Albania Old New

EX NOVO
Journal of Archaeology
Volume 1, Number 1, 2016
Special Issue
The Impact of the Fall of Communism on European Heritage
Proceedings of the 20th EAA Meeting held in Istanbul 10–14 September 2014
Edited by Maja Gori & Valerie Higgins
Appendix
Perché l’Archeologia?
An interview with Giovanni Azzena, Barbara Barich, Giampietro Brogiolo,
Renato Peroni, Mario Torelli by Confederazione Italiana Archeologi – EXNOVO
Editorial Panel
Editors in Chief
Direttore editoriale
Maja Gori – University of Heidelberg (maja.gori@archaeologiaexnovo.org)
Direttore responsabile
Paolo Fallai – Corriere della Sera (paolo.fallai@ archaeologiaexnovo.org)
Editors
Elisa Cella – Archaeological Museum of Trevignano (RM) (elisa.cella@archaeologiaexnovo.org)
Paolo Pecci – University of Southampton (paolo.pecci@archaeologiaexnovo.org)
Alessandro Pintucci – Sapienza University of Rome (alessandro.pintucci@archaeologiaexnovo.org)
Martina Revello Lami – University of Amsterdam (martina.revellolami@archaeologiaexnovo.org)
Advisory Board
Kenneth Aitchison (University of York), Marcello Barbanera (Sapienza University of Rome), Rita Bo-
rioni (CDA Rai), Peter Campbell (University of Southampton), Filippo Carlá Uhink (University of Ex-
eter), Jasper Chalcraft – University of Sussex; Rachele Dubbini (Sapienza University of Rome), Gabriele
Gattiglia (University of Pisa), Patrizia Gioia (Sapienza University of Rome), Alfredo González-Ruibal
(Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit) of the Spanish National Research Council), Alessandro Guidi
(University of Rome 3), Enrico Giannichedda (ISCUM – Ethnographic and Archaeological Museum
of Masone), Matthew Harpster (University of Birminghan), Valerie Higgins (The American University
of Rome), Richard Hodges (The American University of Rome), Francesco Iacono (University of
Cambridge), Eduard Krekovič (Comenius University in Bratislava) Heleen van Londen (University of
Amsterdam), Arkadiusz Marciniak (Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznan), Davide Nadali (Sapienza
University of Rome), Silvia Pallecchi (DAFIST University of Genoa), Dimitris Plantzos (National &
Kapodistrian University of Athens), James Symonds (University of Amsterdam).
Subscriptions
The journal is published once a year. To make an inquiry please contact us at
submission@archaeologiaexnovo.org
Instructions to authors
Authors who consider submitting an article to the journal are requested to contact the editor in
chief (maja.gori@archaeologiaexnovo.org) before sending in manuscripts. They can download
a copy of the Editorial Style Guidelines to which they must conform as closely as possible. All
manuscripts will be reviewed by external referees before acceptance.
To cite this issue

Ex Novo Journal of Archaeology, Volume 1, Number 1 (Special Issue) 2016
Cover Image: “Informazioni” courtesy of Andrea Albini ©Andrea Albini (design reworking by M.
Revello Lami)
© 2016 - Associazione Ex Novo
Print: Associazione Ex Novo (Rome, Italy) ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Online: Associazione Ex Novo (Rome, Italy) ISSN 2531-8810

www.archaeologiaexnovo.org
Publisher (Editore Commerciale): Arbor Sapientiae s.r.l. – www.arborsapientiae.com

Ex Novo Journal of Archaeology
Volume 1, Number 1, 2016
CONTENTS
Maja GORI, Martina REVELLO LAMI, Alessandro PINTUCCI, Elisa CELLA

Editorial 5
The Impact of the Fall of Communism on European Heritage.

Proceedings of the 20th EAA Meeting held in Istanbul 10–14 Sep-
tember 2014. Edited by Maja Gori & Valerie Higgins 13
Elisa CELLA, Maja GORI & Alessandro PINTUCCI
Archaeology in the Adriatic. From the Dawn to the Sunset of Communist Ideologies 15
Valerie HIGGINS
Are We Still Illyrians? 25
Dana PHELPS
Heritage for Development, Multiethnic Communities, and the Case of Butrint National Park on
the Albanian-Greek Border 37
Francesco IACONO & Klejd L. KËLLIÇI
Exploring the Public Perception of Communist Heritage in Post-communist Albania 55
Elisa CELLA, Maja GORI & Alessandro PINTUCCI
The Trowel and the Sickle. Italian Archaeology and its Marxist Legacy 71
Giulia VOLLONO
Exploring Approaches to Italian Early Medieval Archaeology in Post-communist Europe 85
Appendix
Perché l’Archeologia? An interview with Giovanni Azzena, Barbara Barich, Giampietro
Brogiolo, Renato Peroni, Mario Torelli by Confederazione Italiana Archeologi - Ex Novo
(with editors’ note) 97
Reviews
Satricum – Scavi e reperti archeologici. Exhibition in Le Ferriere, province of Latina, Italy, 11
June 2014 – 11 January 2015 (prolonged until 1 June 2017) and M. Gnade (ed.), 2007: Satri-
cum. Trenta anni di scavi olandesi, Amsterdam: Amsterdams Archeologisch Centrum, Universiteit
van Amsterdam. 208 pp.
Reviewed by Niels STEENSMA 119
Acknowledgements 129
Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Online: ISSN 2531-8810
Published Online: 16 Dec 2016 EX NOVO Journal of Archaeology, Volume 1, Number 1, 2016: 5-11 5
Editorial
Maja Gori1, Martina Revello Lami2, Alessandro Pintucci3, Elisa Cella4

University of Heidelberg, 2University of Amsterdam, 3Sapienza University of Rome, 4Museo Civico
1
Etrusco Romano di Trevignano Romano
Introducing Ex Novo
At the beginning of the 2000s, following a short and (too) optimistic period of prosperity
caused by the boom of commercial archaeology, Italian archaeology experienced a deep
crisis. This seesawing situation was particularly evident in Rome, where the job market was
unable to absorb the increasing number of archaeologists graduating from La Sapienza -
the largest Archaeology Department in Italy - as well as from the other two universities of
the city. Rome was (and still is) a magnet for archaeologists coming from the rest of the
Peninsula, in particular from central and southern Italy, seeking jobs in both commercial
and public sectors, as the survey carried out by Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe
2014 Research Project has clearly pointed out (Pintucci & Cella 2014).
Job market crisis in archaeology, however, spread rapidly in the whole Peninsula. Soon
the unemployment rate started to rise among the younger generation of archaeolo-
gists and so their discontent. It was in this situation that a group of students and fresh
graduate archaeologists from La Sapienza in December 2004 decided to establish the
CIA - Confederazione Italiana Archeologi (Italian Confederation of Archaeologists),
the first association of professionals based in Italy whose main aim was safeguarding
archaeological careers. A few months later, in 2005, the CIA designed a virtual open
access space to foster dialogue among archaeologists, in an attempt to stimulate stu-
dents, professionals working in both private and public sectors, scholars and research-
ers to challenge themselves on the role of archaeology in society. Ex Novo was born.
The first pilot issue - released online only for a year - collected five short papers by
Giovanni Azzena, Barbara Barich, Gian Pietro Brogiolo, Renato Peroni and Mario
Torelli, who tried to answer the age-old question: Archaeology, why? The editorial
project, however, was soon abandoned, mainly due to difficulties in managing such
an ambitious project while dealing with the growing workload and the different career
paths pursued by the founder members.
The question underlying the former Ex Novo project, archaeology, why?, ça va sans
dire remains unanswered and is still affecting the approach to the profession of archae-
ology in all its multiple facets, from fieldwork activities to museums, from academic
research to archaeological tourism, and its relationship to society. More importantly,
the lack of dialogue between academic and commercial archaeology still needs to be
tackled systematically. Across Europe, and in Italy especially, scholarship and archaeo-
logical professions are persistently detached and are too often perceived as almost
antithetic spheres.
For these reasons, ten years later part of the former Ex Novo board decided to revital-
ize the project in collaboration with new colleagues, turning Ex Novo into a fully peer
reviewed open access international journal that promotes interdisciplinary research
focusing on the multiple relations between archaeology and society.
CONTACT Maja Gori, maja.gori@zaw.uni-heidelberg.de; Martina Revello Lami, m.revello-lami@uva.nl;

Alessandro Pintucci, alessandro.pintucci@uniroma1.it; Elisa Cella, eli.cella@libero.it
6 Maja GORI ET AL.
The focal point of the renewed Ex Novo is to stimulate archaeology to reflect on con-
temporary approaches and perspectives on antiquity, and to encourage archaeologists
to engage with innovative theoretical frameworks borrowed from other disciplines
such as history, anthropology, political sciences, philosophy, social sciences and colo-
nial studies. In particular, Ex Novo will address subjects such as the relationship be-
tween politics and archaeology, public archaeology, the legacies of colonialism and na-
tionalism within the archaeological discipline, the articulation between local and global
archaeological traditions, archaeology and archaeologists’ involvement in memory and
identity, museum studies, destruction and restitution issues, and will create a challeng-
ing and stimulating platform for discussion. By encompassing prehistory to the mod-
ern period, and by exploring interconnections between archaeological practice and the
importance of the past in contemporary society, Ex Novo wishes to foster a dialogue
between disciplines concerned with the past and its relevance, uses and interpretations
in the present, as well as to explore current theoretical, political and heritage issues
connected to the field of archaeology. (EC/MG/AP/MRL)
Kick starting Ex Novo: between crowdfunding and academia

The journey of Ex Novo got off to a very good start, running a successful crowd-
funding campaign that exceeded all our expectations. Establishing and designing a
scientific journal from scratch not only requires time and commitment, but it also
entails expenses and budget planning. Given the grim economic situation of research
funding within humanities, we decided not to wait for a grant to come in but to adopt
a different strategy to finance our project. Not just high tech start-ups succeed on
crowdfunding. Over the last few years, crowdfunding in academia has emerged as an
important alternative funding mechanism for scientific research. Indeed, unless private
funds come into play, scholars are chain grant writing, submitting one grant and mak-
ing sure the next one is ready to go: crowdfunding is a strategy that can relieve some
of this pressure. As effectively stated by dr. Jeanne Garbarino, director of the Science
Outreach at Rockefeller University:
“Science crowdfunding is a potential feedback mechanism to help scientists target inter-

ested parties to fund their research, allowing for greater transparency and accountability.
People have been saying that science is inaccessible, that scientists are locked up in their
ivory towers and we do not know how our tax dollars being used. Crowdfunding could
be a mechanism to help improve that system, which can lead to both increased publicity
and financial contributions” (Garbarino 2013).
It is precisely towards this direction that we embarked on this project. On the

30th November 2015 we launched a crowdfunding campaign on one of the best-
known online platforms, Kickstarter, placing Ex Novo as academic project within
the Publishing category. In thirty days, we closed our funding campaign, going
well beyond our expectations: by the 30th December, not only did we achieve our
goal, but we also raised 35% more than the initial target. The money enabled us to
cover the publishing costs, including inscription to the public registry, copyright
EX NOVO Journal of Archaeology, Volume 1, Number 1, 2016: 5-11 7
fees, printing and distributing the journal, as well as re-designing and implement-
ing the website.
Despite growing interest into alternative ways for financing scientific research, crowd-
funding in Italian archaeology is still a very uncommon practice. Usually it applies only
to fieldwork projects that can offer as a reward to backers the unique experience of
digging on a real excavation, probably the most appealing side of archaeology to the
wider public. In this sense, the case of Ex Novo is totally different. Being an edito-
rial project, Ex Novo could not reward its supporters with field training, nor with any
other hands-on experience of archaeology. Rather, we had to rely on the idea behind
the journal, that is to bridge the gap between the different voices involved in the study
and re-use of the past, putting into practice the multidisciplinary and multivocal ap-
proach advocated by the founders of Ex Novo.
By launching Ex Novo on Kickstarter we took our chances, staking the whole project
on the success of the crowdfunding campaign. To illustrate the project to a multifac-
eted audience, we had to strike a fine balance between popularizing the concept of
the journal using catchy texts and graphics without oversimplifying its scope at the
same time. Ultimately, Ex Novo made it through and in less than a month achieved
(and went beyond) the goal set at the beginning. It is worthwhile noting that out of 68
backers, 41 are archaeologists, scholars and heritage professionals, whereas the remain-
ing 27 are non-experts who decided to invest in the project. In a way, this outcome
illustrates well the potential of crowdsourcing and the varied nature of people reached
through it: on the one hand, the online campaign allowed Ex Novo to extend in very
little time the network of professionals willing to contribute to the project, virtually
multiplying the choice of topics possibly covered by the journal. On the other hand,
the feedback received from non-experts presents new challenges in terms of dissemi-
nation of the journal contents, broadening the perspectives of both authors and read-
ers of Ex Novo.
Crowdfunding for scientific research will undoubtedly continue to grow, opening up not
only new funding possibilities, but also questioning the current ways of communicating
and sharing science, as the experience of Ex Novo may well demonstrate. (MRL)
Open Access policy

Over the last years, the debate focusing on scientific research and its dissemination
both within academia and the public at large has revolved around two major aspects:
the dramatic shortage of public economic resources, and the outreach strategies focus-
ing especially on the segment of society who has limited access to scientific publica-
tions through libraries and online resources. The latter issue is particularly relevant to
the Humanities, which are subject to more dramatic budget cuts than other disciplines.
Universities, especially the small ones located in peripheral areas, struggle to keep their
library collections updated and to purchase online scientific journals. Thus, accessing
updated scientific literature is becoming increasingly expensive and time consuming to
students and researchers, relying mostly on personal initiative and commitment.
The development of computer technologies alongside growing globalised knowledge
has substantially contributed to the spread of scientific data, and in the last 15 years
8 Maja GORI ET AL.
several scientific journals have decided to be openly accessible, engaging also in lively
debates about the subject.
In this picture, Italy holds quite an awkward position. Being one of the pioneer countries
in the field, Italy created several well-established open access journals like Archeologia e
Calcolatori, Fasti online, ArcheoFOSS online and, since 2011, the Bollettino di Archeologia
Online, which is the official publication edited by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and
Tourism. However, a considerable part of academia remains rather skeptical and patronis-
ing towards the journals adopting open access policies. It is not unusual, indeed, to consider
open access publications as low quality byproducts, irrespective of their actual content or
the accuracy of peer review policies, whereas ‘branded’ journals with longstanding aca-
demic tradition are not always meeting the expectations regarding their scientific quality.
It is clearly evident that online open access policies not only facilitate the work of
archeologists who can access quickly and free of charge online references, but also
enhance the overall cultural growth of society in a wider sense. Non-specialists, in
particular, often have difficulties in accessing scientific knowledge without resorting
to academic resources and faculty libraries, which are more frequently perceived as a
hindrance than a learning tool.
For these reasons, Ex Novo opted for a full open access policy, which entails taking
also a political stance in the debate about knowledge dissemination. We firmly believe
that Ex Novo should be a medium for communicating new approaches to archaeol-
ogy and to the past in general, as well as provide a platform where scholars engage
themselves with present-day society by sharing and transferring scientific knowledge
beyond traditional academic boundaries. (AP)
Reviewing Archaeological Museums, Sites & Parks

Alongside book reviews, Ex Novo publishes evaluations of archaeological museums,
exhibitions, sites and parks, given their growing importance in communicating science
to the public at large. By devoting a special place to museums and heritage site reviews
in our journal, our purpose is to stimulate archaeologists and heritage professionals to
adopt sustainable innovation practices in communicating the past to the public, with
the ultimate goal of promoting societal engagement for sustainable innovation activi-
ties in heritage sites.
In Italy, for instance, the recent reforms of public museums and archaeological sites
carried out by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Tourism triggered a lively debate
concerning the consumption and reception of archaeological heritage. At the core of
the discussion lies the way in which the scientific community presents the outcome of
their research to different audiences, frequently perceived as too technical and tailored
to the needs of a specialized user. Indeed, too often the task of conveying informa-
tion to the public is delegated to tour operators, privileging commercial aspects rather
than cultural ones. In other words, heritage is more frequently perceived as a sole
means to cash out as opposed to a tool to promote societal cultural growth. While
natural science museums have engaged with theoretical aspects concerning their activi-
ties through dedicated journals such as Museologia Scientifica, the historic and artistic
museums, including archaeological institutions, struggle to catch up.
Today, renewed interest in narrating the past through museums and heritage sites has
brought to the forefront the gap mentioned above, placing particular emphasis for in-
stance on the national and nationalistic narratives as displayed in national museums, as
well as old-fashioned colonial and ethnographic approaches to the past. In this sense,
Ex Novo museum reviews should not simply be a listing of the contents of an exhibi-
tion or new archaeological site installation but should instead assess its strengths and
weaknesses and locate it within the current field of scholarship. In short, we wish to
provide a space to reflect and assess state-of-the-art setups and trends within museums
exhibitions and site installations. (EC)
Figure 1. East German guards watch the crowds massing on top of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Photograph:
GDR Museum.
Introducing the Special Issue

Ex Novo inaugurates its editorial activity by publishing a special issue that collects the
proceedings of the session The Impact of the Fall of Communism on European Heritage, held
at the 20th Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Istanbul on the
10-14 September 2014, and organised by Valerie Higgins (the American University of
Rome) and Maja Gori (University of Heidelberg). Even though the geographic focus
of the session was wider, encompassing Russia and other countries of the Eastern
Bloc such as Romania and East Germany, the contributions that we received for pub-
lication focus mainly on Italy and Albania. The present volume, with this narrower
geographical focus, encompasses an outstanding range of perspectives through which
the impact of the fall of communism on the heritage of Albania, Italy, and partially
former Yugoslavia is assessed.
The year 2014 marked 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the main purpose
of the session was to examine how heritage in Europe has adapted during this period,
10 Maja GORI ET AL.
how the narratives of communism that influenced interpretations of the past have
been revised, and how the heritage of the communist period has been received. The
revolutionary wave that resulted in the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern
Europe and beyond affected heritage and its definition, which has indeed changed
substantially through time and whose formulation was deeply influenced by social
factors and historic circumstances. The breakdown of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia,
for example, remapped the political geography of most of Eurasia, creating to date
more than sixteen internationally recognized sovereign entities, i.e. nations. Concep-
tions of heritage in Central and Eastern Europe, indeed, underline the importance of
archaeology for national identity building in former communist countries. The history
of archaeological discipline and its relation to nationalism and identity building in the
Adriatic region (Italy, Yugoslavia and Albania) is analysed by Elisa Cella, Maja Gori and
Alessandro Pintucci in the paper Archaeology in the Adriatic. From the Dawn to the
Sunset of Communist Ideologies. The way in which national identity and its relation
to Antiquity is perceived in Albania by the generation who have not had direct experi-
ence of living in a communist regime is addressed by Valerie Higgins in the paper Are
We Still Illyrians?
The fall of communism affected not only the way in which local communities relate
to archaeological sites for identity building, but also economic and social aspects of
their life as well. Dana Phelps, in her paper Heritage for Development, Multiethnic
Communities, and the Case of Butrint National Park on the Albanian-Greek Border,
reveals the particularly complex tangle that exists between development and heritage
projects in transitioning countries such as Albania. So-called ‘dark heritage’, the way
in which society relates to heritage that has a negative connotation, is another rel-
evant issue characterising Albania. Francesco Iacono and Klejd L. Këlliçi, in their
paper Exploring the public perception of Communist Heritage in Post-communist
Albania, address the social significance of the remnants of the recent communist
past in this country showing that they remain a significant feature marking the urban
landscape.
Communism affected countries outside the Eastern Block as well, such as Italy, which
had the largest Communist party of Western Europe. The impact of the fall of com-
munism on the development of Prehistoric and Classical archaeology in Italy is ad-
dressed by Elisa Cella, Maja Gori and Alessandro Pintucci in the paper The trowel
and the sickle. Italian archaeology and its Marxist legacy, while Giulia Vollono in her
work Exploring approaches to Italian Early Medieval Archaeology in post communist
Europe explores the impact that such ideology had on Medieval Archaeology and in
the construction of a trans-national European narrative in a post-communist Europe
while maintaining a central role in the negotiation of local identities. (MG)
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to the authors who contributed to this issue as
well as to all the colleagues who took part to the reviewing process of the papers. We
are particularly thankful to the advisory board members for their commitment and to
our Kickstarter backers for their generous support. We would also like to thank the
2005 Ex Novo board: Claudio Borgognoni, Valentina Di Stefano, Giorgia Leoni, Tom-
maso Magliaro, Matteo Orfini, Augusto Palombini and Andrea Schiappelli.
Last but not least, heartfelt thanks are due to the artists who supported our crowdfund-
ing campaign by turning their original creations into rewards for our backers: Andrea
Albini, who provided our cover image; Cristiano Piacenti, who donated 20 numbered
copies of his artworks; the rock-band Laviantica and the ukulele player JonTom who
both shared their music with our supporters.
References
Pintucci, A. & E. Cella (eds.), 2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Italy 2012-2014.
Rome: Confederazione Italiana Archeologi. Accessed 21 Oct 2016.
www.discovering-archaeologists.eu/italy.html.
Garbarino, J., 2013. Crowdfunding in Academia. An emerging funding mechanism for science
research, paper presented at the New York Academy of Sciences, 16 September 2013.
Accessed 19 Oct 2016.
https://prezi.com/ylwk3ikluz2o/crowdfunding-in-academia.
THE IMPACT OF THE FALL OF
COMMUNISM ON EUROPEAN
HERITAGE
Proceedings of the 20th EAA Meeting held in Istanbul
10–14 September 2014
Edited by Maja Gori & Valerie Higgins

Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Archaeology in the Adriatic. From the Dawn to the Sunset of

Communist Ideologies
Elisa Cella1, Maja Gori2, Alessandro Pintucci3 4

Museo Civico Etrusco Romano di Trevignano Romano, 2University of Heidelberg, 3Sapienza
1
University of Rome
Abstract
By adopting historical and sociological approaches to archaeology, this paper focuses on the development
of archaeology in Albania and Yugoslavia and their relation first to fascism and then to communism
and socialist regimes. Identity issues based on archaeological discourse in former Yugoslavia and
Albania are often perceived and regarded by western scholarship as extreme distortions and abuses of
archaeological practice to promote nationalism. By providing a comparative and diachronic perspective,
this paper aims to demonstrate that the way in which a society relates to its past is a complex
phenomenon, and that political uses of archaeology in the western Balkans cannot be associated
entirely with socialist regimes and communist ideologies. It is argued that different uses of archaeology
are the product of a complex interaction between the development of archaeological discipline and
historical, social and cultural trajectories.
Keywords: Albania, Yugoslavia, Nationalism, Fascism, Communism
Introduction
The study of archaeology in its social, political and economic context gathered increasing
attention from the 1980s onwards, when authors such as Trigger (1989) and Hodder (1991;
Hodder & Hutson 2003) used historical and sociological approaches to demonstrate that
archaeology as a discipline is embedded in a specific cultural and historical milieu, and
that it must be understood within its social, political and cultural contexts. Following the
dissolution of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, and the resulting rise of a plethora of new
nation states, the debate became more articulated, as scholars exhibited a renewed interest
in the study of archaeology’s relationship with politics and identity construction (see e. g.
Kohl & Fawcett 1995; Diaz-Andreu & Champion 1996; Meskell 1998). The main focus was
on the western and central parts of Europe and on the Middle East, and few publications
focused specifically on the relationship between archaeology, cultural history and identity
building in south-eastern Europe (one exception is Kaiser 1995). In the literature devoted
to archaeology and identity published in the 1990s, in discussing archaeology and its relation
of past to present identities authors frequently mention Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav
conflict as an emblematic example for archaeology and its relation to identity issues, mainly
in relation to nationalist discourses, ethnicity, and xenophobia, but never go into depth on
Yugoslavia itself (for example in Graves-Brown et al. 1996). On the other hand, Albania
is often taken as paradigmatic example for discussing the use of archaeology in national
identity building in connection to dictatorship (as in Galaty & Watkinson 2004). In both
cases misuses of archaeology have been connected to communism and socialist regimes.
In socialist countries, indeed, great importance has been placed on the internal integrity and
4
All authors have contributed equally to the ideas at the basis of this work. Individual author’s contribu-
tion is specified at the end of each paragraph (EC/MG/AP).
CONTACT Elisa Cella, eli.cella@libero.it - Maja Gori, maja.gori@zaw.uni-heidelberg.de - Alessandro Pintucci,
alessandro.pintucci@uniroma1.it
16 E. Cella, M. Gori & A. Pintucci
historical continuity of the ethnos, and ethnic identity was perceived as formed by cultural
and linguistic components which constituted the ‘inner integrity’ of a group’s identity.
These elements were emphasized as they become the basis of the archaeological discourse
in Eastern Europe (Diaz-Andreou & Champion 1996: 5). Hobsbawm has argued that
“Marxist movements and states have tended to become national not only in form but in substance,
i.e. nationalists” (Hobsbawm 1977: 13).
Often identity issues based on archaeological discourse in former Yugoslavia and Albania
are perceived and uncritically regarded by western scholarship as extreme distortions
and abuses of archaeological practice to promote nationalism. Hamilakis (1996: 976)
has however pointed out how in the attempt to condemn an ideology of exclusion, new
boundaries are reproduced by constructing the knowing subject as the holder of objectified
knowledge who condemns the irrational ‘other’, ‘orientalizing’ thus the producers and the
followers of nationalist myths set against the rational and scientific West.
By adopting a comparative and diachronic perspective, this paper aims to demonstrate
that the way in which a society relates to its past is a complex phenomenon, and
that political uses of archaeology in the western Balkans cannot be associated entirely
with Socialist regimes and Communist ideologies. It is argued that different uses
of archaeology are the product of a complex interaction between the development
of archaeological discipline and historical, social and cultural trajectories. Taking as
starting point fascist archaeology enterprises in the Adriatic, this paper will discuss
how multiple forms of ‘usable past’ (Brown & Hamilakis 2003) are adopted in the
construction of different types of identities. (MG)
Regime Archaeology in Wartime

