or even mentioned at thistime (Wenzel 1999; Zadro 2004).2 The problem with the discovery wasthat this grave was located next to the churchand the interpretativeramework o the time insisted that the Bogomils were not supposedto be connected with churches. Thus, the discovery was not mentionedat all, and the church o St. Nicholas rom the ourteenth century, wasascribed to the early Christian period, i.e. the th and sixth centuries,in a contemporary overview o provincial medieval history (Truhelka1914: 226). Whether this discovery was hidden or ideological reasons,as Wenzel (1999: 175180) convincingly argued, cannot be ascertainedbeyond reasonable doubt, but it would nicely t into the contemporary

colonial context.

A hundred years later a unique Bosnian identity was claimed onceagain through archaeology, but in diferent historical circumstances.In 1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina became an independent country butwas immediately plunged into armed conict. While the reasons orthe conict are numerous, one o the most important is disagreement

about the political organization o the country between three ethnicgroups. The Serb and Croat political options in Bosnia and Herzegovinasupported a high level o political decentralization and/or dissolution othe country, while the most numerous group, the Bosniaks, supportedthe centralization o the country. In 2006 Semir Osmanagi, a Bosniak-born amateur-archaeologist living in the US, claimed that the hill oVisoica and a ew neighbouring hills, near the township o Visoko,

were nothing less than 27,000-year-old pyramids. The discovery broughtabout brie interest in the world media but its validity was quickly andunanimously rejected by experts, local and oreign, who recognizedit with good reason as a case o pseudo-archaeology (Harding 2007).However, work on the excavation o the pyramids continued. It was co-ordinated outside o academic institutions by the Bosnian Pyramid o the

2 As Zadro (2004: 68) rst points out, the discovery was mentioned in the annual report o the museum activitiesor 1909, and publication o the nds was announced or the oloowing year (Anonymous 1909: 605606) but notpublished or unexplained reasons.


9/13



Sun Foundation ounded by Osmanagi, which continued to receive somedegree o public, nancial and moral support (Foundation 2012).

Pruitt (2007) enlightened the complex meanings and signicanceo this discovery in diferent local economic and political contexts,although ailed to clearly position this venture within current political-and identity-narratives in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina.3 On oneside, its discoverer and the Foundation claimed the site or a new supra-ethnic discourse on Bosnian identity, which is mostly accepted in Bosniak-majority regions by the Bosniaks and some minority non-Bosniaks, as asecular and inclusive identity. It is best seen, on a symbolic level, in the

logo o the Foundation which contains the new state ag o Bosniaand Herzegovina. The triangle rom the ag has been incorporatedas symbolic representation o the pyramid.4 The site was immediatelyclaimed by the Bosniaks, on a number o diferent levels. On the level opublic discourse, it ofered a site o pilgrimage, a sacred space or markingand experiencing identity. For locals, Bosniaks by an overwhelmingmajority, it ofered limited economic opportunities. Finally, it became a

useul tool used by the Bosniak political and religious leaders or theirown promotion. The discovery o Osmanagi did not attract the Serbsand Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovinaboth o these groups showedvisible indiference towards the pyramids. No political or religious leaderrepresenting the Serbs or Croats rom Bosnia and Herzegovina has visitedthe site, and the pyramids have not attracted much enthusiasm, apartrom amused interest, in public and media discourses in Serb and Croat

majority-regions.

The two instances o the use o archaeology or constructing Bosnianidentity discussed here are representative o wider issues related to the

3 Surprisingly or someone quite amiliar with local knowledge, Pruitt does not show awareness that Bosnian publicand Bosnian identity, requently mentioned in the paper, are identity-narratives limited only to the Bosniak-majorityregions.4 The ag o Bosnia and Herzegovina is not historical. It is a new design adopted in 1998 on the decision o a oreigner,Carlos Vestendorp y Cabeza, High Representative o the UN in Bosnia and Herzegovina (19971999), who, throughhis ofce had powers to implement laws and dismiss elected local ofcials. The ag is today mostly accepted by theBosniaks, but it is very rare to see it publicly displayed in the Serb and Croat majority areas.


10/13

Danijel Dzino


reconstruction and deconstruction o nations in archaeology. They showhow the same identity can be used by both outsiders and insiders toassert political aims in very diferent historical circumstances. The Austro-

Hungarian imperial bureaucracy attempted to construct a supra-nationaland multi-conessional Bosnian identity as an instrument o imperialcontrol and colonial domination o Bosnia and Herzegovina. In order todo that, the imperial power elt the need to establish control o newlyproduced historical narratives o the Middle Ages. Archaeology playedan important role in this project, ocusing institutionalized research onmedieval tombstones, which became recognizable symbols o historicaloundations or this identity. One century later, the discovery o ancient

pyramids by an amateur archaeologist was used in an attempt to onceagain construct a supra-national Bosnian identity in independent post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. This time, archaeology was used by internalorces. Pseudo-archaeology circumvented institutionalized archaeologyand created an instant pilgrimage site and symbol, one which wasconnected with newly established state-symbols and identity-narrativeso Bosnianness, ully accepted only in Bosniak-majority regions.