Fascism broke away from the nineteenth century tradition in archaeology of seeing the
state as cultural guardian. The regime usurped state monopoly in cultural policy, promoting
archaeology as device of its propaganda and thus making it relevant for a broader public
(Altekamp 2004: 69). Most of the Italian actions around the Mediterranean sea in the
earliest part of the twentieth century were preceded by archaeological missions or by
the establishment of cultural organizations abroad, which were clearly conceived as
instruments of both domestic and foreign propaganda, as is shown in the words of the
Italian ambassador in Turkey in 1922 (quoted in Barbanera 2013: 104):
“Scientists and humanists can be effective precursors of the most difficult and risky political solutions,
preparing the ground under the alibi offered by the political intellectual ideals [...] However, the scope
prepared for this purpose by men of letters and science is free and wide: it can go and lay a good
foundation of political programs, where diplomacy and the use of armed forces have no access.” 1
1
“Gli scienziati ed i letterati possono essere validi precursori delle più difficili ed arrischiate soluzioni politiche, preparando
il terreno sotto l’alibi offerto dalle idealità politiche dell’intelletto […] In ogni caso la sfera d’azione organizzata a tale fine
dagli uomini di lettere e di scienze ha un campo libero e vasto: essa può spingersi e gettare buone fondamenta di programmi
politici laddove la diplomazia e l’impiego della forza armata non hanno accesso” (translation from Italian EC).
Few years later, in 1929, the Museo dell’Impero Romano in Rome was founded as a perma-
nent celebration of Roman colonial achievements. Luigi Maria Ugolini, at the time an am-
bitious, young archaeologist, was chosen as a ‘malleable instrument’ for a strategic mission
in Albania (Petricioli 1986: 29; Magnani 2007: 32; Pessina & Vella 2015: 32; Tagliamonte
2015). The political aim, amongst others, of the archaeological mission was to create a
common Italian and Albanian past in order to justify the imperial expansion of fascist
Italy in the eastern Mediterranean. Indeed, the archaeological exploration of Albania was
planned for two main reasons: firstly, to bring back to light the Illyrian roots of the Alba-
nians, mainly as confirmation of the cultural autonomy of Albanians in respect to their
Slavic neighbours; secondly, to show, with this action, that the fascist government was tak-
ing care of its ally as direct descendants of ancient Illyrians (Buora 2007: Šašel Kos 2007).
Some years earlier in 1926, the Italian mission at Phoenike was established with the clear
intent of opposing the French archaeological and diplomatic mission (Barbanera 1998:
128–129; Magnani 2007: 33; Pessina &Vella 2015: 396). Between 1927 and 1928 the neces-
sity of proving the existence of an ancient connection between Italy and Albania underlaid
a further expedition to Butrint: the site was believed to be a Trojan settlement founded by
Helenus and Andromache and visited by Aeneas, the mythical ancestor of the Romans.
This provided an excellent justification for intensifying Italian control over the
southern Albanian coastline, and, in 1928, Ugolini moved to the Examili peninsula
in his quest for Parvam Ilium (Magnani 1996: 58). The intuition and methods of Ugo-
lini were rewarded: uncovering a wide and imposing ancient city, he investigated the
later remains up to Venetian occupation levels, and, unexpectedly, he uncovered the
remains of phases preceding the Illyrian period. Below the fourth century BCE lev-
els, Ugolini reached pre-historic deposits (Magnani 2007: 42) portraying close con-
nections between Albania and Southern Italy, as territories both occupied by the so-
called ‘Adriatic civilization’ (Ugolini 1928; Magnani 2007: 42; Pessina & Vella 2014:
397). The identification of a common Adriatic background was ready to be offered
to the fascist propaganda machine. The outstanding scientific results reached by
Ugolini were utilized by the fascist regime and at the same time gave scientific cred-
ibility to the Italian enterprise
at international level (Gilkes
& Skeates 2005: 1–2). After
Ugolini’s unexpected death,
the real intentions of Italian
regime became evident with
the 1939-1943 occupation.
On 28 October 1940, the
Greco-Italian war began with
the invasion of Greece by the
Italian forces. This marked the
beginning of the Balkans cam-
paign of the Second World
War. During the next three
years Yugoslavia, continental Figure 1. Ugolini (bottom) and the Italian Archaeological
Greece and Crete were occu- Mission at Butrint (photograph courtesy of Richard Hodges).
pied by the Axis powers. Different archaeological missions, promoted on the other
side of the Adriatic by the fascist regime in the preceding years, proved to be a very
effective means by which to increase control of both the sides of Otranto Channel,
and to strengthen economic control over the Balkans (Borgogni 2007).
Italy obtained Trieste, Istria and Zara at the end of the First World War and during
the Second World War it occupied Dalmatia and Split. The fascist regime attempted
cultural penetration in Yugoslavia, especially in Croatia, mostly through Italian
Institutes of Culture that were established in the most important cities such as Zagreb,
Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Mostar, and Dubrovnik (Rodogno 2006: 222). Naturally, the
outstanding Roman remains in Dalmatia were targeted by fascist cultural policy to
propagate the ideals of Romanità, Italianità and Venezianità (Brock 2007: 174). Until
1941 the preservation of Zara’s monuments was assigned to the Soprintendenza
d’Ancona. During the occupation, the city was the seat of the Regio Commissario per
le Antichità, i Monumenti e le Gallerie della Dalmazia, which was directly dependent
on the Ministry of National Education. Diocletian’s palace in Split was the target of a
mission organized by the regime with the aim of planning its restoration to enhance
fascist ideals (Brock 2007). Italian cultural policy in Dalmatia targeted mainly the
restoration of ancient monuments rather than initiating new excavations.
In contrast to Albania, in Yugoslavia archaeology as a scientific discipline had been
established earlier, whilst the area was still under the domination of the Austro-
Hungarian Empire. In the nineteenth century, regional museums and scientific journals
were established in several cities (Wilkes 1992: 8–9), and the so-called German School
of archaeology (Novaković 2012) shaped and directed the discipline’s establishment
from its very beginning. Indeed, most of the archaeologists working in the western
Balkans obtained their degrees at Austro-Hungarian universities and the German
School and its cultural-historical approach deeply influenced archaeology in the whole
western Balkans, even during the ensuing Cold War period. (EC)
The Cold War Era

Following the Second World War the Adriatic geopolitical pattern changed
substantially with the creation of a watershed dividing the west from the eastern bloc.
In the countries under the Warsaw Pact – but also in Yugoslavia, which was member
of the Non-Aligned Movement – archaeology was strongly influenced by Marxist
and Soviet approaches, which promoted a materialistic understanding of human
history in accordance with the guiding philosophy of the ruling Communist and
Socialist Parties (Trigger 1989). Despite being under direct Soviet political influence
for only a short period of time, Albanian archaeology was influenced by the Soviet
approach since several archaeological excavations were carried out jointly by the two
states. Marxist and Soviet approaches to archaeology were assimilated by both the
Albanian and the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and, combined with local scientific
backgrounds, which were, in turn, permeated by the cultural-historical approach to
material culture.
After the end of the Second World War, Enver Hoxha seized power and dismissed
every foreign archaeological mission from Albania. From this moment onwards, until
the fall of the communist regime, the country became increasingly isolated from the
rest of the world. The legacy of Italian fascist archaeology was retained in the enduring
cultural-historical approach with its strong emphasis on autochthony, which lies at the
foundation of the archaeological discourse underlying national identity construction
(Wilkes 1992: 10). It is undoubtedly true that, during the Cold War period, the Albanian
regime adopted the fascist use of archaeology as a vehicle of propaganda, but this time
for the Communist Party.
Several archaeological campaigns were launched to identify the Illyrian roots of the
Albanian nation. The Academy of Sciences of Albania was established in 1972, and
through this institution the regime directed and shaped Albanian archaeology. Hoxha’s
propaganda machine merged archaeology with linguistics and ethnology to form
one subject: Albanology. Different disciplines were to work together to construct the
identity of present-day Albanian people as direct descendants from ancient Illyrians. The
ethnogenetic process was believed to have started already in prehistoric times (EC).
One of the salient characteristics linking the Illyrian and Albanian nations in the archaeological
discourse, which lies at the heart of national identity building, was the continuous and
strenuous defence of the independence of the Illyrian territory against its neighbours,
identified as present-day Slavs and Greeks. Present territorial issues with Yugoslavia and
Greece were thus projected back
into a far remote past (see e.g.
Pollo & Pluto 1981).
The socialist Yugoslav regime
supported and promoted ar-
chaeology as an important
instrument for the emancipa-
tion of the Yugoslav nations,
which was seen as a more im-
portant task than insisting on
‘class-struggle’ types of inter-
pretations of the archaeolog-
ical record. Dzino underlines
how the influence and impact
Figure 2. Nikita Khrushchev, Enver Hoxha and Nexh- of Marxist ideology in Yugo-
mije Hoxha visiting Butrint in 1959. slavia is best visible through
the terminology that was used
for describing social relations in Illyrian societies. “Primitive communities, tribal aris-
tocracy, emerging class division” are expressions that are often found in Yugoslav ar-
chaeological literature of the period (Dzino 2008: 44). In this political framework
the Illyrians were regarded as a macro-ethnic group made up of heterogeneous
and culturally loosely linked tribes that inhabited Roman Illyricum, whose unifica-
tion into a single ethnos was prevented by the Roman occupation completed in the
early first century CE. The parallel with a socialist federal Yugoslavia, pervaded by
brotherhood-and-unity ideology, made up of different but kin nations bound by a
joint political structure, was projected into the Illyrian past (Dzino 2008: 45). The
idea of a general Illyrian identity as the foundation for Yugoslavian identity was
undermined by socio-political changes. Local identities became more relevant and

archaeological research started to place more emphasis on local groups and local
identities, such as Liburnians and Dalmatians. In this way local national identities
entered into the archaeological discourse, to the detriment of the Yugoslav one.
Ethnic issues based on archaeology, but reflecting the political tensions between
Albania and Yugoslavia, were a prelude to the Yugoslav wars and they were addressed
within academia. Archaeology was used either to substantiate or to contrast the
political claims that would ultimately lead to the Yugoslav wars. This can clearly be
seen in the conferences organised by Albanian and Yugoslavian Academies of Science,
which focused on the relation between the Illyrians and the Albanians (Gori 2012:
78–79). Conflicts and inter-ethnic tensions, such as the Serbian-Albanian clash over
Kosovo, were projected into the past through the debate over the ethnic origins of
the populations who dwelled in antiquity in the areas presently inhabited by ethnic
Albanians. (MG)
The Sunset of Communism

In Yugoslavia, the use of archaeological discourse, in order to substantiate
nationalistic claims, increased in importance when Yugoslav ideology disintegrated.
The decentralised constitution of 1974 favoured the rising of nationalism in the
1980s, which resulted in a bloody war that destroyed the socialist federation in the
1990s. Following the disappearance of the socialist regime, archaeology continued to
be extensively used as a political tool in support of nationalistic claims. During the
armed conflict for control over Kosovo (1996-1999), Serbia, through its Academy
of Sciences, played again the card of archaeology to reaffirm its dominion over the
region. The exhibition Archaeological Treasures of Kosovo and Metohija. From Prehistory to
the Middle Ages was organized by the Serbian Academy of Science in 1998. Dardanians
and Illyrians occupied a central place in the catalogue’s chapters devoted to the Iron
Age. Dardanians are identified as an independent people of Daco-Mysian origin,
whose Bronze Age substratum can be identified in the Brnjica-Strazava culture. The
Brnjica culture is described as an archaeological group in present-day Serbia dating
from 1400 BCE, which is identified as the non-Illyrian component in the Dardanian
ethnogenesis (Tasić 1998).
In Albania, following the fall of the communist regime, the old ethnogenetic
approach to material culture that characterized archaeological research during
Hoxha’s dictatorship remained in use. For example, Neritan Ceka, a politician and
archaeologist still focuses in his 2005 work on the ethnogenetic relationship between
Illyrians and present-day Albanians: The Illyrians to the Albanians (Ceka 2005) is, more
than a title, an ideological manifesto. However, the fall of communism opened
Albanian archaeology to the international academia, and the Albanian Academy of
Science decisively distanced itself from the ethnogenetic approach. The equation
Illyrians-Albanians is nowadays mainly present at a popular level of archaeological
discourse. (MG)
Figure 3. Vladimir Demitriović Blavatski and Hasan Ceka in Apollonia, 1958.
Concluding Thoughts
In the western Balkans the use of archaeology for building national identity mirrors
the profound influence that nineteenth century European archaeology had in
establishing archaeology as an academic subject in the region. In both Albania and
the former Yugoslavia, the projection of present-day national entities and identities
back into a remote past cannot be simplistically regarded as the manipulation of the
archaeological record or its distortion for political means. It is true that archaeology
was deeply exploited in ethno-nationalistic debates, which were commonly the
basis of claims for self-determination, separatism and expansion. Demand for
national independence or territorial expansion often involved the assertion of the
right of sovereignty on the basis of ethno-linguistic distinctiveness and historical
precedence over a given territory. However, the approach to the past in use in
Albania and former Yugoslavia was deeply influenced by central European trends
in archaeological interpretation, which were framed in different local, cultural,
social and political contexts. Recent research has put emphasis on a political use
of archaeology that does not necessarily imply nationalism, proving that the
relationship between archaeology and politics is not always straightforward (Luke
& Kersel 2013; Niklasson & Meier 2013). The way in which a society relates to its
past is a more complex phenomenon, where different agents and power balances
are involved, both at a domestic and an international level. The brief history of
archaeology’s development presented in this paper has shown how the political use
of archaeology in the western Balkans cannot be associated entirely with Socialist
regimes and Communist ideologies. Instead, we interpret it as a local development
of the European tendencies in archaeological interpretation. Furthermore, the
fall of communism impacted differently on Albania and Yugoslavia. In Albania
the fall of Hoxha’s regime functioned as a trigger to transform interpretative

frameworks abandoning cultural-historical and ethnogenetic approaches. At a
popular level, the equation Illyrians–Albanians is still alive, while at a scientific
level, this correspondence is questioned. In Yugoslavia, on the contrary, the fall
of communism was one of the causes of a violent, armed conflict in which the
destruction and manipulation of the past played a fundamental role. Today, the
use of archaeology to substantiate political claims is still evident in several of the
former Yugoslav republics, in which different approaches to archaeology, in some
cases nationalist-oriented, in others focusing more on tourism, coexist with the
scientific approach of universities and research institutions. (EC/MG/AP)
References
Altekamp, S., 2004. Italian colonial archaeology in Libya 1912–1942, in: M.L. Galaty & C. Watkinson
(eds.), Archaeology under Dictatorship. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publ., 55–71.
Barbanera M., 1998. L’archeologia degli Italiani. Roma: Editori riuniti.
Barbanera M., 2013. Archeologia e politica durante il fascismo, in: M. Barbanera, Il
museo impossibile. Roma: Aracne editrice, 87–120.
Borgogni, M., 2007. Tra continuità e incertezza. Italia e Albania (1914-1939). La strategia
politico-militare in Albania fino all’operazione «Oltre Mare Tirana». Milano: Franco Angeli.
Brock I. 2007. Spalato Romana. La missione della Reale Accademia d’Italia a Spalato
29. 9. – 3. 10. 1941. Baština 34: 173–228.
Brown K.S. & Y. Hamilakis (eds.), 2003. The Usable Past. Greek Metahistories. Lanham:
Lexington Books.
Buora, M. 2007. Etnogenetica balcanica. Veneti e Illiri nella storiografia italiana tra
Ottocento e Novecento, in: S. Magnani, & C. Marcaccini (eds.), Le identità difficili:
archeologia, potere, propaganda nei Balcani. Portolano Adriatico, Rivista di storia e cultura
balcanica III.3: 19–30.
Ceka, N., 2005. The Illyrians to the Albanians. Tirana: Migjeni.
Diaz-Andreu M. & T. Champion (eds.), 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe.
London: UCL press.
Dzino, D., 2008. Deconstructing ‘Illyrians’: Zeitgeist, Changing Perceptions and the
Identity of peoples from ancient Illyricum. Croatian Studies Review 5: 43–55.
Galaty, M.L. & C. Watkinson (eds.), 2004. Archaeology under Dictatorship. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publ.
O. Gilkes & R. Skeates, 2005. An introduction to Luigi Cardini and the Italian Archaeological
Mission, in: K. Fancis (ed.), Exploration in Albania. Athens: BSA 2005, 1–9.
Gori M., 2012. Who are the Illyrians? The Use and Abuse of Archaeology in the
Construction of National and Trans-National Identities in the Southwestern Balkans,
in: C. N. Popa & R. Ó Ríagáin (eds.), Archaeology and the (De) Construction of National and
Supra-National Polities. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 27.2: 71–84.
Graves-Brown P., S. Jones & C. Gamble (eds.), 1996. Cultural Identity and Archaeology.
The Construction of European Communities. London, New York: Routledge.
Hamilakis, Y., 1996. Through the looking glass: nationalism, archaeology and the
politics of identity. Antiquity 60: 975–978.
Hobsbawm E., 1977. Some Reflections on “The Break-up of Britain”. New Left Review 105: 3–23.
Hodder, I. (ed.), 1991. Archaeological Theory in Europe. The Last Three Decades. London
and New York: Routledge.
Hodder, I. & S. Hutson, 2003. Reading the Past : Current Approaches to Interpretation in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaiser, T., 1995. Archaeology and ideology in southeast Europe, in: P. Kohl & C.
Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 99–119.
Kohl, P., & C. Fawcett (eds.), 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luke, C. & M. M. Kersel, 2013. U.S. Cultural Diplomacy and Archaeology. Soft Power, Hard
Heritage. New York: Routledge.
Magnani, S., 1996. Butrinto, Virgilio e l’immaginario antico, in: L’archeologo scopre la storia
1996. Luigi M. Ugolini (1895-1936), Giornata Internazionale di Studi. Quaderni Bertinoresi
6. Bertinoro: 59–71.
Magnani, S., 2007. In Albania sulle orme di Roma. L’archeologia politica di Luigi
Maria Ugolini, in: S. Magnani, & C. Marcaccini (eds.), Le identità difficili: archeologia,
potere, propaganda nei Balcani. Portolano Adriatico, Rivista di storia e cultura balcanica
III.3: 31–46.
Meskell, L. (ed.), 1998. Archaeology Under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the
Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. London: Routledge.
Niklasson, E., & T. Meier (eds.), 2013. Appropriate narratives. Archaeologists, publics and
stories. Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány.
Novaković, P., 2012. The “German School” and its influence on the national archaeologies
of the Western Balkans, in: B. Migotti, P. Mason, B. Nadbath & T. Muhl (eds.), Scripta in
honorem Bojan Djurić. Lubiana: Zavod za varstvo culture red. Slo., 51–71.
Pessina, A., & N. C. Vella, 2015. Archeologia e Fascismo negli archivi di Luigi Maria
Ugolini, in: A. Guidi (ed.), 150 anni di preistoria e protostoria in Italia, Atti della XLVI
Riunione Scientifica IIPP, Roma, 395–404.
Petricioli, M. 1986. Le missioni archeologiche italiane nei paesi del Mediterraneo:
uno strumento di politica internazionale, in: V. La Rosa (ed.), L’archeologia italiana nel
Mediterraneo, Catania, 9–31.
Pollo, S. & A. Pluto, 1981. The History of Albania from its Origins to Present Day. London:
Routledge.
Rodogno, D., 2006. Fascism’s European Empire: Italian Occupation during the Second World
War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Šašel Kos, M. 2007. Ethnic manipulations with ancient Veneti and Illyrians, in: S.
Magnani, & C. Marcaccini (eds.), Le identità difficili: archeologia, potere, propaganda nei
Balcani. Portolano Adriatico, Rivista di storia e cultura balcanica III.3: 11–18.
Tagliamonte, G. (ed.), 2015. Ricerche archeologiche in Albania. Atti dell’Incontro di studi,
Cavallino-Lecce, 29-30 aprile 2011. Roma: Aracne editrice.
Tasić, N. (ed.), 1998. Arheološko blago Kosova i Metohije: od neolita do ranog srednjeg veka.
Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti.
Trigger, B.G., 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ugolini, L.M., 1928. L’antica Albania nelle ricerche archeologiche italiane. Roma: Ente
nazionale Industrie turistiche.
Wilkes, J., 1992. The Illyrians. Oxford: Blackwell.
Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Are We Still Illyrians?
Valerie Higgins
The American University of Rome
Abstract
This paper examines the changing attitudes of young Albanian archaeologists to Albania’s archaeologi-
cal heritage. As Cold War archaeologists retire and are replaced by a generation trained after the fall of
communism, this paper asks how their different world perspective will influence the future direction of
archaeology. Particular issues that are addressed are the perceived role of the Illyrians in national identity
and the willingness of young archaeologists to embrace new types of heritage sites, such as industrial and
Cold War archaeology. Examples of the latter are very prominent in the Albanian landscape, but their
interpretation and incorporation into the national narrative are still contentious issues for many.
Keywords: Albania, Butrint, cultural heritage, Illyrians, Cold War.
Introduction
The history of Albanian archaeology could be summarized as brief but intense. Until
1912 the area was part of the Ottoman Empire, but even after it became officially
independent, Albania was still unstable and subject to foreign influence. This was par-
ticularly so after 1928 when the country came under the influence of Fascist Italy.
This meant that until the Second World War archaeological excavations were largely
controlled by Italian and other foreign teams (see Cella et al. 2016). These projects
were often more interested in the area as part of Greek and Roman history, rather than
exploring it for its own historical development.
With the victory of communism in the post-war period, Albania finally became a fully
autonomous country but, at the same time, a country in lockdown, almost entirely cut
off from the outside world. A strong Stalinist ideology not only sought to control every
aspect of its inhabitants’ lives, but also ensured that their contact with other nationalities
was minimal. Albanians were not free
to travel and the small number permit-
ted to leave the country usually only
travelled as far as other approved com-
munist states. Foreigners were allowed
to visit only for very brief periods. The
country was on a perpetual war foot-
ing against attack from the menacing
outside world. This state of readiness
required the building of huge fortifica-
tions and hundreds of thousands of
bunkers, whose imposing physicality
ensured a heightened tension, espe- Figure 1. A communist era bunker on the Vivari Channel
cially in border areas (Fig. 1). near Butrint (photograph by V. Higgins).
CONTACT Valerie Higgins, v.higgins@aur.edu

26 V. Higgins
In 1948, the Albanian leader, Enver Hoxha, began the forerunner of what would de-
velop into the Albanian Institute of Archaeology: museums and high profile conferences
followed and in 1971, a new journal called Illiria commenced publication (Hodges 2000:
3). Under Hoxha, the focus of state-sponsored archaeology increasingly emphasized the
identity of Albanians as an autochthonous group with unbroken descent from the Illyr-
ians, an ancient tribal grouping mentioned in classical texts. The idea of a distinct ethnic
origin, native to the land within the borders of modern-day Albania, was crucial to the
government’s propaganda. Excavations obligingly provided evidence of long continuous
habitation sequences, to back up the claim that the population was totally indigenous,
without outside influences (Gilkes 2013: 15). The contrast with the approach of pre-
Second World War foreign teams could not have been more stark.
The most immediate impact on archaeology of the fall of communism and establish-
ment of a democratic government was not so much ideological but financial. Funds for
excavations, personnel, publications and museums dried up. The archaeological estab-
lishment for the most part continued, albeit with reduced resources, and as it was heavily
invested in the Illyrian national narrative, there was no immediate broadening of intel-
lectual approach. The opening of the borders enabled foreign expeditions to return to
Albania, but the political instability of the 1990s was a deterrent for all but a few teams.
Thus, entering the twenty-first century, Albanian archaeology was still largely locked into a
Cold War model, a decade after it had ceased to have any political utility. The fall of com-
munism had other consequences for the cultural heritage record. The Cold War monu-
ments themselves became obsolete. They are the tangible witnesses to a remarkable half
century of history. In addition to the aforementioned military installations, there is also an
impressive array of redundant industrial plants. In other parts of the western world the
transformation into an industrialized form of manufacturing was a process that took the
best part of century. In Albania it was achieved practically overnight, but the factories, once
built, were rarely updated. By the time of the fall of communism they had long ceased to
be cost effective and only continued to function because of heavy state subsidy. Today
many of them are now abandoned and they are outside the framework of the official state
heritage services (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. ‘Steel of the Party’ Metallurgical Combine at Elbasan (photograph

by I. Parangoni).
The objective of the research presented here was to try to understand the perceptions,
aims and aspirations of the young archaeologists who are just beginning their career:
to determine how far this new generation sees Albanian archaeology in terms of the
old communist Illyrian model, and to understand their views on other aspects of cul-
tural heritage, such as industrial and Cold War heritage.
The Survey
The research presented here was conducted between 2010 and 2012 using a group of
young Albanians who were taking part in the Butrint Field School in southern Albania
(Fig. 3). The participants were mostly from the University of Tirana but some ex-
patriot Albanians from Kosovo and Macedonia were also included. The field school
was subsidized by the Butrint Foundation, and competition amongst students to par-
ticipate was fierce. The sample included a small group of slightly older participants
acting as supervisors. These were former students of the field school who had moved
on to have jobs in archaeology or to study for a postgraduate degree. Thus, the group,
although small in number, represents the most committed and best placed candidates
to pursue a career in archaeology, the ones who are most likely to be running Albanian
archaeology in future years.
The data were collected by
means of a written question-
naire followed by a semi-struc-
tured interview. As I was work-
ing and living with the group,
participant observation also
informed some aspects of the
research. The majority of the
respondents spoke English
well enough to conduct the
interviews without assistance.
Seven interviewees asked a
friend to come with them, but
for the most part did not call
on their services. A total of 35 Figure 3. The Roman remains at Butrint (photograph by
participants were interviewed V. Higgins).
comprising 25 students and ten
supervisors. The results showed no great difference between the two groups with the
exception of one question, which I will elaborate upon below. The group was evenly
divided as regards gender (18 females, 17 males) and there were no marked gender dif-
ferences in the responses.
Importance of different periods of history

In an attempt to understand the participants’ feelings about the importance of differ-
ent periods of archaeology in Albania the following question was posed “What do you
think is the most important period of history?”
There was no consensus in the answers to this question: 12 out of 35 thought all pe-
riods were equally important. This, of course, is the message taught by contemporary
28 V. Higgins
archaeological theory and one cannot discount the possibility that they gave the answer
they thought was expected of them.
Six perceived medieval archaeology as the most important. If we include in this group
also the three who stated Skanderbeg (a fifteenth century warrior who fought the
Turks) we get nine in total who saw the period before Ottoman domination as cru-
cial. This is certainly the period that appeals most to the popular version of Albanian
identity, as I witnessed personally when I stayed in a hotel in Tirana, where the former
communist building had been given a somewhat incongruous make-over as a medieval
castle. The growth of tourist resorts such as Kruje bear witness to the popularity of
this image (Figs. 4 to 7). Here the restored and reconstructed buildings of the castle
and the reproduced fittings inside give an evocative picture of a proud (and highly
photogenic) warrior nation.
Less predictably, an equal num-
ber, nine in total, saw the Cold
War and post Cold War period
as the most important in the
development of Albania. This
was the one area where there
was a small divergence between
the views of the students and
the slightly older group of su-
pervisors. Even if they did not
necessarily perceive it as the
most important period, all of
the supervisors thought it es-
Figure 4. The reconstructed castle at Kruje housing the Skander-
sential to include more recent
beg Museum (photograph by V. Higgins). material in the archaeological
record and, during the inter-
view, some of them expressed strong opinions on this. Some of the supervisors had
vague memories of communism from their infancy, which mostly related to festivals
and parades, which they had enjoyed. They were sufficiently close to the events of
that period to have been touched by them. I did not pick up this sentiment in the
interviews with the students, who were all born after the fall of communism. Dur-
ing the interview participants were asked “Should heritage sites preserve the mate-
rial culture of modern periods such as the Second World War and Communism?”
Overall 28 out of 35 replied yes, but significantly, this included everyone in the older
group, and several elaborated upon this at some length.
In formulating the questionnaire and interview questions a conscious decision was
made to avoid the word ‘Illyrian’, to allow the participants to employ it in their
own way without prompting. The respondents mentioned it very little. Only one
student actively employed the Illyrian archaeological model: s/he felt that prehis-
tory was the most important period of archaeology because through prehistory it
would be possible to demonstrate autochthony, which s/he regarded as crucial to
Albanian identity.
Figure 5. The reconstructed study of Skanderbeg Figure 6. Exhibit of war horn from the Skander-
showing him as an intellectual but also larger than beg Museum (photograph by V. Higgins).
life as the furniture is over-sized. There is little
historical evidence for either of these interpreta-
tions (photograph by V. Higgins).
Reasons for Studying Archaeology

The participants were asked why they
had decided to study archaeology: 31
of the 35 stated personal interest as
the main reason for studying archaeol-
ogy. The remaining four had chosen it
for practical reasons, such scholarship
opportunities or lack of space on their
course of first choice. All of those who
chose to study it for personal inter-
est wanted to carry on with a career in
archaeology, conservation or heritage.
Upon interview most of them equat-
ed archaeology with an opportunity to
travel, and this may relate to the specific
circumstances of this site because the
Butrint Foundation has afforded oppor-
tunities for young Albanian archaeolo-
gists to study abroad (Hodges 2000: 4).
A strong desire to travel, and even work, Figure 7. Market outside the Skanderbeg Muse-
abroad was common to all participants. um selling souvenirs to tourists (photograph by
V. Higgins).
Of the four who did not envisage carry-
ing on in archaeology, two wanted to go
into tourism, one into journalism and one did not have any plans as yet. The stu-
dents who had ambitions to work in tourism saw archaeology as a potential route
into tour guiding, which would give them an entrée into the tourist industry.
30 V. Higgins
The Role of Archaeology in Albania’s Future

Participants were asked “What can archaeology contribute to Albania’s future?” and
they were permitted to include as many variables as they wanted. The answers could
be classified as covering three areas:
1. Important for identity within the country – 21 (60%)

2. To develop the economy and promote tourism – 15 (43%)
3. To enhance the status of Albania abroad – 9 (26%)
Thus the role of archaeology as providing an Albanian identity is still perceived as very
important, but clearly not in the mould of the communist Illyrian model. The concept
of Albanian identity was sometimes linked in their answers to the third factor, enhanc-
ing the status of Albania abroad. Many young people, even those who have never left
Albania, are acutely aware of the negative image of their country that is often por-
trayed to the outside world. The respondents felt proud of the fact that Albania had
a long and glorious history as part of the Greek sphere of influence and a colony in
the Roman Empire. Interestingly, even though official rhetoric was directed towards
an autochthonous model, during the communist period there was, at the same time,
a paradoxical pride in the classical past of Albania. Hodges (2009) has recorded how
Hoxha took the Soviet leader Krushchev to visit Butrint. Hoxha was disgusted when
Krushchev perceived no value in its glorious ruins and saw only a highly suitable spot
for a submarine base.
At the time this survey was taking place, Albania was pressing to be made a full mem-
ber of the European Union and in 2010 they achieved status as a Schengen country
which made foreign travel much easier. Albania’s ‘European’ history was much pro-
moted by the government during this period (see Phelps 2016). Herzfeld has recorded
a similar phenomenon at Rethemnos in Crete. In a period when Greece was seeking
entry to the European Union, the conservation of European heritage was systemati-
cally privileged and Ottoman heritage was allowed to decay or be changed (Herzfeld
1991: 57–63 and photos 24 and 25, 121). Though it should be noted that, in Albania,
Ottoman heritage has not been unduly neglected (Fig. 12).
Figure 8. The 3rd Century BC site of Antigoneia (photograph by V. Higgins).

The development of heritage tourism was seen by 15 of the respondents as a

way in which archaeology could help the economic development of Albania.
Similar views were expressed to me by local traders. There is, for sure, no lack of
raw material. As well as three UNESCO World Heritage Sites, there is a wealth
of smaller sites set in impressive scenery (Fig. 8). Albania also has spectacular
beaches, some of which are well developed, especially those further north that
are more easily reached from Tirana. In 2014 the New York Times ranked Al-
bania as fourth in its list of 52 places to visit “before the crowds” (NY Times 5
Sept 2014). The Lonely Planet guide listed Albania as one of its top countries
to visit in 2011 and predicted “Albania won’t be off the beaten track for much longer”
(Lonely Planet 2011).
However, despite the confidence in Albania’s potential as a tourist destination, interna-
tional tourism in Albania has failed to take off. In fact, the 2015 Annual Research data
produced for the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC 2015: 1) showed a decline
in both the direct contribution and total contribution of travel and tourism to the
GDP. Direct employment in travel and tourism remained static but total employment
has declined (WTTC 2015: 9). The outlook for long-term growth was only slightly
more optimistic (WTTC 2015: 10). So what went wrong?
Recent studies of the cultural tourism industry in Sicily have revealed that no matter
how beautiful the scenery or wonderful the heritage, in the absence of supporting
development, these factors will not lead to economic benefits or a growth in tourist
numbers:
“our results show that cultural endowment can be not sufficient to attract tourism de-
mand, in the absence of adequate accommodation supply and infrastructure in general”
(Cuccia & Cellini 2007: 269).
The constant building activity in Albania, especially around the coast near Butrint,
gives the superficial impression of great progress in infrastructure, but this is an il-
lusion. It is not yet sufficiently co-ordinated or linked into tourist networks to have
much of an impact (Fig. 9). Travel industry professionals cite the negative image
of Albania as a corrupt and potentially dangerous country as a reason for lack of
interest in Albania as a holiday destination. The unreliability of basic services such
as efficient sewage, paved roads and pavements etc. is a less dramatic, but possibly
equally as important, factor. Many of the major tour operators do not include Al-
bania in their offerings. The foreign visitors who make extended stays in Albania
are, for the most part, from neighbouring Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia
(Ochsenbein 2013).
32 V. Higgins
Figure 9. The seaside resort of Ksmele. This is typical of the unplanned building activity often seen
along this coast (photograph by V. Higgins).
It is not always the absence of visitors that is the problem so much as the type
of visit. Butrint itself attracts many foreign tourists, but a large proportion of
them come as a day trippers from Corfu and spend very little time, and almost no
money, in Albania. Personal observation of the tours revealed that they drive from
the ferry straight through the local towns and only stop at a small number of par-
ticular restaurants with whom the tour operators have an agreement. The groups
witnessed on the ferry from Corfu to the local port of Sarandë even had their
water supplied to them from Greece. In Albania they left only the empty bottles.
Groups from cruise ships also visit the site of Butrint, but like the day trippers
from Corfu, spend little time and even less money on Albanian soil (Ochsenbein
2013). This type of tourism does not benefit the local population and may even
be harmful as it is local authorities who have to manage the problems of traffic,
large buses on narrow roads, parking and collecting the garbage. The older group
of survey participants was acutely aware of the problems with the type of tour-
ist attracted to Butrint. On several occasions they pointed out to me examples of
day trippers being dissuaded from purchasing anything on the site. I also heard
the guides of English speaking groups telling tourists that they should not buy
anything in Albania.
The desire expressed by some survey participants of portraying Albania as a country

with a long and glorious history may, at first sight, seem esoteric and impractical.
Yet seen from a different perspective, it could be an extraordinarily perspicacious
insight into one of the biggest difficulties facing the development of heritage tour-
ism. Albania still has an image as a backward country, cut off from the rest of the
world, even slightly dangerous (this seemed to be the implication of the warnings to
foreign tourists not to purchase anything). This image impedes the development of
its heritage tourist industry. Helping to change that image may yet prove to be one
of the most useful roles that archaeology can play in promoting the future economic
prosperity of Albania.
Conclusions
This survey makes no claims to be comprehensive. It is a snap shot of the views of
young archaeologists at a particular moment in Albania’s history, a moment of great
change as the generation of Cold War archaeologists retires. However, it provides
some important insights into how regime change trickles down into societal change
and some clues as to how it might develop in the future.
Public support of archaeology is disappearing. More than once I heard established
older archaeologists lament that under communism they had never wanted for
funds but now they could do very little. The withdrawal of state aid is something
Albania has in common with the rest of Europe, but its impact is very different.
In western Europe the shift away from public funds tends to result in long and
often bitterly fought internecine struggles as the official structure morphs into its
new form. However, essentially there remains an establishment structure, which
runs the nation’s heritage. One thinks, for example of the transformation of the
Royal Commission of Historic Monuments into English Heritage in 1999. In Al-
bania one sees instead the gradual winding down of the state structure, whilst at
the same time, a parallel non-state sector is developing and moving into the spaces
vacated. The latter are able to take advantage of the expertise and funding avail-
able through foreign foundations and NGOs. These entities are more flexible and
are better suited to dealing with some of the new issues mentioned above and can
be more locally adaptive.
The Cold War heritage is finally being recognized as a remarkable resource. The
most impressive example is the vast tunnel complex under the castle at Gjiro-
kastra (Fig. 10). At points it is 85m deep and it has over a hundred rooms. It was
designed to house local officials in case of nuclear attack (Fig. 11). The tunnel is
being turned into a Cold War museum for the display of items used during the
communist period and it is also planned to incorporate an experiential element
that will allow visitors to understand the emotions of fear and anxiety that char-
acterized the period. The project aims to link up different parts of the city, such
as the castle with the bazaar, and thereby promote a heritage trail (Nepravishta
2014: 278–281).
34 V. Higgins
Figure 10. Gjirokastra Castle (photograph by V. Higgins).
Figure 11. The tunnels under Gjirokastra castle (photograph by O. Gilkes).
The submarine tunnel at Porto Palermo is another candidate for a Cold War museum.
The advantage of this site is that it is situated in a beautiful coastal bay with a pictur-
esque Ottoman castle on the headland. Therefore, it is already well placed for attract-
ing tourists and the museum would have a ready audience (Nepravishta 2014: 276).
More recently, a large bunker near Tirana, built for the personal use of Enver Hoxha,
has been turned into a tourist attraction and exhibition centre with the approval of
Albanian Prime Minister, Edi Rama (BBC 22 Nov 2014): see also Iacono & Këlliçi
(2016) on attitudes to Enver Hoxha’s pyramid in Tirana.
There is also a movement to help preserve the industrial archaeology of Albania which
has formed under the initiative of one of the supervisors in this survey (Ilir Paran-
goni). Although still in its early stages, its

projects include constructing models for
an exhibition for schools, delivering lec-
tures in universities, launching a journal
and publishing a book (Parangoni 2015;
Trakult Centre Newsletter 1 2014; Trakult
Centre Newsletter 6 2015). Specialised tour
companies such as ‘Albanian Tour’ now in-
clude industrial archaeology in their offer-
ings and employ young Albanian archae-
ologists as tour guides.
These initiatives hold out promise for the
future and the survey results indicate the
upcoming generation of archaeology grad-
uates would embrace these new opportuni-
ties. It is clear that much can be achieved
with a combination of private public part-
nerships, particularly on a local level.
However, it is also apparent that, in the ab- Figure 12. Ottoman house at Gjirokastra (pho-
sence of infrastructure investment, these tograph by V. Higgins).
kinds of initiatives can only achieve a lim-
ited success. Whilst public organizations
are not necessarily needed to manage a heritage site, conserve antiquities or set up a
museum, they are crucial for building roads, putting in water and sewage systems and
ensuring a reliable electricity supply. The biggest challenge facing the next generation
of archaeologists may not be the lack of public money for heritage, so much as the
lack of public money for everything else.

References
Cella, E., M. Gori & A. Pintucci, 2016. Archaeology in the Adriatic. From the dawn
to the sunset of communist ideologies, in: M. Gori & V. Higgins (eds.), The Impact of
the Fall of Communism on European Heritage. Proceedings of the 20th EAA conference held in
Istanbul 10–14 September 2014. Ex Novo Journal of Archaeology 1: 15-24.
Cuccia, T. & R. Cellini, 2007. Is cultural heritage really important for tourists? A con-
tingent rating study. Applied Economics 39: 261–271.
Gilkes, O., 2013. Albania: An Archaeological Guide. London, New York: I.B.Taurus.
Herzfeld, M., 1991. A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Hodges, R., 2000. Archaeology in Albania after Kosovo. History Today, March 2000: 3-4.
Hodges, R. 2009. Nikita Khrushchev’s visit to Butrint. Expedition 51.3: 24-26.
Iacono, F. & K. Këlliçi, 2016. Exploring the public perception of communist heri-
tage in Post-communist Albania, in: M. Gori & V. Higgins (eds.), The Impact of the Fall
of Communism on European Heritage. Proceedings of the 20th EAA conference held in Istanbul
10–14 September 2014. Ex Novo Journal of Archaeology 1: 55-69.
36 V. Higgins
Nepravishta, F., 2014. Regeneration of Brownfield military heritage in Albania, in: A.

Dukić, D. Simonovic & T. Vujičić (eds.), Browninfo: Towards a Methodological Framework
for Brownfield Database Development. Banja Luka: University of Banja Luka, 271-286.
Ochsenbein, G., 2013. Tourism in Albania: a building site with potential. Accessed
26 May 2015. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/land-of-contrasts_tourism-in-albania--a-
building-site-with-potential/36008586.
Parangoni, I., 2015. Between Glory & Fall: Albania & the Industrial Experience. Tirana:
Centre of Albanian Cultural Heritage, Trakult Centre.
Phelps, D., Heritage for development, multiethnic communities, and the case of
Butrint National Park on the Albanian-Greek border, in: M. Gori & V. Higgins (eds.),
The Impact of the Fall of Communism on European Heritage. Proceedings of the 20th EAA
conference held in Istanbul 10–14 September 2014. Ex Novo Journal of Archaeology 1: 5-11.
Trakult Centre Newsletter 2014, No 1, Centre of Albanian Cultural Heritage, Trakult
Centre, Tirana.
Trakult Centre Newsletter 2015, No 6, Centre of Albanian Cultural Heritage, Trakult
Centre, Tirana.
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2015
Albania. London. Accessed 27 May 2015.
BBC “Albania opens huge Cold War bunker” 22 Nov 2014. Accessed 25 May 2015
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30160201
Lonely Planet’s Top Countries for 2011. Accessed 27 May 2015.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/travel-tips-and-articles/76164.
NY Times 5 Sept 2014. Accessed 25 May 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/interac-
tive/2014/01/10/travel/2014-places-to-go.html “52 Places to Go in 2014”.
Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Heritage for Development, Multiethnic Communities, and the

Case of Butrint National Park on the Albanian-Greek Border
Dana Phelps
Stanford University
Abstract
The case study presented in this paper is an account of six months of ethnographic fieldwork that
I conducted between 2010 and 2013 in the villages within the UNESCO World Heritage site
of Butrint National Park, located on the Albanian-Greek border. My ethnography reveals the
particularly complex tangle that exists between development and heritage projects in transitioning
countries such as Albania, which is re-positioning its governance within a neoliberal framework. The
research takes an anthropological approach to investigate how the “heritage for development” projects
at Butrint National Park are affecting the local community and distressing local power relations and
social inequalities, while at the same time are instilling a sense of place for many of these communities
that have relocated or were forced from their homes during the post-communist period as a result of
confusion over land ownership. This case study demonstrates that while sustainable heritage practices
are often overpowered by neoliberal agendas, heritage repurposed towards development has real and
powerful effects on the communities connected to the site. In this paper I argue that we need anthro-
pologically informed studies that give due attention to the realities of the communities connected to the
site in order to reveal how sustainable heritage policies that are not set up to protect the community can
have detrimental effects on the locals, including reinforced structural inequality, marginalization of
minorities, and divisions among communities.
Keywords: Cultural heritage, community development, post-socialism, European

Union, community archaeology, the Balkans.
Introduction
When heritage is repurposed towards development it becomes inflated with concerns
of institutionalization, social agency, popular sovereignty, and community participa-
tion. These issues become especially apparent in countries that are situated in a post-
socialist political and social space, which includes much of Central and Eastern Eu-
rope (Berdahl 2010; Dimova 2009; Elyachar 2005). This paper takes as its primary case
study Albania, a country that is not only in a state of economic and political develop-
ment, but one which has been excluded from the European sphere (Pettifer & Vickers
2009; Balibar 2004). The case study presents six months of ethnographic fieldwork
that I conducted between 2010 and 2013 in the villages within the UNESCO World
Heritage site of Butrint National Park, located on the Albanian-Greek border. My
ethnography reveals the particularly complex tangle that exists between development
and heritage projects in transitioning countries such as Albania, which is re-positioning
its governance within a neoliberal framework (Pettifer & Vickers 2009). The research
takes an anthropological approach to investigate how the “heritage for development”
CONTACT Dana Phelps, dfphelps@stanford.edu

38 D. Phelps
projects at Butrint National Park are affecting the local community and distressing lo-
cal power relations and social inequalities.
Thus, this paper is correspondingly about how the socio-economic rights of local
communities in Albania are revealed (or suppressed) through policies that do not take
into account their social agency, such as is the case with many sustainable development
policies and practices. This failure to center communities within development projects
is seen in many of the unsuccessful heritage tourism projects in Southeast Asia that
devastate connected communities (Winter 2007; 2010); in the indigenous heritage pro-
tection projects that do not give full agency to the indigenous peoples (Herrera 2014);
and in the community archaeology projects that do not fully understand and engage its
local community and thus assume that the project has no effect on the people (Gould
& Burtenshaw 2014; Chirikure et al. 2010). Through an in-depth anthropological anal-
ysis of the local communities of Butrint National Park, I show that while sustainable
heritage practices are often overpowered by neoliberal agendas, heritage repurposed
towards development has real and powerful effects on the local.
Sustainable development is that which aims to create a balance between economic,
social, and environmental goals (Kumi et al. 2014: 544). However, within the neolib-
eral framework, this balance is near impossible to realize. Neoliberalism undermines
the ability for these goals to be achieved, especially in developing countries, because
the interest of the market is promoted at the expense of social and environmental
development concerns and does not take into account the local enmeshment of so-
cial institutions, power relations, and socio-political structures, thereby often yielding
a universalist and non-context dependent implementation of neoliberal practices on
the ground (Rajak 2011a). Still, I believe that sustainable development can be achieved
within a neoliberal government, as long as the policy and practices established are re-
framed so to understand the local complexities and place social agency at the forefront
of the policy and practice. Therefore this paper does not seek to critique neoliberalism
so much as it questions how social agency can breathe under neoliberal policies.
In this paper I argue that ‘bad’ sustainable development policy is that which rests solely
within the neoliberal context, and is structured in such a way that its focus is not actu-
ally on the citizen, but is rather on trade liberalization and has aims to subject society to
capitalist market relations. ‘Good’ ‘heritage for development’ practices, I argue, require
community-centered policies and profound engagement with all local citizens, includ-
ing meaningful consultation and socio-political participation. We need anthropologi-
cally informed policy studies that give due attention to such issues in order to reveal
how sustainable heritage policies that are not set up to protect the community can have
detrimental effects on the locals, including reinforced structural inequality, marginal-
ization of minorities, and divisions among communities.
This study comes at a critical moment. Sustainable heritage practices have become all
the rage (Barthel-Bouchier 2013), and community archaeology projects are proliferat-
ing (Silverman 2011). However, as this paper hopes to demonstrate, we need reflect on
these projects before pursing them further, giving them the anthropological critique
that they need. We need to do this now before these seemingly harmless community
archaeology and ‘heritage for development’ practices have lasting damaging effects on
the local, and even on the site.
Part I. Sustainable development and heritage under a neoliberal apparatus