Both attempts ultimately ailed. The Habsburg Empire gave upon the wider project o constructing Bosnian identity even beore itsown disintegration, as the three ethnic groups were not interestedin developing a joint imaginary community.5 A century later, thepyramids were, on a popular level, accepted by the Bosniaks but ailedto attract the acceptance o the other two groups as a shared symbol.

The role o archaeology in both examples was to produce recognizableimages and symbols related to two diferent projects aiming to ormthe same imaginary community. This brings us to the very essence othe relationship between archaeology and nation-making projects.Archaeology produces arteacts which, through their public displayand exposition, easily transorm into recognizable images, ready to beclaimed as symbols in diferent contexts. Symbols are necessary in orderto bring together imaginary communities like a national anthem, or a

5 To be precise, Bogomil romance resonated positively amongst some Muslim intelligentsia at the time, who startedto claim the Bogomils as their ancestors (Okey 2007: 242, 246).


11/13



ag, and in the case o archaeological arteacts and sites, to relate to ajoint past by sharing experience o that past. Archaeology is a cruciallyimportant discipline, which provides a window into the past, providing a

type o amily album illustrating biographies o imaginary communities,ultimately providing proo that the past really happened. On some level,it proves that uid and unstable social constructs, such as nations, can beregarded as xed and immutable realities.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank to the editors or their kind invitation to contributeto this volume. The paper is part o ongoing postdoctoral ellowship

nanced by the Australian Research Council.

ReerencesAnderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Refections on the Origin and Spread o

Nationalism. New York: Verso.

Anonymous 1909. Godinje izvjee o radu Zemaljskog muzeja u god. 1909. GlasnikZemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini21(4): 603615.

DazAndreu, M. 2007. A World History o NineteenthCentury Archaeology: Nationalism,Colonialism, and the Past. Oxord: Oxord University Press.

DazAndreu, M. and Champion, T. (eds). 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe.London: Westview Press.

Daja, S.M. 1984. Konessionalitt und Nationalitt Bosniens und der Herzegowina.

Voremanzipatorische Phase, 14631804. Munich: R. Oldenburg.

Evans, A.J. 1877. Through Bosnia and Herzegovina on Foot During the Insurrection, Augustand September 1875 with an Historical Overview o Bosnia. Second Edition. London:Longmans Green and Co.

Bosnian Pyramid o the Foundation. 2012. Website: http://www.piramidasunca.ba/eng/homeen.html, accessed on 14 August 2012

Galaty, M.L. and Watkinson, C. (eds). 2004. Archaeology under Dictatorship. New York:

Springer Publishing.


12/13

Danijel Dzino


Harding, A. 2007. The great Bosnian pyramid scheme. British Archaeology92: 4044.

Kaiser, T. 1995. Archaeology and ideology in southeast Europe. In Kohl, P.L. and Fawcett,C. (eds), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice o Archaeology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. 99119.

Kaplan, F.E.S. (ed.) 1994. Museums and the Making o Ourselves: The Role o Objects inNational Identity. London: Leicester University Press.

Kohl, P.L. and Fawcett, C. (eds). 1995. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice o Archaeology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kraljai, T. 1987. Kalajev Reim u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Veselin Maslea.

Novakovi, P. 2011. Archaeology in the New Countries o southeastern Europe: A HistoricalPerspective. In Lozny, L. R. (ed.), Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View othe Science o the Past. New York: Springer Publishing, 339362.

Novakovi, P. 2012. The German School and its inuence on the national archaeologieso the Western Balkans. In Migotti, B., Mason, P., Nadbath, B. and Mulh, T. (eds),Scripta in Honorem Bojan Djuri. Ljubljana: Institute or the Protection o CulturalHeritage o Slovenia, 5172.

Okey, R. 2007. Taming Balkan Nationalism: The Habsburg Civilising Mission in Bosnia, 1878

1914. Oxord: Oxord University Press.

Pruitt, T.C. 2009. Contextualising alternative archaeology: Sociopolitics and approaches.Archaeological Review rom Cambridge 24(1): 5575.

Russell, I. 2006. Images o the past: Archaeologies, modernities, crises and poetics. InRussell, I. (ed.), Images, Representations and Heritage: Moving Beyond Modern

Approaches to Archaeology. New York: Springer Publishing, 138.

Truhelka, . 1914. Osvrt na sredovjene kulturne spomenike Bosne. Voa kroz sredovjenu

zbirku Zemaljskog muzeja. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini 26(1):221252.

Wenzel, M. 1999. Bosnian history and Austro-Hungarian policy: The Zemaljski Muzej,Sarajevo, and the Bogomil romance. In: Wenzel, M., Bosanski Stil na stecima iMetalu/Bosnian Style on tTombstones and Metal. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing,169205.

Young, C. 1994. The colonial construction o Arican states. In J. Hutchinson, J. and Smith,

A.D. (eds), Nationalism. New York: Oxord University Press, 225231.


13/13



Zadro, D. 2004. Franjevaka crkva i samostan sv. Nikole u srednjovjekovnim Milima(Arnautovii kod Visokog): Kritiki osvrt na dosadanja arheolokopovijesnaistraivanja, Prilozi(Sarajevo) 33: 59100.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aleksa8650
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Dzino National Identety in Bosnia

Documents