Before attempting to understand the complexities between heritage-based develop-
ment and the citizen in Albania, it is necessary to understand the exclusionary ef-
fects that the European Union (EU) has on policymaking and notions of citizenry in
non-EU, postsocialist countries, or as Gerard Delanty (1995: 140) nominates them,
the ‘Anti-Europe’. The EU’s adoption of a neoliberal agenda in the 1980s forced EU
policymakers to envision and produce a new idea of citizenship for the EU (Hansen
2000: 141). While the 1970s EU community looked towards collective social needs as
the basis of its citizenry, the 1980s shed this welfare statist agenda for a neoliberal one,
which focused on a shared cultural heritage and value as the foundation of the EU
citizen (Hansen 2000: 143). Its new foundation of a collective cultural and historical
narrative, one which is Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian, meant that the EU now
had the justificatory power to exclude countries based off of heritage, culture, and
religion (Shore & Abélès 2004). European citizenship, therefore, as endowed through
the EU, has come to serve as the reward for a neoliberal economy that fits within a
particular ethno-culturalism (Balibar 2004). Therefore, it should come to no surprise
that the excluded countries that are vying for EU acceptance are using their heritage as
a means for defending their case for EU approval.
The sharp shift in economic policy from a social welfare state to a neoliberal free-market
economy in many of these post-socialist countries ‘shocked’ the government and its
citizens (Berdahl 2010; Elyachar 2005). One of the byproducts of this shock has been
the marginalization of groups that cannot be situated within a particular socio-economic
aesthetic that the new government is attempting to construct (Sigona & Trehan 2010:
2). The sudden switch from an authoritarian economy to a laissez-faire capitalism had the
unanticipated effect of pushing minority groups out of the labor market, essentially in-
creasing marginalization and impoverishment in these countries. Indeed, social inequali-
ties are extreme in Eastern Europe and its civil society is actually fixed within a global
civil society that is dominated by neoliberal policies (Dimova 2009: 4).
Neoliberalism as both an economic and political discourse have taken over the devel-
opment sphere in many of these countries (Sigona & Trehan 2010). Proponents of
neoliberalism insist that market-based strategies promote efficiency, competition, and
stabilization of the economy (Harvey 2007; Kingfisher & Maskovsky 2008). Yet em-
pirical studies on neoliberalism and its market strategies challenge these assumptions.
First of all, policy that is rooted in neoliberal agendas focuses on large-scale, economic
growth, a concept that runs counter to sustainable development, which is intended to
keep development on a level that is supportable by locals and the nation at large (Gow
2002). For example, while mass tourism could bring in immediate economic growth,
the effects of such tourism on the cultural and natural landscapes and its people could
be so detrimental that in the long term, the site of tourism would no longer be a de-
sirable attraction for visitors and the locals could be in a state of further impoverish-
ment (Barthel-Bouchier 2013; Comer 2012; Chirikure et al. 2010; Meskell 2010). This
neoliberal logic has failed to address the needs of the poor, and the rewards are often
distributed to those in power or to only a select group of the poor, meaning that this
free-market rewards system only reinforces the inequalities present, making the strong
“stronger” and the weak “weaker” (Kumi et al. 2013).
40 D. Phelps
Thus, heritage repurposed for development under neoliberal principles is heritage that
is entering a slippery slope. This new trend to position heritage for development by in-
ternational organizations, NGOs, national governments, and even local organizations,
is criticized by many scholars who point out the emptiness of these policies when ser-
vicing a neoliberal government (Coombe & Baird 2016; Barthel-Bouchier 2013). Yet,
the criticism should go farther than pointing out the hollow and self-serving nature of
these policies and should scrutinize the often damaging effects that these policies can
have on the very community that the policy is theoretically intended to serve. This only
reiterates the fact that we are in need of anthropologically informed studies that unveil
the policy effects at the most local of levels.
In rhetoric, these policies are put in place to mobilize heritage as a resource for the pur-
pose of alleviating poverty, sustaining livelihoods, bolstering social cohesion, and re-
inventing communities through infrastructure development and new forms of cultural
enterprises (Lafrenz Samuels 2010). Unfortunately, many of these policies serve an
ulterior motive and are framed to benefit a nation’s elite rather than the local commu-
nity that is played by the policy (Rajak 2011a). The effects of these policies do trickle
down to the local levels, and since these effects are uncontained or unanticipated, they
can have real and damaging effects on the communities that have now become victim
to what was seemingly mere neoliberal development speech (Gupta 2012; Rajak 2011a;
Rajak 2011b).
Yet, it is not just the policy that is giving way to such injustices. The sustainable devel-
opment programs that are implemented on the ground are usually just as superficial
as the policies are themselves. Recent critique has scrutinized the policies and prac-
tices that label themselves as “bottom-up,” “participatory,” or “community-driven,”
arguing that these policies hide external interests and agendas through language that
appears humanitarian and to serve the local (Mosse 2004: 643). Furthermore, there
is a tendency to homogenize the local, whether to serve external interests or because
the plurality of the local is overlooked. Local communities are often geographically
dispersed and socio-economically fractured (Li 2007: 245). As such, locals have dif-
ferent needs and perceptions, and are likely organized in systems of socio-economic
inequalities and uneven power hierarchies. Ironically, these social inequalities cannot be
solved through the very neoliberal apparatus that created them in the first place (Kumi
et al. 2013: 549).
PART II. The Case Study: Butrint National Park, southern Albania
Butrint National Park: An overview of its resources and people
Butrint National Park (BNP) is both an archaeological park and nature reserve. As
one of Albania’s two UNESCO World Heritage sites, Butrint has long been important
for defining the cultural heritage of the Albanian people. Its exceptionality has been
recognized internationally since its first excavations under the Italians in the 1920s and
since has been the cultural pride of the Albanian people. Its international importance
has brought in tourism, mainly by way of Greece, with the Greek island of Corfu lo-
cated just ten kilometres from the site.
Figure 1. Map positioning Albania and Butrint in the Ionian Sea (photograph courtesy of the Butrint
Foundation).
While the cultural aspects of Butrint are significant for the Albanian ‘community’ at
the national level, the natural aspects are primarily important for supporting the local
community. The tension between national and local significance reveals itself through
the management of the park, which prioritizes the national needs above the local. BNP
incorporates and is surrounded by low-income fishing and farming villages (Butrint
Foundation 2006). The Commune of Xarrë is situated on the Vrinë Plain, across the
Vivari Channel and opposite the archaeological site. The commune encompasses the
villages of Shëndëlli, Vrinë, Xarrë, and Mursi, which are the primary villages repre-
sented in this study. Both Shëndëlli and Vrinë are near the entrance to the gated site,
and all four villages lie on BNP confines.
After the fall of communism, Albania went through a period of mass migration as
Albanians fled poverty and decades of oppression to seek better lives in Italy, Greece,
and other nearby countries (Hall 1999: 169). In 1997, nation-wide pyramid schemes
failed, further devastating an already impoverished population and throwing Albania
into a period of civil unrest and yet again encouraging mass migration. During these
two periods, communities at large from the north of Albania moved into the area that
is now BNP and established the Catholic village of Shëndëlli. Vrinë, the smallest vil-
lage, was also established during this period, although the villagers are from the south
of Albania and the north of Greece. Xarrë and Mursi, unlike the other villages, are
communities that have been established on the Vrinë Plain since the beginning of the
twentieth century.
42 D. Phelps
The massive migration that occurred during the 1990s greatly affected village life. The
high level of emigration resulted in a general loss of human resources in the area,
which limited the development of new services and economic activities in the villages
(CISP 2004). Other factors leading to low economic growth are the deprived education
and health systems, and lack of infrastructure. In Shëndëlli, for example, poverty levels
are some of the highest in Albania, with an average family income of approximately
200 USD a month (Butrint Foundation 2006; ASPBM Sept 2010).
In 1992 Butrint was added to the UNESCO World Heritage list for criterion iii,
“to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civili-

zation which is living or which has disappeared” (UNESCO 2004).
Butrint was established as a national park in 2000 in order to manage and protect the
site’s cultural and natural resources, as well as to better present the site to the public
(Butrint Foundation 2005). In 1999, in preparation for the foundation of the BNP,
a management board for the park consisting of government elites was set up that
focused on protecting Butrint’s cultural resources (ASPBM Sept 2010). This could be
seen as the founding moment when an elite-based structure was created that was given
control over the local heritage.
Figure 2. Roman Theater at Butrint (photograph by D. Phelps).

Community Development Projects

It was not until after Butrint was established as a national park in 2000 that community
development was recognized for its potential to support the sustainable management
of the site. The introduction of community engagement initiatives marked a huge de-
velopment for the site. Major projects set up by NGOs, foundations, and US govern-
mental organizations include an on-site shop run by community members where locals
can sell handmade products; local school visits to the site as part of school curriculum;
environmental awareness activities, such as the planting of trees and learning about
sustainable agricultural practices; the introduction of hiking trails into the villages to
encourage tourists to Butrint to visit the local community; and training programs with
the aim to hire workmen for excavations and conservation efforts.
In an interview with a former Butrint Foundation director, Daniel Renton, I learned
that their specific projects began so that BNP could become financially independent.
There was an understanding in 2006 that the Butrint Foundation may not exist in the
future and that sustainable management approaches were necessary for ensuring that
BNP would be able to care for the site without the financial support of the Butrint
Foundation.
The ethnography I conducted first in 2010 was intended to understand the complexi-
ties of heritage-based community development work at BNP, identify any underlying
problems, and grasp the communities’ investment in the site. However, as I became
more engaged with the communities over the next few years, the ethnography also
became about getting at the heart of local opinions, identities, and views regarding
how BNP has constructed and managed their local heritage. The results of both the
community and management interviews that I conducted provided a wealth of in-
formation that most likely would have gone unnoticed without a deep anthropologi-
cal research approach. The ethnography revealed that many of these projects were
not structured to consider the plurality of the local identities, and that they were un-
intentionally marginalizing certain locals as well as reinforcing social inequalities. At
the same time, the projects had benefited the communities through strengthening site
awareness and appreciation, instilling a sense of place through the ancient ruins that
adorn the landscape. Through this awareness, the communities had revealed a desire to
mobilize themselves for self-governance of sustainable development projects.
Perhaps the most obvious complication of the projects is that they did not recognize
the plurality of identities of the local communities. The projects had been set up
in a way that would enable sustainable development of both the archaeological site
and ‘the Community’. However, within BNP, there is more than one community. The
village of Xarrë is inhabited by a Greek minority that is mostly Orthodox. Vrinë is
largely populated by a contested minority group, the Çam Albanians, who are mostly
Muslim and face heavy discrimination in Greece. These two minority groups co-habit
the area peacefully, although they have different religions and have historically been
in violent conflict with one another. The villagers of Shëndëlli are Catholic and come
from the Mirëdita region in the north of Albania. This community is considered a
“displaced” community that migrated to the area at the fall of communism, when
citizens were now free to move within the country. The migration was largely due to
a desire to escape the blood feuds pervasive in the Mirëdita region, as well as to seek
44 D. Phelps
socio-economic improvement in one of Albania’s most agriculturally rich areas. Each

village and its diverse ethnic groups share different opinions about Butrint, its role in
their lives, and their needs and desires from BNP. However, the projects seemed to
assume a homogenous local, and thus were unable to respond to distinctive conflicts,
identities, and needs.
Secondly, the marginalization of certain community groups became apparent through
the ethnography. While some projects made a strong attempt to include women in
their various activities, including the running of the handicraft workshop and the em-
ployment of workwomen on the site, the minority groups of Xarrë and Vrinë were not
included. Additionally, several other villages are positioned within BNP, one of which
is comprised largely of an Aromanian population, a Latin-speaking minority people
native to the southern Balkans. Through interviews with the mayors of these other
villages, I discovered that these villages have long been segregated from park activities.
The villagers are aware of this separatism and have developed either resentment or
indifference towards the park management and the Albanian government. If this mar-
ginalization had been recognized at the onset, the projects could have been designed
to work towards the de-marginalization of these groups. While unintentional, through
exclusion of these marginalized groups, the community development projects ampli-
fied this marginalization within BNP.
The third problem that the ethnography exposed was the socio-economic inequalities
of these villages. For example, Xarrë profits more than the other villages do because,
due to their Greek descent, many villagers move to Greece to make money, which they
then send back to their families in Xarrë in the form of remittances. Villagers also
return to Xarrë, often due to discrimination in Greece, to invest in a small business or
build new homes for their families. Socially, Xarrë and Mursi are the most stable within
the Commune since the villages have existed since before the communist period and
are therefore well-established villages. Shëndëlli and Vrinë are both very poor villages,
and rely on the fishing and farming industries for their welfare. Socially, Shëndëlli is not
well integrated into the Commune, since they are a displaced people of the north of
Albania. In particular, the ethnography demonstrated that Shëndëlli was victim to dis-
crimination. Interviews with vil-
lagers other than from Shëndëlli
frequently brought forth discrimi-
natory remarks against the villag-
ers of Shëndëlli.
Aware of Shëndëlli’s low socio-
economic status within the com-
munities, the projects sought to
support Shëndëlli by focusing
their support on this one village.
The family that runs the com-
munity shop at Butrint is from
Shëndëlli and the vast majority of
Figure 3. Shëndëlli workman repairing a Venetian wall at workmen and women on the site
Butrint (photograph by D. Phelps). are from Shëndëlli as well. How-
ever, this favoritism of Shëndëlli was at the expense of the villagers of Vrinë, Xarrë,
and Mursi, which were not included to a similar degree. Evidently, interviews with
villagers of Shëndëlli showed that many of these people were making a profit from
the site. However, this was not the case for the other villages, where more villagers
declared they were not making a profit. Many of the villagers of Vrinë expressed an-
ger that they were not seeing a profit, noting that only a select group of people were
profiting economically, and that these people came from Shëndëlli. One villager from
Vrinë asked me in an interview, “What good has Butrint ever done for me? All I see are some
families making money from Butrint. But no one cares about the rest of us.” In some cases, there
was clear resentment towards site management for not engaging the community more
and helping them to profit economically. Another villager from Vrinë told me at the
interview’s onset, “If you are working with the site, I don’t want to speak to you.” In fact, many
villagers of Vrinë did refuse to speak with me, angry that their voices were not being
heard. The villagers of Xarrë and Mursi did not express this same anger, perhaps be-
cause they have other sources of economic rewards, or perhaps since their sense of
place has been established in Butrint since long before communism took hold.
Interviews with park management showed an awareness of the selectivity in those that
were profiting, but that the resentment that had been cultivated had gone unnoticed.
While inadvertent, the projects had provoked conflict and negative attitudes through
favoritism of Shëndëlli. Beyond resentment, the favoritism of the projects was rein-
forcing the socio-economic inequalities that already existed among the villages. While
Shëndëlli was profiting, Vrinë was not.
While practices claim that they are engaging the local communities, it is typically the case
that the engagement is limited to a select group of people or that the consultation itself
is not very profound (Harrison 2012; Weiss 2014). On the ground, deep engagement
with all social actors in play is necessary for understanding the plurality of a community,
the local politics at play, existing power relations, and socio-cultural dispositions through
which suprastructures are translated (Mosse 2004; Weiss 2014). It is also important for
understanding where the socio-economic hierarchies and divides are currently active. It
could also reveal conflicts that are emerging between groups as well as help practitioners
to fully acknowledge all the mar-
ginalized groups that exist.
Furthermore, heritage and de-
velopment practitioners have the
ethical responsibility to deeply
evaluate their policies at the lo-
cal, national, and international
levels. Understanding how and
why these policies were written is
equally as vital as engaging with
the locals to understand the tangi-
ble effects that these policies may
have on their way of life. In other
words, examining heritage policy Figure 4. Greek minority locals from Xarrë, Butrint Na-
and practice requires a genuine tional Park (photograph by D. Phelps).
46 D. Phelps
ethnography, rather than a ‘quick and dirty’ evaluation that is likely to overlook the
realities of such a complex entanglement of actors, values, and interests.
Having taken a Western approach to mobilizing local communities while lacking the
deep knowledge of the very people that were likely to be affected by these policies and
practices uncovered a recipe for calamity at BNP. The results of these projects dem-
onstrate that community development initiatives that lack an anthropological under-
standing of the community as well as fully inclusive community engagement practices
are likely to result in devastating socio-economic consequences for the community that
that the policy and practice was intended to serve (Harrison 2012; Weiss 2014).
While I have cited thus far the reasons for why I believe these community develop-
ment projects have not been a total success, I have yet to detail the positive effects
that the project has had on the community. For the displaced people of Shëndëlli,
Butrint and the community development projects have brought real meaning to their
lives. Unable to travel within the country under the communist rule, quickly migrating
to Butrint meant an abrupt rootlessness for them. Bringing with them a different cul-
ture, dialect, and way of life, they were soon to find themselves with the challenge of
having to both integrate into society and to maintain their cultural values. One of the
villagers of Shëndëlli said he feels that the people of this village are fortunate because
they come from the north and maintain their cultural traditions while learning the new
traditions of the surrounding villages. He added “I like the cultural exchange and feel that it
has had a positive effect on my family and community.”
A particularly interesting finding of the ethnography was that the people of Shëndëlli,
above Vrinë and Xarrë, felt the strongest personal and social attachment to the site.
Those outside of Shëndëlli discriminate against them, calling them “shepherds from the
north”, as I frequently heard, or simply were dismissive of their needs and opinions,
assuming that they had none since they did not care about their new environs. Yet the
ethnography shows that displaced peoples may actually feel a stronger attachment to
their new land than those who have been rooted in that place (Pedersen 2009). “The
migration to Butrint meant hope for a better life”, said a villager from Shëndëlli. While they are
still living in extreme poverty, they are no longer living under the rule of an oppressive
and xenophobic regime. Thus, moving to Butrint after communism meant that these
villagers associated Butrint with a less oppressive, more promising lifestyle.
It was clear through the interviews that the villagers of Shëndëlli and Xarrë have a
great appreciation for Butrint and understand its importance as an historical site. Many
villagers recounted how proud they are of Butrint and how they feel special to live so
close to the site. One of the workmen from Shëndëlli recounted that Butrint has been
“like a mother” to him. Another workwoman said that not only does she “love and care
about Butrint, but everyone cares.” Many workmen explained that the community’s care for
and historical knowledge of Butrint has grown since they have been working with the
site. One explained that those that do not work directly with the site are interested in
hearing about Butrint: “I bring stories home to my family and other community members, and even
share them with tourists”.
Therefore, given the positive reac-

tion of some of the locals towards
Butrint as a place of appreciation,
I believe that had a deep anthropo-
logical study of the communities
been conducted, many of these
socio-economic problems I noted
would have been recognized and
the projects could have been de-
signed to rally this positivity while
working toward overcoming the
inequalities present in the com-
munities. Instead, these projects Figure 5. Interview with workman from Shendelli (photo-
were designed with a Western atti- graph by D. Phelps).
tude to mobilize communities for
the sake of the heritage, thereby not giving the time to a deep anthropological analysis
of the communities and their social agents, resulting in a streamlined project that was
unable to deliver to its complex audience.
Governance
Governance of BNP is coming from two primary directions. Firstly, BNP is governed
at the state level through policymaking and funding. The Butrint Foundation has been
indirectly governing the site as a major donor through generous funding from the
Packard Humanities Institute, as well as through private funding through Lords Sains-
bury and Rothschild of the United Kingdom. The Butrint Foundation has people on
the ground working to see their conservation and development projects through. The
interviews with upper level management, including the BNP director at the time, and
major players within the Butrint Foundation, demonstrated how unaligned agendas
squandered projects at the local level.
As a country seeking EU integration, “economic growth is the government’s first priority,” said
Richard Hodges, the Butrint Foundation’s Scientific Director, in one of our many in-
terviews in 2010 (Hodges 2010, pers. comm). The Albanian government sees heritage
as one pathway to EU acceptance, however has yet to understand how heritage should
be managed in a sustainable way. The neoliberal agenda of the Albanian government
is therefore running counter to the sustainable development projects that the Butrint
Foundation and other agencies are trying to implement. For example, while BNP con-
firms through its management plan that sustainable development is an important pol-
icy, the government supported the construction of a road through the BNP that was
wide enough to support tour busses. The Butrint Foundation was adamantly against
the building of the road, as it not only destroyed natural and archaeological resources,
it was conducive for mass tourism.
One of the major difficulties that the Butrint Foundation has had with its community
development projects is in making the Albanian government understand the impor-
tance of community development’s role in the archaeological site’s sustainability. As
Hodges explained to me in an interview, “cultural heritage management is a new concept in
48 D. Phelps
Albania and the country has yet to adopt these new management strategies” (Hodges 2010, pers.
comm). Without a system that is set up to support duelling agendas, heritage and
community development projects (and other endeavors) will likely not return their
intended effects.
Hodges believes that a major problem with the community development project today
stems from a failure to put community members on the BNP’s Management Board
when BNP was formed in 2000. He revealed that neither the Butrint Foundation nor
UNESCO truly understood the politics of Albania at the time. In hindsight, he be-
lieves the Butrint Foundation should have pushed harder for community representa-
tion. As a result, the board of directors is ‘Tirana-centric’ and therefore most of the
money generated by BNP returns to the capital city of Albania, Tirana, rather than to
the site or connected community (Hodges 2010, pers. comm).
Hodges (2010) noted in another interview that communist knowledge structures are
still deeply imbedded in the way the site is managed (pers. comm). Butrint is now only
used for political purposes and there remains little to no commitment to the site’s
stakeholders. Political corruption is thus an additional hindrance to the growth of
community development at Butrint. The management approach at BNP is top-down
and is therefore inconsiderate of the local economy. Political scandal and poor organi-
zation are resulting in a lack of funds and a disinterest in supporting community devel-
opment and assisting the local economy, begging the question of what can be done to
support a local community that is so invested in the wellbeing of BNP.
Participation and Local Elitism

From the interviews I held with local experts, it is clear that BNP management con-
siders the ‘local’ to be the local elite. The management found that it was enough to
speak with the mayors of the villages and other key community members, rather than
gathering information from those that work the land. The mayor is a political figure
and does not speak for all the needs and opinions of the village. Therefore, the com-
munity development projects were designed without true local-level consultation and
were initiated with the power in the hands of the local elite from the onset. Without
the most local-level and inclusive consultation and participation, the voices and needs
of all the social agents at play will not be heard (Harrison 2012; Mosse 2004).
From the results of the ethnography, I saw community management and participatory
programs as a real way to harness some of the positivity that the community develop-
ment projects had produced within the community. Following the initial ethnographic
research, I returned to Butrint in November 2010 to gather information for the feasi-
bility of setting up a local stakeholder committee, which would have a key role in BNP
governance.
I held several meetings with BNP management and potential committee representa-
tives. Unlike the previous ethnography, which focused solely on the Commune of
Xarrë, these meetings included the mayors from the Communes of Ksamil and Aliko,
whose villages also lie within BNP confines. Additionally I interviewed several locals
from each village to ensure that the voices of the non-elite were heard. Many of these
interviews were conducted with those families with various connections to Butrint,
such as the women and men that aid in excavations or the family that runs the handi-
craft shop. Interviews were also conducted with community members that may have
had no direct connection to the archaeological site. Although interviewing a sample of
community members certainly has its limitations, especially given the lack of women
in public locations in many of these villages, it also proved very useful for garner-
ing opinions of those that are not involved directly with the site. However, the local
community is multiple: there are numerous religions, cultures, dialects, occupations,
histories, and diverse experiences of the past that have shaped each person’s relation-
ship with Butrint, the heritage, and the land. Interviewing numerous people from the
villages allowed many of these identities and voices to come forth, however, more
time would be needed to fully take in the complexity of the local community and its
relationship to Butrint. What can be certain from the interviews, however, is that each
community member I interviewed felt strongly about the possibility of integrating bet-
ter with BNP and its management.
The then BNP director, Rajmond Kola, made it clear that he firmly believes in com-
munity development endeavors and is therefore strongly supportive of the idea of a
local stakeholder committee that would surge dialogue between the community and
BNP. The local elite, particularly the mayors of the villages and the area representative
for USAID, explained that the communities demonstrate interest in the protection of
BNP and that the community members understand its centrality to their livelihood.
Moreover, they attested that the community members are not satisfied as being limited
as members within BNP. They believe these limitations will increase the need for com-
munication with BNP in the future.
The Heads of Villages and the selection of non-elite villagers interviewed believe that
the villages are interested in more communication with BNP and that they will be able
to organize meetings among themselves. In a focus group with potential representa-
tives from the Commune of Xarrë, which included farmers, fishermen, breeders, and
influential and non-elite members of the community, it was ascertained that the villag-
ers of this commune are extremely interested in collaborating with BNP. The Head of
Village of Xarrë helped organize this meeting and there was an impeccable turnout,
further validating the community’s capability and willingness to mobilize itself, and
confirming its interest in the committee.
At present, BNP governance is working to make this local stakeholder committee
a reality. While true governance through community (Rose 2004) has not yet been
achieved, I believe that this case study demonstrates the possibility for change that
will take communication more seriously so that stakeholder agendas are aligned. It ad-
ditionally demonstrates that local communities can be heard and their socio-economic
rights can be established, even in situations where it first seems hopeless, as it did for
much of BNP governance at Butrint.
Concluding Remarks
The Butrint Foundation took the first step in community development efforts at
Butrint. It developed a series of projects that have begun to connect the community
to the site. It successfully established an awareness of and pride for the site, thereby
creating heritage out of ancient ruins. This sense of heritage for the community was
needed to ensure Butrint’s protection and BNP’s sustainability. However, a lack of a
50 D. Phelps
genuine anthropological approach prevented an understanding of the realities of the

communities’ needs, power structures, and existing socio-economic inequalities. Lack-
ing this understanding, many of the projects only helped a select few while marginal-
izing the remainder, reinforcing the inequalities among the villages, and creating anger
and resentment towards site management and towards those that are profiting.
Furthermore, political corruption and neoliberal policies and agendas suffocate these
projects. The Butrint Foundation was unable at the time to negotiate a place for them-
selves in the fabric of the community. Because of this, the Foundation was forced
to take over heritage production, thereby drastically challenging and even reinforcing
power relations in the villages. Moreover, activities that had been initiated by the Foun-
dation and other foreign investors to help the community were not carried through
or maintained by site management. The unaligned agendas of the government and
Butrint Foundation resulted in miscommunication and the Albanian government’s dis-
regard for the sustainability process that the Butrint Foundation had been fighting for.
This was a clear example of how neoliberal agendas take precedence over and destroy
sustainable development projects.
Finally, the community had never been considered in BNP management and there
appeared to be little to no desire to economically support the local community as an
important aspect of the national park. I see the local stakeholder committee as one
step forward in securing local agency through participation. The existence of the com-
mittee would ensure that the communities are vital actors of BNP and that they are
free agents with rights to participate politically, socially, and economically.
Sustainable community development projects are a complex web of obstacles. Design-
ing a program that does not understand this complexity results in a failed project and
an unintended effect of introducing or flaring socio-economic issues that may have
been simmering. Beyond implementation of such projects, attempting to situate them
in locations where neoliberal agendas override local concerns produces a monster of
its own.
As seen through the Butrint case study, ‘heritage for development’ holds the potential
for real positive change. The question now remains how to create good sustainable
policies and practices that work within these existing elite-based governance struc-
tures. Sustainable development, in rhetoric alone, has the poor’s best interest at heart.
Given this mandate, I believe that ‘good’ sustainable development policy and practice
is achievable; however, it requires a social agent-focused approach that does not give
priority to economic growth with the assumption that the benefits will be distributed
to the poor later. Rather, a good sustainable development policy will understand the
complexity of the local community and consider how histories shape their present
socio-economic conditions and identities. It will include all actors at play, from the
poor to the elite, thereby placing greater emphasis on facilitating social rights such as
political and social participation and creating opportunities for all social agents to con-
tribute to a growing local economy. Therefore, we should not only be ensuring agency
to the poor, but should be examining a new role for the elite and other actors so that
uneven power relations are not unbalancing these policies and practices.
In insisting on the rights of all social agents to social and economic justices, cultural expres-
sion, and civic engagement, opportunities need to be created to which all social agents have
access; cultural enterprises need to be set up in a way which has the potential to benefit every
social agent; and every social agent needs to be made aware of his or her right to participate
(Gow 2002). Only through full inclusion of all social agents can such policies and practices
survive under a neoliberal regime. My suggestion therefore is for a community-centered
heritage program that first involves a genuine anthropological analysis of the communities
at stake; brings in true local-level stakeholder engagement and consultation; and then re-
positions governance so that it is also in the hands of the community. The community and
all social agents must be at the heart of governance for local heritage projects to survive.
Acknowledgements
I am forever grateful to Richard Hodges for the incredible amount of time he has giv-
en to the support of my research. I am thankful to Valerie Higgins for inviting me to
present a shortened version of this paper at the European Association of Archaeolo-
gists’ 2014 Annual Conference in Istanbul. Special appreciation is also given to Gertjan
Plets for his in-depth commentary, causing me to re-reflect on an ethnography that has
taken years of data collecting and analysis to finally put to paper.
References
ASPBM, 2010. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Clean-Up Project: Butrint Management
Plan. Accessed 30 March 2015.
http://www.aspbm.org/uploads/Butrint-MP_final_revised_version_eng_Septem-
ber_2010.pdf.
Balibar, E., 2004. We, the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princ-
eton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Barthel-Bouchier, D., 2013. Cultural Heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability. Walnut
Creek: Left Coast Press.
Berdahl, D., 2010. On the Social Life of Postsocialism. Bloomington and Indianapolis,
Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Butrint Foundation, 2005. The Butrint Foundation Report for 2005. Accessed 12 July
2010 http://www.butrintfoundation.co.uk/Annual%20Reports/ar05.pdf.
Butrint Foundation, 2006. The Butrint Foundation Report for 2006. Accessed 12 July
2010 http://www.butrintfoundation.co.uk/Annual%20Reports/ar06.pdf.
Chirikure, S., M. Manyanga, W. Ndoro & G. Pwiti, 2010. Unfulfilled promises? Heri-
tage management and community participation at some of Africa’s cultural heritage
sites. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16: 30–44.
CISP, 2004. Context Analysis of Butrint National Park Surrounding Area. Saranda: CISP.
Comer, D. C., 2012. Tourism and archaeological heritage management at Petra: driver to develop-
ment or destruction? New York: Springer.
Coombe, R., & M. Baird, 2016. The Limits of Heritage: Corporate Interests and Cul-
tural Rights on Resource Frontiers, in: W. Logan, U. Kockel & M. Craith (eds.), A
Companion to Heritage Studies. Wiley & Sons Publishing, 337–354.
Delanty, G., 1995. Inventing Europe. London: MacMillan Press.
52 D. Phelps
Dimova, R., 2009. Neoliberalism, Nationalism, and Border Arrangement in the Southern Bal-
kans. Working Paper.
Elyachar, J., 2005. Markets of Dispossession: NGOs, Economic Development, and the State in
Cairo. North Carolina: Duke University Press.
Gould, P. G. & P. Burtenshaw. 2014. Archaeology and economic development. Public
Archaeology 13: 3–9.
Gow, D., 2002. Anthropology and Development: Evil Twin or Moral Narrative? Hu-
man Organization 61(4): 299–313.
Gupta, A., 2012. Red Tape Bureaucracy, Structural Violence, and Poverty in India. North
Carolina: Duke University Press.
Hall, D. R., 1999. Albania: Representations of Place. The Geographical Journal 162(2):
161–172.
Hansen, P., 2000. “European Citizenship”, or Where Neoliberalism Meets Ethno-
Culturalism. European Societies 2(2): 139–165.
Harrison, E., 2012. Performing Partnership: Inviting Participation and Older People’s
Forums. Human Organization 71(2): 157–166.
Harvey, D., 2007. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herrera, A., 2014. Commodifying the indigenous in the name of development: the
hybridity of heritage in the twenty-first-century Andes. Public Archaeology 13: 71–84.
Kingfisher, C. & J. Maskovsky. 2008. Introduction. The Limits of Neoliberalism.
Critique of Anthropology 28(115): 115–126.
Kumi, E., A. Arhin & T. Yeboah, 2014. Can Post-2015 Sustainable Development
Goals Survive neoliberalism? A critical examination of the sustainable development-
neoliberalism nexus in developing countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability
16: 539–554.
Lafrenz Samuels, K., 2010. Material heritage and poverty reduction, in: S. Labadi &
C. Long (eds.), Heritage and Globalisation. London and New York: Routledge, 202–217.
Li, T., 2007. The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics.
North Carolina: Duke University Press.
Meskell, L., 2010. Human Rights and Heritage Ethics. Anthropological Quarterly 83(4):
839–859.
Mosse, D., 2004. Is Good Policy Unimplementable? Refelections of the Ethnography
of Aid Policy and Practice. Development and Change 35(4): 639–671.
Pedersen, M., 2009. At Home Away from Homes: Navigating the Taiga in Northern
Mongolia, in: P. Kirby (ed.), Boundless Worlds: An Anthropological Approach to Movement.
New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 135–151.
Pettifer, J. & M. Vickers. 2009. The Albanian Question: Reshaping the Balkans. London:
I.B. Tauris.
Rajak, D., 2011a. In Good Company. An Anatomy of Corporate Social Responsibility. Stan-
ford, California: Stanford University Press.
Rajak, D., 2011b. Theatres of Virtue: Collaboration, Consensus, and the Social Life of
Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 60: 9–20.
Rose, N., 2004. Powers of Freedom. Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge, United King-
dom: Cambridge University Press.
Shore, C. & M. Abélès, 2004. Debating the European Union: An Interview with Cris
Shore and Marc Abélès. Anthropology Today 20(2): 10–14.
Sigona, N. & N. Trehan, 2010. Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: poverty, ethnic mo-
bilization, and the neoliberal order. London: Pagrave MacMillan.
Silverman, H., 2011. Archaeologies of Engagement, Representation, and Identity.
Historical Archaeology 45(1): 152–166.
UNESCO, 2004. Butrint. Accessed 5 Aug 2010 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/570.
Weiss, L., 2014. Informal Settlements and Urban Heritage Landscapes in South Africa.
Journal of Social Archaeology 14(1): 3–25.
Winter, T., 2007. Post-conflict heritage, postcolonial tourism: tourism, politics and development at
Angkor. London and New York: Routledge.
Winter, T., 2010. Heritage tourism: the dawn of a new era? in: S. Labadi & C. Long
(eds.), Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. London: Routledge, 117–129.
Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Exploring the public perception of Communist Heritage in Post-

communist Albania
Francesco Iacono1 and Klejd L. Këlliçi2

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, 2University of Tirana
1
Abstract
More than a quarter of a century after the fall of the eastern bloc (broadly intended), former commu-
nist countries have dramatically changed. Yet the memory of the recent past is sometimes perceived as
being accompanied by a considerable sense of unease. This process is mirrored clearly in the way some
countries have dealt with the physical remains of the regime. This paper will focus on a case study from
contemporary Albania and represents one of the first attempts at addressing the social significance of
the remnants of the recent communist past in this country. It is undertaken not only through a theo-
retical and historical investigation, but also via a direct survey of the public (in this case a sample of
citizens of the capital city Tirana). Our results suggest that, contrary to our initial assumptions, there
is a considerable widely shared interest in the material remnants of the regime and that its cultural
heritage its cultural heritage still needs to be explained.
Keywords: Albania, Tirana, Cultural Heritage, Dictatorship, Communist Heritage
Framing the problem

More than a quarter of a century has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the
opening of Eastern Europe. All of the former eastern bloc countries have followed
the path of liberalisation and regime change. In the face of these changes, new identity
perspectives were opened both internally and externally. While externally it was im-
plied that almost all Eastern Europe countries would be able to join the international
structures of the west (i.e. NATO or European Union), internally identity involved
coping with the communist past and its vision of the future. The external dimension
was relatively easy to deal with, in the short-term; the internal debate on identity how-
ever, was far more intense. Both dimensions nonetheless implied the idea of identity
building or rediscovering. All former communist countries in Central and Eastern
Europe have tried to build a sense of national memory, saving certain aspects of it and
often neglecting others, normally the most recent ones.
Defining what was to be remembered and what was to be left to oblivion is, just like
defining a national identity, the product of a complex convergence of socio-political,
economic and cultural factors. While the nationalist aspects embedded in urban archi-
tecture (in features like memorials, monuments celebrating historical figures and so
on) were more easily incorporated in the new urban narratives of the post-communist
state, this was not the case for features more deeply imbued with the ideology of dic-
tatorship. The end of the Cold War put a question mark over the survival not only of
communist buildings, but also of the very idea of the city that had emerged as a result
of the process of social engineering promoted by the regimes (Bater 1980).
CONTACT Francesco Iacono, fi216@cam.ac.uk - Klejd L. Këlliçi, k.kellici@gmail.com

56 F. Iacono & K. Këlliçi
Communist heritage
Similar complex processes of negotiation and related tensions are not unique to for-
mer eastern bloc countries. Heritage scholars have long recognised the ubiquity of
such conflict situations, suggesting concepts like difficult, dissonant and unwanted
heritage (Tunbridge & Ashworth 1996; Henderson 2007; Macdonald 2008). Heritage
of this kind has been identified in a variety of environments (Logan & Reeves 2009).
Probably the best-known case in Europe is represented by the monumental heritage
from the National Socialist period in Germany, epitomised by the Rally Grounds in
Nuremberg, Germany. In this case, the seminal work of Macdonald (2006; 2008) has
extensively highlighted the complex lattice of negotiations involved in incorporating
the Rally Grounds in the monumental heritage of the city of Nuremberg. Franco’s
Spain has been a context particularly well studied through a variety of approaches
which incorporate both ethnography (Viejo-Rose 2014) and archaeological method-
ologies (González Ruibal 2009). Other examples, dealing specifically with the heritage
of dictatorship of former eastern block countries, have also been explored (Light
2000a; 2000b; Otto 2008; Ivanov 2009), although the perspective employed in those
studies has frequently been that of tourism specialists. Sometimes doubts about the
very need to commemorate a past so near in time have also been advanced, particularly
in the context of countries where there is a need for prioritising resources to be spent
on heritage (Harrison 2013).
It needs to be considered however, that for countries where dictatorship has existed,
this had represented a unique experience which has left an indelible historical mark
whose memory should not be left to oblivion. Its importance goes beyond local inter-
ests and this is highlighted by the fact that attention and curiosity towards the material
remains of the regime have also been shared by a conspicuous number of internation-
al tourists who visit many former eastern block countries every year, demonstrating an
explicit interest in the recent communist past.
Beyond their materialisation in concrete buildings, memorials and similar structures,
the fil rouge of all definitions of difficult heritage is the presence of a painful experience
which lies at the base of the object/s to be memorialised. However, pain is definitely
not enough, even if it is an important common denominator. As Andreas Huyssen
remarked (2003: 8)
“to collapse memory into trauma, I think, would unduly confine our understanding of
memory, marking it too exclusively in terms of pain, suffering, and loss”.
Historical buildings, even recent ones such as those here discussed, are receptacles of
fragments of personal and social memories (Connerton 1989) whose pigeonholing
into an all-encompassing category of traumatic memory is problematic. It is precisely
this element, everyday life, which has often been eclipsed and sacrificed in the official
memorialisation of the dictatorial past, in favour of narratives emphasizing the hard
conditions of the regime (which undoubtedly existed), the difference with the present,
and the difficulties entailed by the transition to democracy (e.g. Maltezi 2012; Sadiku
2011). Our claim is that, although well intentioned, these attempts have reproduced in
the new democracies, a bi-dimensional representation of life under the regime that is
merely a mirror image of the propaganda machinery of the dictatorship that preceded
them. In our view, memory, and hence the cultural heritage of dictatorship, needs to
offer a well-rounded account of the way the past acts upon the present, distancing it-
self from immediate political agendas, but not negating the politically laden nature of
heritage. It is imperative to take into account all the stakeholders involved, whilst at the
same time avoiding both chauvinistic nostalgia and moral anathemas. This is particu-
larly problematic in contexts such as former eastern bloc countries, where the tempta-
tion of deploying memory (particularly of recent events) as a tool for political struggle
is very high (Stan 2006; Friszke 2009). In order to do this, it is undoubtedly necessary
to keep well in mind the various political goals of actors involved, and in addition to
integrate as much as possible the voice of the public through tools that minimize the
influence of consolidated structures of power (i.e. political parties). There are several
possible strategies for doing this, but the one that we have chosen to adopt here entails
the use of a survey. The specific context in which we employ this strategy is modern
day Albania. Before discussing our results, however, it will be necessary to briefly in-
troduce the specificities of our case study.
The Albanian case study: Tirana and the Pyramid a (very) brief historical in-
troduction
As in other former eastern bloc countries, in the immediate aftermath of Albania’s
transition to democracy, the dictatorship period was simply perceived as a burden that,
embracing the new set of values of the western world, had to be deliberately and
swiftly forgotten. Recently, however, a new attitude has emerged and the heritage from
the dictatorship period has started to attract the interest of scholars, artists and institu-
tions alike, resulting in a number of recent publications, websites and initiatives (Glass
2008; Stefa and Mydyti 2009; Myhrberg 2011; Malltezi 2012; Van Gerven Oei 2015).
In other words the past is creeping back in.
In this article, our attention will be focused in particular on one of the most iconic
monuments from the communist period present in the capital city Tirana: the former
personal museum of the dictator, broadly known to Albanians as Piramida (the Pyramid).
A qualitative analysis based on interviews with a limited number of archaeologists and
heritage professionals realised by Myhrberg (2011) provided an excellent foundation for
the present study although our aim is completely different as our perspective here is
chiefly quantitative/ demographic. In this paper our efforts will be directed solely to a
preliminary tracing of the main quantifiable and recognizable trends in the data.
In the period between 1945 and 1991 Albania was the locus of a particularly harsh
Stalin-inspired regime headed by Enver Hoxha. The particular geopolitical position
of Albania, at the interface with the western world, together with a paranoid attitude
developed by the dictator over the decades, gradually led the country to absolute isola-
tion and to the interruption of diplomatic relationships within the communist bloc,
first with neighbouring Yugoslavia, then with Russia and finally, in the 1970s also with
China (O’Donnell 1999: 37–96; Gjeçovi 2009; Milo 2013). Isolation was paired with
the establishment of an efficient propaganda machinery as well as by the control of
virtually every aspect of personal and social life and the (often violent) coercion of any
dissent, real or perceived (Vickers 1999: 189–91).
The Pyramid as an Hoxhan commemoration

Despite being obsessed by himself and the perception his people had of him,
while alive, Hoxha had an extremely iconoclastic attitude, and avoided the propa-
gation of his image through monuments (in line with a certain attention to avoid-
ing the cult of personality of living people, which was also demonstrated in other
communist regimes; see Apor et al. 2004). Indeed, there are virtually no repre-
sentations of Hoxha dating before 1985, that is the year of his death. With his
death and the change of leadership within the P.P.Sh. (Partia e Punes e Shqipërisë,
Albanian Workers Party) however, this situation also changed. The new leadership,
led by Ramiz Alia, eager for legitimisation, embarked on an ambitious campaign
of monumentalisation, which involved both the placing of memorials across the
landscape and the realisation of a number of grandiose works. Some of the lat-
ter directly represented the dead leader (as in the case of the gigantic statue once
located on top of a hill in Gijrokastër, now destroyed and occupied by a hotel),
others just evoked his presence.
Within this general climate, an ambitious plan was implemented in the capital city,
Tirana, with the aim of filling in the empty spaces left along the main boulevard by
the uncompleted half century-old Italian plan. Three empty lots had to serve as the
sites for three major modern and ideologically significant buildings for Tirana, namely
the Museum ‘Enver Hoxha’ (Pyramid), the Palace of Congresses and the new Central
Committee Building (the construction of this last building had just started when the
regime collapsed; Bleta 2010: 77–101). Together with the statue of Hoxha in Skan-
derbeg Square, the pyramid shaped personal museum of Enver Hoxha was the most
tangible attempt to celebrate the former dictator (Figure 1).
The Pyramid was planned in the immediate aftermath of the death of the leader in
1985 and was built over the following three years, being inaugurated on the eightieth
anniversary of the birth of Hoxha in a large celebration. It was a titanic effort involv-
ing the ‘voluntary’ work of a
variety of people encompassing
workers, architects (led by the
nephew of the dictator), histori-
ans, museum specialists, artists,
decorators and so on (Adhami
2001: 189–90). Much of the
construction material was col-
lected and put together from the
most disparate areas of Albania,
and documents at the Alba-
nian National Archive describe
in detail the whole process of
Figure 1. The Pyramid (Piramida) former museum of Enver procurement. The amount of
1
Hoxha during its inauguration (after Ylli November 1988: 6). resources dedicated to this work
1
General Directory of Albanian Archives, Collection of the Council of Ministries, F.490 V.1986 D.715.
appear even more striking when one considers that the Albanian population was at
that time facing one of the most dramatic economic crises in its post-war history
(Gjeçovi 2009: 351–8).
Architecturally the Piramida was unique and there are no parallels with other build-
ings realised in other former eastern bloc countries. Structurally, it was a gigantic
octagonal concrete umbrella with straight, gently sloping walls covered in marble
interrupted by long longitudinal windows stretching over much of the overall
height of the building. Inside, the Piramida was lavish unlike any other building
constructed in Albania since the 1950s, when the regime also had been able to
count on help from Russia. The museum revolved around a giant hall surmounted
by the most significant communist symbol, a star. The same feature was used (in
red plastic material) to surmount the outer extremity of the building. Inside it
contained the focal point of the museum, a marble statue of a seated Hoxha in
the centre of a round hall. The museum had neither a proper entrance, nor a ticket
counter, and the hall opened immediately in front of the visitor with Hoxha’s stat-
ue in the centre. The display of the artefacts and visual materials ran around the
circumference of the hall. The museum differed in many respects from traditional
museums as the wide-open space of the central hall, allowed no interruption of
the narrative of the materials exposed.
The Pyramid in the aftermath of the regime

After 1991, while almost all public buildings had been definitively adapted to new
functions in the new regime, the Pyramid remained probably the only public struc-
ture of the communist period in the capital that did not have a clear future. This
undoubtedly suggests a general unease, at least on the part of the authorities,
with the very existence of such a building. This unease persisted well into the
following decade, and even the City Plan of 2003 did not consider the building
among those to be re-qualified (Architecture Studio 2003: 13). This is because its
peculiar shape and plan had become a standing symbol of communism, difficult
to adapt to the new democratic regime. The Pyramid was in fact ‘desacralized’ as
early as mid 1991. The demolition of the grandiose monument of Hoxha marked
a change of destination for the building. The very first event hosted was the first
trade fair ever held in post-communist Albania and, since then, the Pyramid has
been used for the most diverse purposes. Among these were concerts and other
kinds of non-official activities held under the name of the International Cultural
Centre. To further emphasize the distance of the ‘new’ Piramida from the regime,
in 2006 the right-wing government decided to nominate the International Cultural
Centre after the iconic figure of Albanian anti-communism and gulag survivor,
Pjetër Arbnori (Elsie 2010: 19–20). Although the Piramida was never to be used
as a government building, this does not mean that the state was disinterested in
the structure and, actually, a number of extremely costly plans for its restoration
and re-functionalisation have been implemented by successive governments since
2004 (such as turning it into the National Theater or the New National Library)
but none of them has ever been completed (Resuli 2010).
At the same time part of the building was adapted to host the offices of one of the
main governmental agencies of the new hegemonic power, USAID. In the same pe-
riod another area of the building started to host the studios of some of the most
important private television networks in the country (Top Channel, Alba TV). So while
government and the state apparatus of post-communist Albania distanced themselves
from the Pyramida, through their connections with foreign organisations and the me-
dia, the building acquired a renewed role. For many years, this role probably allowed
the building to resist the processes of gentrification and/or more broadly radical de-
velopment which resulted in the construction of a number of multi-storey buildings in
the city centre (Herzfeld 2010; Pojani 2015: 83–4). It is important to consider how this
new, albeit shifting, role has actually been much more enduring than the original one
envisaged for the building (i.e. as a museum celebrating the dead leader and founder
of People’s Republic of Albania). Chatting informally with citizens from the capital it
is apparent how little impact the original role of the Pyramid has left on public percep-
tion of the monument. For the Tiranas (citizens of Tirana), the Pyramid is only one of
the most prominent landmarks, amongst many reference points, that help to orientate
them through the haphazard web of streets and alleys produced by recent develop-
ment (Pojani 2010). Indeed, Albanians tend to use buildings and objects, rather than
street names, as a point of reference. Visibility is undoubtedly one of the character-
izing features of the monument and one that has persisted until now. At the time of
its construction the pyramid was designed to be one of the most visible landmarks of
the city. Despite a number of skyscrapers and new buildings that have undoubtedly
changed the original look of the city, the Pyramid still partly preserves its role as a
landmark because it faces the large open space of one of the monumental boulevards.
In 2011 the Piramida was at the centre of a quarrel between the leaders of the main par-
ties in Albania: the Democratic Party (Partia Demokratike, right-wing) and the Socialist
Party (Partia Socialiste, left-wing). The then Prime Minister and leader of the Democratic
Party wanted to demolish the building to make room for a new pharaonic parliament
that was to constitute the symbol of the new democratic Albania. Similar attempts are
not unparalleled in other former eastern bloc countries where sometimes monuments
and public spaces have been remodelled or even destroyed in order to conform to a per-
ceived hierarchy of values (see for instance the case of the renovation of Skopje; Mattioli
2014; see also more generally Iacono & Këlliçi 2015; Young & Kaczmarek 2008). No as-
sessment of the social relevance of the pyramida for Tironas was made before announc-
ing the destruction plan and the usual rhetoric of the sacrifice for the greater good was,
in this case, particularly thin (Herzfeld 2010). The whole operation was generally seen as
an appropriation, on the part of politics, of a former public symbol/space, and indeed
it did not convince also many people within the majority party. Such a plan was vocally
opposed by a group of Albanian intellectuals who promoted a petition against it that
gathered some 6,000 signatures (Klosi & Lame 2011) and this position was also endorsed
by the Socialist party, who were then in opposition. As often happens in Albania, the
debate rapidly became coloured with political overtones, with positions being potentially
influenced by political sympathy/affiliation.
The new government has dismissed demolition plans and has timidly started to use
the building for cultural activities like concerts and art-exhibitions. However, so far no
new overall project for its re-functionalisation has been presented, and it is not clear
whether plans approved and partially implemented through the years since 2004, still
constitute the blueprint for future interventions. To this extent, the main issue is the
condition of the building. The Piramida is in a sorry state as, despite the plan for the
new parliament has not been concluded, its dismantling was commenced in 2011 and,
as of today, the building stands as an empty concrete shelter (Figure 2).2
Figure 2. The Piramida in its current state of preservation. Photograph by I. Gramo.
Survey
As mentioned above, our study aimed to explore the public perception of the Piramida
in current Albanian society by the means of a survey (see also Iacono & Këlliçi 2015).
More specifically, we wanted to try to bypass the pervasive influence of political par-
ties, capturing the personal engagement of Albanians with the Piramida and, more
broadly, with the tangible heritage of the dictatorship. Given the complex political
setting in which our work took place, it is necessary to specify the temporal context of
our survey, which might have played a role in its results. The survey occurred between
December 2013 and February 2014, some six months after the last political elections
that marked a change in government from the Democratic to the Socialist party. It
seems possible that the results would have been, to a certain extent, different, perhaps
more in line with the position of the party in power at the time, had the survey been
undertaken before the elections (although it must be stressed that the plan for the new
parliament was criticised also within the Democratic Party).
Directly connected to this aspect is the first of the two main expectations we had at
the onset of this investigation. In 2011 the Piramida had been a bone of contention
between the two main parties of Albania, and because of the strong division and
over-politicisation of opinions within Albanian society, we hypothesised that value-
assessments on the material heritage from the communist period were likely to be
2
Very recently the new Mayor, Erjon Veliaj (elected in 2015), initiated some very preliminary interven-
tion on the building.
strongly polarised, following the positions of these two political actors. The second
expectation we had was that, because of the peculiar dynamics of socialisation typical
of the communist regime, in Albania as well as elsewhere, older generations were more
likely to feel more attached to the material remains of the regime, since some had spent
vast amounts of time in contact with them.
In order to explore these two hypotheses, we collected a relatively large number of on-
line responses (360 overall), gathered through advertising our survey through various
social media outlets. However, since we recognised that a substantial proportion of
older respondents could have potentially been put off by the use of electronic means,
we decided to collect an additional sample through ‘traditional’ methods (i.e. face-to-
face interviews) conducted in specific spots of the city frequented by over 60 year olds.
The questionnaire is reproduced in the Appendix at the end of this article.
Discussion of results
The results have largely contradicted our expectations and, additionally, the unambigu-
ity of at least some of the trends noticed, indicates that our caution with respect to the
effects of the elections was largely unwarranted.
As far as political divisions are concerned, when we asked about the plan to destroy the
Piramida (question no. 13) there was not much difference: the overwhelming majority
of respondents strongly disagreed on this. As for generational differentiation, in rela-
tion to this specific issue, there were no significant differences with older people (Fig.
3). The reasons given as justifying the need for preserving the Pyramid are the most
disparate and no immediately recognizable trends have been identified (question no.
14). It is extremely likely that this apparently homogeneous response was due to the
specificities of the monument discussed. Although one of the most recognizable land-
marks in the capital city (as quoted in question n. 1, among the five most important
monuments in Tirana), the Pyramid is fairly recent, having been completed in 1988.
This means that older generations did not spend substantial amounts of extra time in
developing a ‘special relationship’ with the Piramida as previously postulated.
Figure 3. Responses to the question: Do you agree or disagree about the plan to demolish the Pyramid?
This highlights one of the main contradictions embedded in the public perception of
this building. While, from an ‘external’ perspective the building is undoubtedly associ-
ated with the communist regime, its use as the museum of Enver Hoxha lasted only
four years and its use after the fall of the dictatorship stretched over a much longer pe-
riod. Such an aspect is mirrored in the fact that the sample overall largely associated the
building with Tirana as a city, rather than with either communism or specifically with
Enver Hoxha (Fig. 4). Here however generational differences seem to be much more
meaningful; in the sub-sample of people over 60, those that associate the Piramida with
the dictator is overwhelming (58 percent), while the age group 20 to 59 years old pre-
dominantly connects the monument to the city itself (51 percent). In other words, the
younger age-group that did not take part in the efforts necessary for the construction
of the monument, saw the Piramida predominantly as something that had more or less
always been there and hence part of their affective geography, or of
“a contextual horizon of perceptions, providing both a foreground and a background

in which people feel themselves to be living in their world” (Stewart and Strathern
2003: 4).
Those over 60 years old, on the other hand, could not avoid taking into account in
their value judgments the effort of an entire generation directed at its construction.
Even if the involvement was not direct, the process of identification of individuals
with their generation was probably enough to stimulate similar answers. The fact that
Enver Hoxha is identified as the most important association is not surprising, given the
strong personality cult characterising the Albanian regime.
Moving to the broader category of monuments of the communist period, perceptions
of citizens of Tirana seem to be more openly influenced by the generational factor previ-
Figure 4. Responses to the question: What does the Pyramid makes you think of ?
ously identified. Predictably, the percentage of people feeling ‘very attached’, instead of
just ‘attached’, to the material remains of the communism is considerably larger among
those over 60 (Fig. 5). We analysed the data for trends relating to the category of monu-
ment - institutional buildings, bunkers, statues-lapidaries, prison camps, war memorials
- to assess if there was any predilection and/or recognizable pattern, but none could
be discerned. Looking at the specific subset of the over 60s, there was a quite clear-cut
tendency to attribute more importance to bunkers and prison camps, which are more
frequently quoted as the most important category of monuments from the period of
the dictatorship. While the case of the prison camps can be easily understood through
the categories of painful heritage highlighted by much of the previous scholarship (e.g.
Logan & Reeves 2009), this is not the case with respect to the bunkers. Bunkers (Fig. 8;
see Galaty et al. 2000; Glass 2008; Stefa & Mydyti 2009), probably the most universally
known feature of the landscape of the communist period in Albania, were the product
of one of the worse periods of the regime. Between 1977 and 1981 Hoxha’s paranoia
(motivated principally by the possibility of attacks from Tito’s Yugoslavia) led to the real-
isation of some 400,000 concrete bunkers of various shapes and sizes (Glass 2008; Stefa
& Mydity 2009). As remarked by many, beyond the titanic economic effort (quantifiable
as about 2 percent of the overall material production of the country), the most enduring
effect of the ‘bunkerisation’ of Albania was the creation of what has been defined as a
‘siege mentality’ (Glass 2008: 41–42; O’Donnell 1999: 137). The broad Albanian popula-
tion was kept in the constant fear of foreign invasions, resulting in a diffused militarisa-
tion. The consequences of these processes are far-reaching and cannot be discussed here
in full. As for the influence on the perception of the built environment, it is necessary
to highlight that the construction and maintenance of bunkers were the outcome of the
collective effort of army members and civilians alike. In her in-depth examination of the
role of bunkers in Albanian rural society, Glass (2008: 31–5) emphasizes the critical role
played by families and individuals in both their construction and maintenance, through
voluntary work:
“bunkers are personified by people and

people are personified by bunkers. Their
biographies are intertwined; from the
population involvement in their creation
to military use under communism and to
later re-use phases” (Glass 2008: 44).
This is particularly interesting as

it confirms the importance of
direct activity, engagement and
physical closeness in shaping the
relationship between Albanians
Figure 5. Answer of the sample to the question: Do you and the inheritance of the com-
feel attached to the monuments of the communist period? munist period.
Finally, going back to the broad category of the monumental heritage of the dicta-
torship, one aspect upon which the consensus among the surveyed sample seemed
to be almost unanimous, notwithstanding age categories, was the general necessity
to preserve memory of the communist past (over 95 percent of the sample agreed;
question no. 2) and of its material remains (83 percent; no. 4) for which resorting to
public funding was also considered positively by the majority of the respondents (63
percent; no. 10). Such buildings were most frequently associated with communism (in
37 percent of cases) and with the specific place where they are located (28 percent),
while the association with Enver Hoxha appears not to have been particularly frequent
(14 percent, question no. 6). Such an interest might appear obvious, but it marks a
definite change from the perceived will of other former eastern block countries, which
simply condemned their recent past to a total damnatio memoriae. Proof of how recent
this change is lies in the very fact that, despite personally having an interest in the cul-
tural heritage of the dictatorship, the vast majority of respondents saw the Albanian
public as lacking interest in relation to this topic, with less than a third (27 percent)
of the sample suggesting a general interest in the material remains of the dictatorship
(question no. 8). When asked to explain the reason for a general lack of interest in the
tangible heritage of the dictatorship (question no.9), no overwhelming trend emerged
although the most frequent answer was that it reminded them of a bad period (occur-
ring in just 21 percent of the cases).
Conclusions
Together with large-scale changes in social, political and economic relations, the fall
of the Berlin Wall resulted also in a massive reconfiguration of the way identities were
created over vast areas of Europe (Schwandner-Sievers & Fischer 2002; Fawn 2003;
Kaneva 2014). Within these processes, monumental heritage and, more broadly, the
built environment, played an important role that has been recognized but only partially
explored by cultural heritage (Huyssen 2003; Bevan 2007; Rampley 2012). In this paper
we have claimed that one of the main limitations to our understanding of the rel-
evance of the heritage of the communist period in post-communist countries is simply
envisaging it as the memory of the traumatic, the painful and unwanted, a thesis that
ultimately rejects the right of many life-histories to be incorporated in public narra-
tives. Of course such a consideration does not mean that traumatic aspects should not
be taken into account, nor does it mean that we should embrace a less critical stance
towards communist regimes and their crimes through some fifty years of history of
the eastern bloc. Rather, memory-representations (either through the discussion of
monumental heritage, or other material and immaterial aspects), should incorporate
a more well-rounded picture of life under the regime(s) in all its facets, even the non-
traumatic ones; this might represent an important step in the process of actually com-
ing to terms with the past.
In this paper we have tried to explore the perception of the monumental heritage of
the communist dictatorship period in Albania, a country that, in the period between
1945 and 1991, experienced a particularly harsh regime. We have explored this theme
through a survey focused on one of the most symbolic buildings of the communist
period in the capital city Tirana, the Piramida, the pyramid shaped personal museum
of the dictator Enver Hoxha. Our survey yielded rather unexpected results, indicating
a widespread affection not only for the Pyramid in particular, but also more generally
for buildings realized during the dictatorship.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank various people who offered critical input for the re-
alisation of this article. Eleni Stefanou, recommended excellent bibliographic sugges-
tions while Marilena Alivizatou commented on an early draft of the questionnaire on
which this work is based. Emily Glass kindly allowed us to read her unpublished MA
Thesis. Finally, a special thank you goes to Suela Iacono, Fatos Çuçi, Ilir Gramo and
all the other friends who shared with us their memory of the late 1980s in Albania.
Needless to say the article reflects only the view of the authors and they are solely
responsible for any error and/or inaccuracy.
Appendix
1) Can you list the 5 most important monuments/landmarks of Tirana you can
think of ?
(open answer).
2) Do you think is useful to preserve the memory of the communist period?
a) yes b) no c) doesn’t know.
3) Do you feel attached to the monuments of the communist period?
a) very attached, b) attached, C) not attached, d) doesn’t know.
4) Do you think it is useful to preserve the physical remains of the communist past?
a) yes, b) no c) doesn’t know.
5) Why do you think the physical remains of the communist period should be
protected?
a) because they reminds us all the wrongs made by the regime, b) because they repre-
sent part of the history of this country, c) because are part of people’s lives d) other...,
e) doesn’t know.
6) What do monuments of the communist period in general make you think of ?
a) Enver Hoxha, b) Communism, c) the specific place in which they are located,
d) other...
7) Can you put the following examples of communist buildings in order from
the most important to be preserved to the least so?
a) Institutional buildings, b) bunkers, c) statues and other monuments, d) prison camps
& related cemeteries.
8) Do you think the public in Albania is interested to its communist heritage?

a) yes, b) no, c) doesn’t know.
9) If your answer to the previous question was no, why do you think the public
is not interested in the heritage of the communist period?
a) it reminds a bad period, b) paying too much attention to that period does not help
the process of modernisation of Albania, c) digging too much in the inheritance of
the communist period may threaten some people still holding important positions
within the Albanian state, d) other...
10) Do you think the Albanian state should devote resources to the preservation
of monuments of the communist period?
a) yes, b) no, c) doesn’t know.
11) What does the Pyramid makes you think of ?
a) Enver Hoxha, b) communism, c) Tirana, d) other...
12) Do you think the pyramid is important as a landscape mark for the city of
Tirana?
a) yes, b) no.
13) Do you agree or disagree about the plan to demolish the pyramid?
a) agree, b) disagree, c) doesn’t care.
14) If you disagree, why do you think the pyramid should be preserved?
(open answer).
References
Adhami, S., 2001. Muzeologjia shqiptare. Tiranë: Shtypur në shtypshkronjën “Gervis”.
Apor, B., J. C Behrends, P. Jones & E. A. Rees (eds.), 2004. The Leader Cult in Com-
munist Dictatorship: Stalin and the Eastern Bloc. Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Architecture Studio 2003, Rregullore për zbatimin e studimit urbanistik të qendrës së qytetit
të Tiranës. Unpublished report: Municipality of Tirana.
Bater, J. H., 1980. The Soviet city: ideal and reality. Edward Arnold London.
Bevan, R., 2007. The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War. London: Reaktion Books.
Bleta, I., 2010. Influences of political regime shifts on the urban scene of a capital city. Case study:
Tirana. Unpublished MA Thesis, Middle East Technical University: Ankara.
Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Elsie, R., 2010. Historical Dictionary of Albania. Scarecrow Press.
Fawn, R., 2003. Ideology and national identity in post-communist foreign policies.
Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 19: 1–41.
Friszke, A., 2009. Historical Bias in Poland: Lustration as a Political Instrument, in: H.
Swoboda & J. M. Wiersma (eds.), Politics of the past: the use and abuse of history. Bruxelles:
Socialist Group in the European Parliament, 105–12.
Galaty, M., S. R. Stocker & C. Watkinson, 2000. Beyond Bunkers: Dominance,

Resistance and Change in an Albanian Regional Landscape. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology 12: 197–214.
Gjeçovi, Xh. (ed.), 2009. Historia e popullit shqiptar: në katër vëllime. 4, Shqiptarët gjatë luftës
së dytë botërore dhe pas saj : 1939 – 1990. Tirana: Botimet Toena.
Glass, E. J., 2008. A Very Concrete Legacy: An Investigation into the Materiality and Men-
tality of Communist Bunkers in Albania. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Bristol:
Bristol.
González Ruibal, A., 2009. Topography of terror or cultural heritage? The monu-
ments of Franco’s Spain, in: N. Forbes, R. Page & G. Pérez (eds.), Europe’s Deadly
Century: Perspectives on 20th-century Conflict Heritage. Swindon: English Heritage, 65–72.
Harrison, R., 2013. Forgetting to remember, remembering to forget: late modern heri-
tage practices, sustainability and the ‘crisis’ of accumulation of the past. International
Journal of Heritage Studies 19: 579–95.
Henderson, J. C., 2007. Communism, Heritage and Tourism in East Asia. International
Journal of Heritage Studies 13: 240–54.
Herzfeld, M., 2010. Engagement, Gentrification, and the Neoliberal Hijacking of
History. Current Anthropology 51(S2): 259–67.
Huyssen, A., 2003. Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory. Stanford,
Calif: Stanford University Press.
Iacono, F. & K. Këllici, 2015. Of Pyramids and Dictators: Memory, Work and the
Significance of Communist Heritage in Post-Socialist Albania. Arqueologia Publica 5:
97–122.
Ivanov, S., 2009. Opportunities for developing communist heritage tourism in Bul-
garia. Tourism Review 57: 177–92.
Kaneva, N. (ed.), 2014. Branding Post-Communist Nations: Marketizing National Identities in
the “New” Europe. London and New York: Routledge.
Klosi, A. & A. Lame (eds.), 2011. Piramida e Tiranës: e hijshme, e braktisur, e rrezikuar.
Tiranë: Dudaj.
Light, D., 2000a. Gazing on communism: Heritage tourism and post-communist iden-
tities in Germany, Hungary and Romania. Tourism Geographies 2: 157–76.
Light, D., 2000b. An Unwanted Past: contemporary tourism and the heritage of com-
munism in Romania. International Journal of Heritage Studies 6(2): 145–60.
Logan, W. & Reeves, K., 2009. Places of Pain and Shame: Dealing with ‘Difficult Heritage’.
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Macdonald, S., 2006. Undesirable Heritage: Fascist Material Culture and Historical
Consciousness in Nuremberg. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(1): 9–28.
Macdonald, S., 2008. Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond.
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Maltezi, L. (ed.), 2012. Terrori Komunisti në Shqipëri. Tiranë: Muzeu Historik Kombëtar.
Mattioli, F., 2014. Unchanging boundaries: the reconstruction of Skopje and the poli-
tics of heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(6): 599–615.
Milo, P., 2013. Politika e jashtme e Shqipërisë. Tiranë: Toena.
Myhrberg, K., 2011. Heritage from the Communist Period in Albania - An unwanted heritage
today? Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
O’Donnell, J., 1999. A coming of age: Albania under Enver Hoxha. Boulder: New York:
East European Monographs; Distributed by Columbia University Press.
Otto, J. E., 2008. Representing Communism: Discourses of Heritage Tourism and Economic
Regeneration in Nowa Huta, Poland. Ph.D. dissertation University of Minnesota.
Pojani, D., 2010. Tirana. Cities, 27: 483–95.
Pojani, D., 2015. Urban design, ideology, and power: use of the central square in Ti-
rana during one century of political transformations. Planning Perspectives 30(1): 67–94.
Rampley, M. (ed.), 2012. Heritage, ideology, and identity in Central and Eastern Europe: con-
tested pasts, contested presents. Woodbridge, Suffolk; Rochester, NY: Boydell Press.
Resuli, E., 2010. Piramida, inxhinieri: do ta bëjmë teatër. Drejtori: Do ta shembim.
Shekulli 29/10/2010: 6–7.
Sadiku, Xh., 2011. Genocidi Mbi Kulakët Në Shqipërinë Komuniste: 1948-1990. Tiranë:
Geer.
Schwandner-Sievers, S. & B. J. Fischer (eds.), 2002. Albanian Identities: Myth and His-
tory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Stan, L., 2006. The Vanishing Truth? Politics and Memory in Post-Communist Eu-
rope. Eastern European Quarterly 40: 383–408.
Stefa, E. & G. Mydyti, 2009. Concrete Mushrooms: Bunkers in Albania. Milano: Politecnico
di Milano.
Stewart, P. J. & A. Strathern, 2003. Introduction, in: P. J. Stewart & A. Strathern
(eds.), Landscape, memory and history: anthropological perspectives. London: Pluto, 1–15.
Tunbridge, J. E. & G. J. Ashworth, 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past
as a Resource in Conflict. Chichester and New York: Belhaven Press.
Van Gerven Oei, V. (ed.), 2015. Lapidari. New York and Tirana: Punctum Books.
Vickers, M., 1999. The Albanians a modern history. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers.
Viejo-Rose, D., 2014. Reconstructing Spain: Cultural Heritage and Memory After Civil War.
Sussex Academic Press.
Young, C. & S. Kaczmarek, 2008. The Socialist Past and Postsocialist Urban Identity
in Central and Eastern Europe The Case of Łódź, Poland. European Urban and Regional
Studies 15(1): 53–70.
Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
The trowel and the sickle. Italian archaeology and its Marxist legacy
Elisa Cella1, Maja Gori2, Alessandro Pintucci3 4

1
Museo Civico Etrusco Romano di Trevignano Romano, 2University of Heidelberg, 3Sapienza Univer-
sity of Rome
Abstract:
During the second post-war period (1945-1960s), the Italian Communist party was a hub of intellec-
tuals, and as such influenced the development of Italian archaeology as well. Marxist ideology indeed
was perceived as means to enfranchise the discipline from the old academia. Focusing on of the so-
called “Roman school” of archaeology, this paper analyzes the influence of communist and Marxist
ideologies on the discipline’s development. In particular we will present two prominent and charismatic
archaeologists Renato Peroni and Andrea Carandini. It is argued that while the Marxist research
trajectories were characterized by an initial innovative and driving force that revolutionized Italian
archaeology, the collapse of the Italian Communist Party and the resulting downfall of its intellectual
tradition determined the exhaustion of the discipline’s innovative potential.
Keywords: Italy, Marxism, Communism, Archaeology.
Introduction
During the second post-war period (1945-1960s), the Italian Communist party (PCI
– Partito Comunista Italiano) – amongst the larger of the Western Bloc – deeply influ-
enced the development of Italian archaeology: not only did the PCI play a major role
during the national liberation from Nazism and Fascism in 1945, it was also a crucial
hub for Italian intellectual life. In particular, its ‘think tank’ had a profound impact on
theoretical approaches to the humanities, and archaeology was no exception. Several
archaeologists, indeed, were deeply swayed by communist ideology, which was per-
ceived as means to enfranchise the discipline from the old academia still imbued with
fascist ideology.
By focusing on the development of Italian archaeology from the 1960s onwards,
this paper will analyze the influence of communist and Marxist ideologies on the
development of the discipline. In particular, the academic trajectories of Andrea
Carandini and Renato Peroni, two outstanding archaeologists belonging the so-
called Roman School, will be discussed. These scholars were the main figures
around which two groups of archaeologists gathered. The first, mainly composed
of classicists, clustered around the journal Dialoghi di Archeologia, while the second
was formed by pre- and proto-historic archaeologists belonging to the Centro
Studi per la Protostoria.
Carandini’s and Peroni’s scientific trajectories, their connection with the Italian Marxist
tradition and the PCI, and their relation to the Dialoghi and the Centro Studi groups
respectively, will be discussed by adopting a diachronic perspective focusing on the
period starting from the 1960s until the beginning of the 1990s, when the PCI dis-
4
All authors have contributed equally to the ideas at the basis of this work. Individual author’s contribution
is specified at the end of each paragraph (EC/MG/AP).
CONTACT Elisa Cella, eli.cella@libero.it - Maja Gori, maja.gori@zaw.uni-heidelberg.de - Alessandro Pintucci,
alessandro.pintucci@uniroma1.it
solved. The collapse of the communist governments in the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe, indeed, had deep reverberations throughout Italy. Similarly to other European
Communist parties, the PCI undertook the long path of reform that turned it into
a left-wing progressive party. It is argued that while the Marxist research trajectory
epitomized by the two scholars was characterized by an initial innovative and driving
force that revolutionized Italian archaeology, the collapse of the Italian Communist
Party and the resulting downfall of its intellectual tradition, led to the exhaustion of
the discipline’s innovative potential. (EC/MG/AP)
The First Time of Marxism and Archaeology

Following the Second World War, Italian academia was still profoundly influenced by
reactionary ideologies that characterized the first decades of the twentieth century.
Following the Fascist Regime’s end, indeed, several scholars that were active during the
Ventennio Era (1922-1945) kept their preeminent positions in the Universities. The
most outstanding archaeologists of the fascist era, indeed, rejected only formally their
affiliation to the later Mussolini regime, in order to save their tenures, as the emblem-
atic case of Giulio Jacopi shows (Barbanera 1998: 151–152).
At that time, two outstanding archaeologists were working at La Sapienza Univer-
sity of Rome: Massimo Pallottino and Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli. Pallottino had a
conservative-oriented ideology despite his engagement with a small group of catholic
intellectuals into the Resistenza, the Italian anti fascist organization. He is considered
one of the most important scholars focusing on pre-Roman Etruscan civilization. In
essence, he created the modern discipline of Etruscology (Etruscan civilization and
art). It is important to point out the role that Etruscan civilization had in the debate on
autochthonism, which characterized Italian national identity building discourse already
from the Age of Enlightenment (Harari 2012: 405–418; De Francesco 2013).
Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, on the contrary, had a progressive ideology, and even if
he was forced to pledge his loyalty to the fascist regime, he was fervently connected
to the Italian Communist Party. Bianchi Bandinelli was a remarkable archaeologist
and fine intellectual, and thanks to his political engagement became the paradigm for
the Italian intellectual communist. Born
in 1900 into a noble Italian family, he
started his career in 1929 as a professor
of Classics at the universities of Cagliari,
Groningen, Pisa, Firenze and Rome.
Like the majority of intellectuals, in 1938
he swore allegiance to the fascist regime
(Barbanera 1998: 150).
At the 73rd Venice International Film
Festival Enrico Caria presented a docu-
mentary focusing on the well-known vis-
it that Hitler paid to Rome in May 1938
Figure 1. A black-shirt dressed Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli titled L’uomo che non cambiò la storia (The
guiding Hitler and Mussolini through Museo delle Terme di man who hasn’t changed history). In that
Diocleziano in Rome, May 1938. occasion, Bianchi Bandinelli was sum-
moned by Mussolini to act as archaeological guide for the Führer. Caria’s documentary
is largely based on vintage material from the Istituto Luce, and focuses on Bandinelli’s
dilemma: if he accepts, he will be compromised with a regime that he despises, but if
he refuses he will compromise his studies and his family. Bianchi Bandinelli accepted
the task, and in the days preceding Hitler’s visit he elaborated a plan to kill the two
dictators and change the course of history that he, as we all know, didn’t make effec-
tive. Bianchi Bandinelli took side against Mussolini immediately after, and joined the
PCI in 1944.
As regards his intellectual activity, Bianchi Bandinelli applied Gramsci’s theories to
the study of Classical Art, questioning the traditional Croce aesthetic approach to
antiquity. In his work, for the first time in Italy, archaeology was undertaken adopt-
ing a Marxist interpretative framework. Marxist-oriented historicism soon became a
methodological issue and marked the entrance of concepts like “people” and “produc-
tion” in the field of ancient art (Bianchi Bandinelli 1961). In his view, fully developed
in Archeologia e cultura (1961), each masterpiece reflected social and political elements
of the historical context in which it was conceived and produced. This theoretical
and methodological essay exerted a profound influence on Classical studies, especially
those concerned with the Roman Empire and Late Antique periods. Thanks to his
revolutionary theories and charismatic personality, a group of young archaeologists
fascinated by his teaching decided to graduate in Classical Archaeology.
In 1957 Bianchi Bandinelli was appointed director of the Istituto Gramsci, a position
that he held until 1970. The institute was established as Fondazione Antonio Gramsci
in 1950. One of the Institute’s purposes was to build a structure to involve Italian
intellectuals in the Communist Party cultural policy (Vittoria 2014). For decades the
Gramsci Institute remained the uncontested leader of Marxist-oriented cultural policy
in Italy. As Gundel (2000) pointed out, the Italian Communist party, indeed, sought to
penetrate Italian society and become a force in every sphere of national life. Cultural
struggle had a special significance since it was a sphere in which the party could assert
a greater influence than it could in the political arena, given the barrier against its par-
ticipation in government. By winning support for their ideas among writers and artists
and intellectuals of all types – including archaeologists – leading Communists thought
they could determine the ideas and values that were dominant in the nation (Gundel
2000, 6).
Together with Bianchi Bandinelli, Salvatore Maria Puglisi was another outstanding fig-
ure that dominated the Roman School of archaeology. During the Italian Resistance he
fought together with the anglo-american troops for the liberation of Italy, and following
the Second World War he became a fervent political activist. He studied at La Sapienza
with Ugo Rellini, however part of his formation occurred in the United Kingdom, at
University College, London, where for a period he was a student of Gordon Childe.
This experience was instrumental in developing his theoretical approach to the disci-
pline, which has been described as anthropological-functionalism (Danckers 2014: 497).
When Blanc died in 1960, Puglisi was appointed professor at the University of Rome and
became the first prehistorian to to apply a Marxist approach to the study of the study
of ancient societies. One of the most important legacies of Puglisi is the introduction
of New Archaeology in Italy. By adopting an interdisciplinary approach, he introduced
several new disciplines in the University La Sapienza, such as African Prehistoric Eth-
nography, Prehistoric Ecology, and Archaeology of the Near and Middle East, and in
1962 he established the Museo delle Origini at the Faculty of Humanities, a center which
served both as a didactic and scientific hub. His most important work is beyond any
doubt La civiltà appenninica. Origine e sviluppo delle comunità pastorali in Italia (1959), in which
he adopted an anthropological approach to the study of Bronze Age pastoral communi-
ties. In this work the concepts of infrastructure and superstructure are presented with
an emphasis on economic and social tensions derived from a Marxist perspective, which
in turn was probably influenced by Childe (Danckers 2014: 496–7). Puglisi also engaged
in several fieldwork projects. Among the most relevant excavations that he conducted
the one on the Palatine hill (Puglisi 1951 and 1953), the excavation at the Eneolithic site
of Conelle di Arcevia, and the exceptional Bronze Age fortified settlement of Coppa
Nevigata (Puglisi 1955) need to be remembered. Equally relevant was his research activ-
ity in Turkey at Malatya in collaboration with Alba Palmieri, in Egypt, in Sudan, and in
the Libyan Sahara. Puglisi was also the founder of the scientific journal Origini, which is
one of the most important journals published by the University of Rome. (EC)
All Power to the Soviets! All Power to the Archaeologists!

In 1962, on the pages of Archeologia Classica, Massimo Pallottino (1962: 115–118) launched
his plea calling for the unity of Italian archaeologists. Archeologia Classica was considered
the most important and influential archaeological journal in Italy in the 1960s. Pallottino’s
plea provoked an intense debate among Italian archaeologists, which was recorded in Ar-
cheologia Classica (ArchCl. 1962: 115–118, 261–284; ArchCl. 1963: 113, 271–273; ArchCl.
1964: 319–327; Dialoghi 1967: 131–132; Barbanera 1998: 162–164). Following this ex-
change of ideas, the most successful proposal was the establishment of an association
shaped on the model of British societies. In 1964 the Società degli Archeologi Italiani
(thereafter SAI) was born (Danckers 2014: 497). Among those who were actively partici-
pating into the discussions, there were the so-called Young Archaeologists, a group of
young scholars with a strong Marxist background led by Renato Peroni and based mainly
in Rome. While they adhered to Pallottino’s plea, nevertheless they proposed an alterna-
tive document containing political and social claims directed towards the protection of
the archaeological profession (ArchCl. 1962: 261–264). Bianchi Bandinelli participated
into the debate as well (ArchCl. 1962: 280–284), supporting the Young Archaeologists,
despite having already abandoned the University at the time of Pallottino’s plea.
In accordance with the different positions expressed during the discussions, two main
blocs soon emerged within the SAI: one conservative, much closer to Pallottino’s posi-
tions, and one openly revolutionary. The situation between these factions soon became
tense, leading to a deep political and ideological break destined to characterize Italian
archaeology for at least three decades. The internal conflicts that erupted within the
SAI caused profound disappointment in the Young Archaeologists. Following their
rapid escalation to leading positions, most of the old members resigned leaving to the
Marxist group what R. Peroni defined as an empty nutshell (Peroni 1988: 76–82).
The social and political turmoil characterizing the end of the 1960s, pushed the Young
Archaeologists to look for new spaces in which archaeology could be debated together
with social and political issues. Most of archaeological journals, including Archeologia
Classica, indeed, were publishing only ‘traditional’ archaeological subjects. The SAI’s
failure was central to the establishment in 1967 of the journal Dialoghi di Archeologia, an
innovative editorial project that merged archaeological research with political engage-
ment. Dialoghi di Archaeologia can be defined as a social experiment openly inspired by
Marxism. Bianchi Bandinelli was appointed as journal’s director, however he never
actively participated in the project. The peculiarity of Dialoghi di Archeologia was to
combine two principal sets of objectives: one theoretical and methodological, and the
other, political. The journal was thus structured into two independent parts: the first,
more traditional, comprising research papers, and the second, dedicated to political
discussion, named Documenti e Discussioni (Documents and Discussion) and authored
collectively by the Amici, where every proposal and decision were collegially taken
(Iacono 2014, 3). It is worth mention-
ing that the journal included the first
Italian open debate on the use of
quantitative methods applied to Pre-
and Protohistory (Guidi 2002: 355)
thanks to two of Puglisi’s former stu-
dents, Alberto Cazzella and Amilcare
Bietti, who organised in 1974 within
the Dialoghi experience the first work-
shop focusing on the use of quantita-
tive methods in archaeology.
The voluntary self-exclusion of Bian-
chi Bandinelli from the University in
1964 was mentioned earlier. The lack
of a strong reference point within
the University, disoriented the Young
Archaeologists, but also favored the
renovation of the discipline by giving
them autonomy. Despite excavation
practice was still evoking fascist digs
in the center of Rome, this group of
Marxist scholars stressed the neces-
sity for new methods in archaeological
Figure 2. The cover of the first issue of Dialoghi di
Archeologia.
excavations, advocating thus the im-
portance of material culture in under-
standing the past. The work carried out in the pre-fascist era by scholars like Giacomo
Boni, Nino Lamboglia and Luigi Bernabò Brea – the last two openly supporting the
Young Archaeologists – was taken as an example to develop modern stratigraphic ar-
chaeology in Italy (Carandini 2000: 37).
Two of the most preeminent Marxist Young Archaeologists were Renato Peroni, the
already mentioned Young Archaeologists’ leader, and Andrea Carandini, a former Bi-
anchi Bandinelli student. They would become two of the most outstanding scholars in
their respective field of study, Protohistory and Classical Archaeology. (AP)
Typology and Chronology: the Realm of Italian Protohistory

Renato Peroni (1930-2010) was born in Vienna into an Austrian-Italian family. He
graduated in paleoethnology in Rome in 1950. From 1965 to 1971 Peroni worked at
the Ethnographic Museum Luigi Pigorini (Rome) and, in 1974, he became full Profes-
sor at the University of Rome Sapienza, where he taught until 2003, when he retired.
Thanks to his studies at the University of Freiburg, Peroni merged the Italian tradition
of prehistoric studies with the German one, importing into Italy the division between
pre- and protohistory (Ur- und Frühgeschichte) that characterizes the discipline in Ger-
man speaking countries. The influence of Central European historicism and cultural
history approach characterized Peroni’s early work (Cardarelli & Vanzetti 2014: 516).
In 1966, Peroni participated in the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohis-
toric Sciences (UISPP) conference held in Prague, where he was impressed by the ap-
proach to social and territorial issues of the socialist archaeologists from non-Soviet
countries. Peroni’s formal adhesion to historical materialism and Marxist approach
developed significantly after 1968. Indeed, during the 1970s he definitively abandoned
the post-war mitteleuropean historicism that had characterized his early production,
which was influenced by scholars such as Gero von Merhart and Hermann Müller-
Karpe (Cardarelli & Vanzetti 2014: 516–517). The apogee of his Marxist phase is
expressed in the work Le popolazioni dell’età dei metalli, published in 1978 in the volume
Archeologia (Cardarelli & Vanzetti 2014: 518).
In a discipline dominated by Classical Archaeology, the contribution of Peroni was
fundamental, both for having introduced in Italy the chrono-typological classification
of artefacts and the statistic-combinatory method (1959), and having laid the founda-
tions for a modern reconstruction of social and economic structures of prehistoric so-
cieties (Peroni 1959; Guidi 1988: 286–287; Guidi 1988: 286–287; Guidi 2015). Peroni’s
approach to chrono-typological classification was very different from the one that clas-
sical archaeologists were experimenting with in the same years. This methodological
difference raised a lively debate (Dialoghi 1976-77: 652–655).
In contrast to Carandini and Bianchi Bandinelli, the relationship between Puglisi and
Peroni was conflicting. In particular, the point of contention was Puglisi’s adoption
of Childe’s approach – and later of New Archaeology’s principles – and Peroni’s cat-
egoric opposition to any form of explanation based on or even recalling diffusionism.
The fracture became irreconcilable. Vehemently opposing the diffusionist paradigm,
change in material culture was explained mainly in terms of transformation within so-
cieties rather than being caused by external factors. This approach remained at the ba-
sis of Peroni’s entire scientific production. The importance of the chronologic fram-
ing of archaeological facies on typological basis is evident in the titles of works like Per
una definizione dell’aspetto culturale subappenninico come fase cronologica a sé stante, published in
1959, or L’età del bronzo in Italia: per una cronologia della produzione metallurgica (with Gian
Luigi Carancini), published in 1999.
As a reaction, and in opposition to what he considered an old and inadequate
methodological framework, he founded in 1980 in Rome and in Milan the Centro Studi
per la Protostoria. Many scholars subscribed to the Centro Studi’s manifesto (Nizzo 2015:
184; 188–189). The research center contributed to the organization of two ground-
breaking conferences and publications: Il Bronzo Finale in Italia (1980), Necropoli e usi
funerari dell’età del ferro (1981) and Popoli e facies culturali celtiche a nord e a sud delle Alpi dal
V al I secolo a. C. (1983).
In one of his last works published posthumous in 2010, in criticizing Jared Diamond’s
Collapse (2005), he stressed once more the importance of the relation between pro-
duction forces and production relations as factors of change, an element that was
overlooked by the American scholar (Cardarelli & Vanzetti 2014: 520), confirming his
constant adhesion to a Marxist paradigm throughout his whole academic production.
The tight connection of his research methodology to a Marxist analytical framework
is also present in some of his works focusing on teaching, like the well-known Con-
siderazioni preliminari per l’insegnamento della preistoria (1975). Besides his methodological
approach to the study of material culture, one of Peroni’s most important legacies is
the creation of a “school”. Indeed, thanks to his uncommon charisma, strong com-
mitment to teaching, and a deep bond with his former students, he gathered a group
of archaeologists who outlived him. (MG)
Studying Pottery in the University’s Cellar

Andrea Carandini was born to Niccolò Carandini, the first Italian ambassador in Lon-
don (Bartoli 2007), after the end of the Second World War. Carandini’s interest as
student at the University of Rome focused initially on Classical Philology. However,
after meeting Bianchi Bandinelli, he became immediately enthusiastic of his approach
to archaeology and decided to abandon the idea of a career as philologist, devoting
himself to archaeology instead. With only one exam in Classical Archaeology in his
curriculum studiorum, in 1962 he graduated defending a thesis with Bianchi Bandinelli as
supervisor (Carandini 2000: 18).
Following Bandinelli’s resignation as professor, the vacant chair of Classical Archaeol-
ogy was assigned to Giovanni Becatti, who raised Carandini’s interest for fieldwork and
for the impressive amount of pottery collected during the Ostia excavations (Carandini
2000: 22–23). On that occasion, Becatti proved to be even more open than Bianchi
Bandinelli, encouraging the young scholars to experiment with new approaches to arche-
ology focusing on the study of pottery, which until that time had been extraordinarily
neglected.1 This attention for pottery materialized into the establishment, together with
Clementina Panella and Daniele Manacorda among others, of the first ceramic labora-
tory at the University of Rome, named Cantinone (Italian slang for large cellar) that was
located in the wide faculty’s basements. Following the ideological path traced by Bianchi
Bandinelli’s theoretical approach to the study of antiquity, Carandini modernized Classi-
cal Archaeology, merging English empiricism with Marxist historicism.
Carandini is one of the few archaeologists of his generation who wrote down his
thoughts on Italian archaeology and archaeologists (Carandini 1981; Carandini 2000).
Thanks to his memoirs, we know that his experiences within the PCI in the 1960s were
relevant for his intellectual development. His Marxist approach entered in his scientific
production through works such Archeologia e cultura materiale (1975), and L’anatomia della
1
This aspect pertaining to Becatti’s teaching was recently remembered by Carandini himself in the occa-
sion of M. Medri’s presentation of the last volume of the Terme del Nuotatore excavations at Palazzo
Massimo in Rome in 2014.
scimmia (1979), the latter focusing on a Marxist analysis applied to history. Carandini
will later remember that Renato Peroni was one of the few scholars who agreed to
review his Archeologia e cultura materiale (Carandini 2000: 75), published, not by chance,
in Dialoghi di Archeologia (Peroni 1976-77: 648). In addition to the critics focusing on the
notions of type and typology, Peroni questioned Carandini’s anthropological approach,
which was close to the one popular in the USA and linked to the New Archaeology.
His main criticism was centered on the fact that anthropology was de facto opposite to
the historical approach that characterized the Marxist methodology adopted by Peroni
(1976-77: 655–657).
Between the 1970s and the 1980s Carandini excavated the Roman villa of Settefin-
estre, which yielded a large amount of data from which several works on the Roman
slave system have stemmed: Settefinestre (1986), Schiavi in Italia (1988), Società romana e
produzione schiavistica (1981), Storia di Roma (1989). His interest was mainly centered on
the complexity of Roman society and on the means of production.
Part of his work, especially Società romana e produzione schiavistica and Storia di Roma,
adopts a multidisciplinary approach. Carandini gathered a group of historians, an-
thropologists, philologists and archaeologists to work together and discuss the Roman
economic system. Most of these scholars were part of the Istituto Gramsci, and once
the above mentioned books were published, the group dissolved leaving a void in
these fields of expertise. From the end of the 1980s, Carandini started to investigate
the northern Palatine hill slopes, where he excavated relevant protohistoric contexts
that he connected to the origin of Rome. Indeed, the Palatine hill was chosen for its
significant connection to the foundation and the early history of the Eternal City.
In 1981 Carandini published the first stratigraphic manual in Italian, bringing to Italian
scholars and above all to Italian students, the advancements in methodology of British
archaeology of 1960s and 1970s.
In the same years, the Fall of the Berlin Wall had relevant consequences also for Italian
archaeology. In 1992 the last edition of Dialoghi di Archeologia was published, and by this
time it was very distant from the spirit that had animated the creation of the journal in
1967. Carandini distanced himself from Marxist ideology and started to be fascinated
by Roman archaic mythology and foundation archetypes.
From this moment onwards, his interest for the so-called regal period of the city con-
siderably increased. The foundation of Rome, and its primeval topography, rather than
the social and economic aspects of the Roman world became the focus of his research.
This can be observed in works like Palatium e Sacra via I (1995), and La nascita di Roma.
Dei, lari, eroi e uomini all’alba di una civiltà (1997). The launch of the latter book was
an opportunity for Carandini and Peroni to engage in a debate centered on the con-
trast between historical and archaeological methods in the study of the past (Caran-
dini 2000: 76). While Peroni saw in Carandini’s work a trace of continuity with the
statements expressed in Archeologia e cultura materiale, Carmine Ampolo, a professor
of Greek History at the University of Pisa whose work was equally centered on the
origins of Rome, strongly disagreed with Peroni, labeling Carandini’s work as “scien-
tific opportunism” (Carandini 2000; 76). Ampolo was one of the first of a long line
of scholars criticizing the new direction of Carandini’s work (see among others Bietti
Sestieri 2000; Testa 2012; Ampolo 2013). Carmine Ampolo is a historian and archae-
ologist, who studied at the University of Rome and in the 1970s became a member of
the Dialoghi group. One of the most severe criticisms that Ampolo levelled at Caran-
dini regarded the theoretical framework of his later works, where Carandini distanced
himself from his original material approach, to turn his interests towards the study of
the irrational sphere. Ampolo even accused Carandini of misusing historical sources
by mixing heterogeneous approaches (anthropology, history, history of religion, ar-
chaeology) with the final goal of validating his interpretation of the discoveries on the
Palatine (Ampolo 2013). Ampolo’s criticism finds validation in the work of Carandini
himself. Throughout his later work indeed Carandini pointed out how his interest
shifted through the irrational sphere following his encounter in 1980 with Matte Blan-
co (Carandini 1981: 258-269; 2000: 80; 2002; 2004: 107). The Chilean psychoanalyst
theorized an impact of the unconscious on personality larger than Freud had done
with his original tripartition between Id-Ego-SuperEgo. Carandini made abundant use
of Matte Blanco’s theories to describe the collective subconscious of ancient peoples,
which was, in his interpretation, directly linked with their construction of myths.
Following the dissolution of the Istituto Gramsci cluster, Carandini tried to fill this
void by applying himself anthropology, history, topography and other disciplines to
the study of the past. One of the most frequent criticisms addressed to Carandini, in-
deed, was that in the later stage of his career he avoided involving other scholars from
other disciplines in his research projects. Instead, he isolated himself with the result
that the quality of his work was far from reaching the peaks of earlier years (Testa
2012; Ampolo 2013; Giuliani 2012).
Carandini’s recent scientific production focuses on the nature of power as well, as in
La casa di Augusto. Dai Lupercalia al Natale (2008), Le case del potere nell’antica Roma (2010),
and Il fuoco sacro. Vesta, Enea, Romolo (2016). In the last decade, his scientific production
was even centered on the history of Christianity. After Romulus, another founding
father of Rome caught his attention. Saint Peter became thus the subject of the book
Su questa pietra. Gesù, Pietro e la nascita della Chiesa (2013), which was dedicated to the new
pope Francis. One of the most interesting aspects is his fascination with archetypical
figures of father founders: Romulus, Augustus and S. Peter.
As a provocation, it may be argued that Carandini’s latest research interests prallel in
a way the nationalist turn that occurred in the eastern block after the fall of Commu-
nism. Indeed, in the post Cold War period, national archaeologies (Trigger 1984; Kohl
1998) flourished in the states established following the collapse of federative socialist
regimes, and personalities such as, for example, Alexander the Great in the Republic of
Macedonia or the emperor Diocletian, in Croatia, became ‘father funders’ and symbols
of these new nation states. (AP)
And Now? Approaches to Archeology in the post-communist Era

At Sapienza University of Rome, Renato Peroni and Andrea Carandini epitomized the
revolutionary forces that renewed archaeology in the 1960s and the 1970s. Carandini
has been a pioneer and an experimenter, driven by a limitless curiosity. Open to inno-
vation and change, he merged his hunger for knowledge with a unique education built
during his British years and developed within an international intellectual network. He
encouraged a group of scholars to experiment with new approaches and to explore
new research areas. Carandini was a charismatic leader, just like Renato Peroni. The
latter, merging the German approach with the Italian Marxist tradition revolutionized
Italian Pre- and Protohistory and created a solid school that outlived him. By introduc-
ing foreign scientific influences and by recasting them with local research traditions
and Marxist ideology, they introduced new theoretical frameworks and interpretative
models. However, unlike Peroni, in his later works Carandini abandoned the Marxist
interpretative framework in favor of a mythical-historical analysis of the past.
Figure 3. Renato Peroni (left, photograph by R. De Vita) and Andrea Carandini (right, photograph from
the Website www.alchetron.com).
Following the fall of Communism, the preeminent role that Marxist ideologies had
in the Italian intellectual debate in the 1950s and the 1960s was not replaced by other
revolutionary ideas or theoretical approaches. The lively discussions that animated the
groups of archaeologists gathered around these two outstanding scholars gradually
waned. The lack of a general cultural and political framework seems to have been one
of the causes that contributed to the weakening of the original revolutionary wave and
led to the stagnation of theoretical approaches that characterize the last decades.
An analysis of the papers published in Dialoghi di Archeologia, can help to understand these
phenomena. In Dialoghi, the names of the main authors contributing to the section
comprising research papers rarely changed. What was originally conceived as an alterna-
tive journal to oppose mainstream and conservative ways of doing archaeology, became
conservative itself. Iacono (2014: fig. 4), indeed, has demonstrated that in Dialoghi there
was a shift in the number of papers focusing on cultural and political debates, which were
replaced by scientific papers. Furthermore, Carandini himself saw another shortcoming
in the Dialoghi experience (Carandini 2000: 65): the failed attempt to merge history, phi-
lology, archaeology, and epigraphy did not lead to a real evolution in the original subjects.
A group of young scholars willing to innovate the discipline slowly became a group of
academics not concerned anymore with theoretical issues.
The challenge of the post-Peroni and post-Carandini era is now open, as archaeology,
in primis the ‘Roman school’ needs to disenfranchise itself from these two major fig-
ures and their legacies. Looking at the archaeological discipline in a wider perspective,
extending thus this self-reflection to Italy as a whole, at present, the theoretical debate
seems to gravitate mainly around two topics: the use of technology and hard sciences
in archaeological research, and the exploitation of results and intellectual property.
Even if both topics are of overwhelming importance, they cover only partly the need
of elaborating new interpretative frameworks and approaches to the discipline. Marx-
ist ideologies represented a driving force in Italian archaeology. They stimulated the
elaboration of novel theoretical approaches to the discipline, also thanks to a constant
dialogue with foreign scientific realities. Now that their innovative wave seems to be
definitively exhausted, it is time for Italian archeology to start a new self-reflexive pro-
cess and venture on new paths. (EC/MG/AP)
References
ArchCl. 1962: Archeologia Classica XIV: 115–18, 261–284.

ArchCl. 1963: Archeologia Classica XV: 113–5, 271–273.
ArchCl. 1964: Archeologia Classica XVI: 319–327.
Dialoghi 1967: Dialoghi di Archeologia I: 131–132.
Barbanera, M., 1998. L’archeologia degli italiani. Rome: Editori Riuniti.
Bartoli, E., 2007. Milord. Avventure dell’anglomania italiana. Vicenza: Neri Pozza.
Bianchi Bandinelli, R., 1961. Archeologia e cultura. Rome: Editori Riuniti.
Bietti Sestieri, A. M., 2000. L’archeologia processuale in Italia, o l’impossibilità di
essere normali, in: Archeologia teorica. X Ciclo di lezioni sulla ricerca applicata in Archeologia.
(Certosa di Pontignano, Siena, 9-14 agosto 1999). Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio, 213–242.
Carandini, A., 2004. Logica del mito, in: P. Bria & F. Oneroso (eds.), La bi-logica fra
mito e letteratura: saggi sul pensiero di Ignacio Matte Blanco. Milan: Franco Angeli, 107–113.
Carandini, A., 1975. Archeologia e cultura materiale. Dai “lavori senza gloria” nell’antichità a
una politica dei beni culturali. Bari: Di Donato.
Carandini, A., 1979. L’anatomia della scimmia. La formazione economica della società prima del
capitale. Torino: Giulio Einaudi.
Carandini, A., 1981. Storie dalla terra, Torino: Einaudi.
Carandini, A. (ed.), 1986. Settefinestre, I-III. Modena: Panini.
Carandini, A., 1988. Schiavi in Italia. Gli strumenti pensanti dei Romani fra tarda Repubblica
e medio Impero. Rome: Nuova Italia Scientifica.
Carandini, A., 1981. Società romana e produzione schiavistica: merci, mercati e scambi nel Me-
diterraneo. Bari: Laterza.
Carandini, A., 1989. La villa romana e la piantagione schiavistica, in: E. Gabba & A.
Schiavone (eds.), Storia di Roma, IV. Torino: Giulio Einaudi, 101-192.
Carandini, A. (ed.), 1986. Storia di Roma, III, 1. Torino: Giulio Einaudi.
Carandini, A., 2008. La casa di Augusto. Dai Lupercalia al Natale. Bari: Laterza.
Carandini, A., 2000. Giornale di scavo. Torino: Einaudi.
Carandini, A., 2002. Archeologia del mito. Torino: Einaudi.
Carandini, A., 2010. Le case del potere nell’antica Roma. Bari: Laterza.
Carandini, A., 2013. Su questa pietra. Gesù, Pietro e la nascita della Chiesa. Bari: Laterza.
Cardarelli, A. & A. Vanzetti, 2014. L’approccio di Renato Peroni allo studio delle
società protostoriche dalla fine degli anni ’60 del XX secolo, in: A. Guidi (ed.), 150
anni di preistoria e protostoria in Italia, Atti della XLVI Riunione Scientifica IIPP. Roma,
515–521.
Danckers, J., 2014. Protostoria italiana e marxismo nell’Italia del secondo dopoguerra,
in: A. Guidi (ed.), 150 anni di preistoria e protostoria in Italia, Atti della XLVI Riunione
Scientifica IIPP, Roma, 495–499.
De Francesco, A., 2013. The Antiquity of the Italian Nation. The Cultural Origins of a Po-
litical Myth in Modern Italy 1796-1943, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giuliani, C. F., 2012. Archeologia oggi. La fantasia al potere. Quaderni di archeologia e
cultura classica. Tibur: Tiburis Artistica.
Guidi, A., 2002. An Italian Perspective, in: P. F. Biehl, A. Gramsch & A. Marciniak
(eds.), Archäologien Europas/Archaeologies of Europe. Geschichte Methoden und Theorien/His-
tory, Methods and Theory, Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher. Munster: Waxmann,
353–360.
Guidi, A., 2015. Quantitative methods in Italian archaeology: a review. Archeologia e
Calcolatori 26, 45–58.
Gundle, S., 2000. Between Hollywood and Moscow: The Italian Communists and the Challenge
of Mass Culture, 1943–1991. Durham: Duke University Press.
Harari, M., 2012. Etruscologia e fascismo. Athenaeum 100: 405–418.
Iacono, F., 2014. A Pioneering Experiment: Dialoghi di Archeologia between Marx-
ism and Political Activism. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 24.5: 1–10.
Kohl, P., 1998. Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and
the Reconstructions of the Remote Past. Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 223–246.
Nizzo, V., 2015. Archeologia e antropologia della morte. Storia di un’idea. Bari: Edipuglia.
Pallottino, M., 1962. Per una coscienza ed una azione unitaria degli archeologi. Ar-
cheologia Classica 16: 115–118.
Peroni, R., 1959. Per una definizione dell’aspetto culturale subappenninico come fase cronologica a
sé stante. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Peroni, R., 1975. Considerazioni preliminari per l’insegnamento della preistoria. Emi-
lia pre-romana 7: 399–405.
Peroni, R., 1976-77. Dialoghi di Archeologia: 648.
Peroni, R., 1980. Il Bronzo Finale in Italia. Bari: Laterza.
Peroni, R. (ed.), 1981. Necropoli e usi funerari nell’età del ferro. Bari: De Donato.
Peroni, R., 1983. Popoli e facies culturali celtiche a nord e a sud delle Alpi dal V al I secolo a. C.
Atti del Colloquio Internazionale Milano 14 - 16 novembre 1980. Milan: Comune di
Milano.
Peroni, R., 1988. Dalla Società degli Archeologi Italiani all’Albo: motivi per un’unità
politica, in: Ancost, Verso una professione, Atti del seminario per l’elaborazione di una
proposta di ordine professionale per gli archeologi, Roma 23–24 Febbraio 1988. Man-
tua: SAP, 76–82.
Peroni, R. & G.L. Carancini, 1999. L’età del bronzo in Italia: per una cronologia della produ-
zione metallurgica. Perugia: Ali&no.
Puglisi, S. M., P. Romanelli, A. Davico & G. De Angelis D’Ossat, 1951. Gli abitatori
primitivi del Palatino attraverso le testimonianze archeologiche e le nuove indagini
stratigrafiche sul Germalo. Monumenti Antichi 41: 1-146.
Puglisi, S. M., 1953. Scoperta di tombe arcaiche nel Foro Romano. Rivista di Scienze
Preistoriche 8: 1–2.
Puglisi, S. M., 1955. Industria microlitica nei livelli a ceramica impressa di Coppa Ne-
vigata. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, 10: 19–36.
Puglisi, S. M., 1959. La civiltà appenninica. Origine e sviluppo delle comunità pastorali in Italia.
Firenze: Sansoni.
Testa, A., 2012. Verità del mito e verità della storia. Una critica storico-religiosa a re-
centi ipotesi sui primordia di Roma. Mediterranea 10: 195–234.
Trigger, B. G., 1984. Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist.
Man 19: 355–370.
Vittoria, A., 2014. Togliatti e gli intellettuali. La politica culturale dei comunisti italiani (1944–
1964). Roma: Carocci.
Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Exploring Approaches to Italian Early Medieval Archaeology in

Post-communist Europe
Giulia Vollono
University of Sheffield
Abstract
The fall of the Berlin Wall and, subsequently, of communism in Europe had profound consequences
for the social and political environment of many European countries, including Italy. In this paper I
discuss the impact that these, now historical, events and the new socio-political arena that emerged in
their aftermath had upon Italian Early Medieval Archaeology from two interconnected perspectives.
On the one hand I consider the history of a discipline that, although strongly characterised by a Marxist
approach at its birth, appears not to have been subject to significant changes in its theoretical outlook
as a consequence. On the other, through a consideration of the changing character of major exhibitions
on the Lombard period, I explore the role that archaeology has played in the construction of a trans-
national European narrative in a post-communist Europe while maintaining a central role in the
negotiation of local identities. The ultimate aim of this paper is to re-evaluate the latest developments
in Italian archaeology from a fresh perspective, considering the impact that major contemporary events
can have on our perception, interpretation and narration of the past.
Keywords: Early Medieval Archaeology, Lombard Italy, Post communism, Exhibitions,

Identity.
Introduction
This paper was presented at the 20th EAA conference as part of the session Impact
of the Fall of Communism on European Heritage1. It focuses on developments in Italian
1
Many thanks are due to the organisers of the EAA conference session and editors of this volume,
Dr. Maja Gori and Professor Valerie Higgins, for their enthusiastic reception of this paper and their
encouragement in bringing it to publication. I am especially grateful for their insightful criticism and
comments, and the patience they showed during the editorial process. Thanks are due also to an
anonymous reviewer for critically reading the manuscript and providing useful suggestions to improve
it. My attendance and participation in the conference was made possible by sponsorship from the Petrie
Watson Exhibitions, University of Sheffield, to which I am very grateful. Grateful thanks are also due to
the Arts & Humanities Research Council and The University of Sheffield whose award of a scholarship
have allowed me to undertake the doctoral research that inspired this paper, and to Professor Dawn
Hadley and Professor John Moreland for their invaluable advice and supervision. Special thanks go
to Professor John Moreland for the stimulating discussions on archaeological theory and Medieval
Archaeology over the years and for his comments on this paper. I am also grateful to Dr Mark Peters for
his support during this research, the fruitful exchange of ideas on the topic and for editing my English.
Thanks are due also to Dr Alessandro Sebastiani and Angela Catania who kindly gave their thoughts
and opinions.
CONTACT Giulia Vollono, gvollono1@sheffield.ac.uk

86 G. Vollono
Medieval Archaeology over the last 40 years, reflecting on how major contemporary
social and political events may or may not have influenced the themes and approaches
that have characterised the development and maturation of the discipline. The case
that I present here developed out of research being conducted on the archaeology
of Lombard Italy for my doctoral thesis and, particularly, on processes of identity
construction2. These are preliminary thoughts, first reflections on a complex and
multifaceted subject that is, in my opinion, deserving of greater consideration and
critical analysis. They are offered here as the first steps into what promises to be a
fruitful and enlightening debate.
In this contribution I argue that Early Medieval Archaeology in Italy remained,
apparently, immune to the substantial political, social and economic changes that
followed the fall of the Berlin Wall. While the theoretical roots of the discipline were
deeply embedded in Marxism, the academic world in Italy continued to pursue its own
research themes and approaches despite the events of the late 1980s and 1990s and
the changing intellectual environment they brought about. However, in analysing the
organization of major exhibitions on the Lombard period as a case study, I further
argue that many of the issues resulting from the fall of communism, such as the
construction of a new European identity, the renegotiation of regional identities and
the place of local communities in this new socio-political landscape found expression
in higher profile events that were targeted towards the wider public. I then briefly
reflect on the latest developments of the discipline in the face of the new challenges
that European countries have been experiencing since the turn of the millennium.
Before exploring the nature and character of Early Medieval Archaeology it is first
necessary to briefly summarise the main consequences of the end of communism in
Europe and what impact they had upon the political landscape of Italy. The fall of
the Berlin Wall represented the end of a perception of the world that had prevailed
since the conclusion of the Second World War. The opposition between the Eastern
and Western Blocs suddenly and dramatically ceased to exist with consequences
on many socio-political levels. Europe was no longer physically and geographically
divided, allowing greater freedom of movement and communication between
countries than had been seen before. The clash between western capitalism and the
communist system disappeared and with that the constant threat of imminent conflict.
The countries formerly of the Eastern Bloc, abruptly relabelled as central European,
witnessed massive social and political changes that inevitably challenged their identities,
sometimes with dramatic consequences. From the fall of the Wall a new, complex and
socially mobile Europe emerged, no longer defined by a simple dualism between east
and west, with each country having to renegotiate its own identity and relationships
with this dynamic, mutable entity.
Towards the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s the political landscape in
Italy also changed considerably: the communist party, founded in 1921, ceased to exist
partly as a direct consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1993 a substantial
‘kickback scandal’ involving major political figures, ultimately, brought about the
2
My PhD project, entitled Constructing identity in Lombard Italy, is currently on-going in the Department
of Archaeology of the University of Sheffield.
demise of the Socialist party. A year later the Democrazia Cristiana, a moderate party
who had either formed or been an integral part of the Italian government since 1944,
dissolved into smaller and much less successful groups. All of these events combined
to completely transform a political situation that had been in place since the end of
the Second World War and so brought to an end the so-called ‘First Republic’. From
its ashes a number of new political parties emerged that would populate the Italian
political stage for the next 20 years. For example, the Lega Nord, a secessionist and
populist party, Alleanza Nazionale, heir of the post-fascist parties and Forza Italia a
new political project led by Silvio Berlusconi. Onto this stage a series of more-or-
less left-wing parties also appeared, who became progressively more moderate (for an
overview and discussion of the Italian political situation in this period see e.g. Gundle
& Parker 1996).
Medieval archaeology in Italy

It would be reasonable to suppose that such socio-political turmoil following the
collapse of communism, both on a national and international scale, might have had
significant consequences on the cultural aspects of Italian society, including the way
in which archaeology was conducted. Indeed, such ideas are strengthened when we
consider the theoretical framework in which Italian Medieval Archaeology operated
when established as an independent discipline in the 1970s.
Arguably, the event that, at least symbolically, marked the birth of Italian Medieval
Archaeology was the publication of the first issue of the journal Archeologia Medievale in
1974. The editorial of this inaugural issue (ArchMed 1974) was in all respects a manifesto
aimed at defining the boundaries of the discipline and its approaches. As others have
already noted (Delogu 1986: 499; Augenti 2003: 515; Brogiolo 2009: 155), the Marxist
philosophy behind these few pages is self-evident: historical periodization was to be
based on “the transformations of the means and relationships of production” (ArchMed 1974:
7, my translation). Emphasis was placed on the study of the production, distribution
and consumption of goods in connection with historical processes with the aim of
accessing and studying the “subordinate classes” (ArchMed 1974: 8, my translation).
This declaration included the history of settlement as well as that of landscapes, to
investigate people’s technical and economic relationship with the environment.
These were, in fact, the themes that were to become predominant in Medieval
Archaeology. From the 1980s onwards a significant amount of data was collected
both from the excavation of fortified sites and villages in rural areas and also from
urban contexts, brought about by redevelopment activities and archaeological risk
assessments. Research in those years became focussed especially on the history of
settlements and landscapes dating from the late antique period to the tenth and
eleventh centuries (e.g. Hudson 1981; Brogiolo 1984; 1987; La Rocca 1986; Francovich
& Milanese 1990).
These lines of enquiry were further developed in the 1990s when the data collected
during the 1970s and 1980s, alongside more recent excavations, were frequently
reworked to present synthetic discussions on specific themes or geographical regions
(for an overview of the main themes that characterise the history of Medieval
Archaeology in Italy see Gelichi 1997; Pani Ermini 2000; Brogiolo 2009). The need
88 G. Vollono
to reflect upon the achievements and developments of two decades of Medieval

Archaeology and synthesise its results is visible in the high number of seminars and
conferences that were held and published during the 1990s (for significant examples
see, e.g. Francovich & Noyé 1994; Brogiolo 1995, 1996; Brogiolo & Cantino Wataghin
1998). This reorientation of the Marxist approach, so explicitly defined in 1974
but now less openly referred to, did not bring about any corresponding debate and
discussion over the theoretical framework of the discipline. As Brogiolo (2009: 156)
has argued, developments in Italian Medieval Archaeology, and its contribution to the
international debate, had (and continue to have) more to do with new methodological
applications, in particular computerization and the systematic application of scientific
analyses to material culture, than with theoretical debate.
In contrast with the situation in other countries Medieval Archaeology in Italy was
largely unaffected by the emergence of post-modern theoretical frameworks of
interpretation. These new approaches, which were partly the result of the advent
of a new world and which encompassed all of the uncertainty that such dramatic
historical changes provoke, did not catch on. Early Medieval Archaeology was, instead,
experiencing a phase of ‘positivism’ where the principles developed by the processual
tradition were applied. The lack of theoretical debate in general and the coldness
towards the paradigmatic shift brought about by post-processualism in particular, has
been acknowledged by several scholars over the years (e.g. Augenti 2003: 213; Brogiolo
2009: 156 Gelichi 2011: 10–11; 2015). Brogiolo (2009: 156), for example, explains this
direction in Italian Medieval Archaeology through a combination of reasons that he
sums up by observing:
“in that period, the most important problem to solve was that of the development of
an archaeological discipline interested not just in the study of artefacts of art-historical
relevance, but aimed at the reconstruction of complex stratifications through a multi-
disciplinary approach.”
Certainly, this is a complex topic, which extends across the discipline of Italian
archaeology as a whole (Augenti 2003: 213; Gelichi 2015: 8). Indeed, the diverse but
interrelated factors that may have determined this stagnation in the theoretical debate
are deserving of more careful consideration and in depth analysis that are possible
within the scope and purpose of this paper.
A case study: presenting the Lombards to the public

It would appear from this brief overview that academic archaeology in Italy was, to all
intents and purposes, untouched by the wider social and political changes that resulted
from the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, when we shift our attention from the way
in which archaeology was conducted to the ways in which it was presented, we begin
to see that the effects of these momentous events did indeed filter through and have
profound consequences. In this respect major exhibitions are particularly revealing
and provide a good source through which we can view the relationship between
scholarly work and contemporary society. This connection is strengthened by the fact
that the curators and organisers of exhibitions are, themselves, often members of the
academic community. It can be argued that while the socio-political changes of the
last thirty years did not greatly influence the wider theoretical framework of Medieval
Archaeology in Italy they did have an impact on the interpretations and narratives
produced by Italian scholars and that this change in perspective is most noticeable in
events directed towards the general public.
A possible explanation of this phenomenon is that to be successful, marketable
and financially viable exhibitions have to present timely topics that are perceived as
important by the scholarly community and non-academics such as the general public,
sponsors and local institutions alike. These exhibitions also need to present coherent
and accessible journeys into history, which are, by necessity, simplified versions of the
more complex ‘deliberations of the specialists’. As such, the objects put on display,
as well as the texts that accompany them, are carefully chosen to convey meaningful
messages for the public. In these types of arenas the link between past and present
concerns is inevitably more conspicuous. It is also important to emphasise that these
messages are then fed back into the academic community, which make extensive use
of exhibition catalogues as sources for students as well as for research purposes. To
explore the implications of these observations it is worth examining some of the
major exhibitions on the history and archaeology of the Lombards held in Italy since
the 1970s.
It was at end of the sixth century that the Lombards first arrived in the Italian peninsula
and proceeded to gradually establish dominion over some of its territories. In 774 they
were defeated by Charlemagne and the northern part of the Lombard kingdom was
annexed to the Carolingian Empire (for a synthesis of the Lombard migration, see
for example Rotili 2010; for a discussion on the history of the Lombard kingdom
in Italy, see Delogu 1980). Considered as a Germanic group which, according to the
written sources, originally came from Scandinavia, the Lombards have been the focus
of contentious debate since the fifteenth century (for an overview of the debate see,
Falco 1952; Artifoni 2000). Recent work on the development of Lombard studies
(e.g. Barbiera 1998; 2012: 82–92; La Rocca 2008) has shown that, although interest
in the period has been intermittent, the Lombards have been variously portrayed as
a barbaric, cruel and alien population or as illustrious ancestors. Interpretations of
the Lombard period, arguably more so than for any other historical period, seem to
be closely associated with more general issues surrounding Italian identity and the
construction of local and national historical narratives.
Since the 1950s and 1960s, the importance of the Lombard period for the formation
of modern Italian culture has been re-evaluated. It is now generally considered to
be the result of the melding of Germanic and Latin cultures, a process that began
in the seventh century aided by the Church and the conversion of the Lombards
to Catholicism (e.g. Delogu 1980: 44–51; Pugliese Carratelli 1984; Gasparri 2005:
XVI-XVIII). This perspective on the Lombards was also presented to the public in
two major exhibitions, I Longobardi e la Lombardia (The Lombards and Lombardy),
held in Milan in 1978 (Arslan et al. 1978a; Arslan et al. 1978b) and I Longobardi (The
Lombards) held in Cividale del Friuli in 1990 (Menis 1990a). In these exhibitions, the
history of the Lombards was portrayed as an evolutionary process, from the period
of their settlement in Pannonia and the invasion of Italy, through the seventh century
90 G. Vollono
when acculturation took place, to the eighth century when an evolved society that
could finally be defined as Italian, flourished. The main lines of evidence presented in
support of this reconstruction were changes in material culture and funerary practice,
the transition from oral to written traditions, and developments in architecture mainly
expressed in the foundation of churches and religious institutions (e.g. Cavanna 1978;
Menis 1990b; Hessen 1990; Pavan 1990; Scardigli 1990).
A decade on from the Cividale event another major exhibition was held in the city of
Brescia in Lombardy (Bertelli & Brogiolo 2000a, 2000b). Its title, Il Futuro dei Longobardi.
L’Italia e la Costruzione dell’Europa di Carlomagno (The Future of the Lombards. Italy and
the Construction of Charlemagne’s Europe, my translation) clearly reveals the adoption
of a new perspective by the organisers: the Lombards as significant agents in the
construction of Europe. Of course it was around this time that the European Union
project, as we know it today, was having tangible effects and impacting significantly
on the everyday - as well as political- lives of people across Europe in the wake of the
collapse of the East-West divide. In 1990 Italy signed the Shengen agreement, which
ratified the abolition of border checks between subscribing European States. Two
years later, in 1992, together with the other twelve countries, Italy signed the Maastrich
treaty that established the European Union and in 1999 the process to replace the
Lira with the Euro began (Unione Europea 1990-1999). The 1990s also witnessed
a progressive increase in the involvement of Europe in the cultural life, research
and heritage management of European member states (Tzanidaki 2000; Niklasson
2013: 55–60). This emphasis on European history, culture and heritage is exemplified
by exhibitions and research projects across Europe, which focussed on what were
perceived as crucial moments in its history. Significant examples are the exhibitions on
the Franks, held in Mannheim, Berlin and Paris between 1996 and 1997 and the project
The Bronze Age- the First Golden Age of Europe (Gramsch 2000: 11–13; 2013: 26; Marin
2001; Wood 2013: 319).
In creating a super-national organism such as the European Union there was a perceived
need among its architects to identify a shared common past that, at the same time,
respected the singular histories and identities of its members in agreement with the
European motto ‘Unity in Diversity’ (for a critical discussion of this phrase see Shore
2006). Presenting the ‘barbarian’ kingdoms of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle
Ages as the origin of a European koiné that culminated in Charlemagne’s Holy Roman
Empire offered a seemingly acceptable and appropriate model for the European
Union. As the latter is the product of complex and diverse contributions from the
many nation states that it encompasses, Charlemagne, in apparently managing to unify
and synthesise multiple regional traditions, provided a clear historical precedent.
Consequently, the Lombards of the seventh and eighth centuries were presented
by the organisers of the Brescia exhibition as the channel through which classical
culture could be absorbed into the Holy Roman Empire. Lombard society appeared
as a rich and prosperous multi-ethnic organism, which managed to assimilate and
shape Roman heritage into new forms and, hence, could be seen as giving birth to a
Lombard Renaissance. This viewpoint emerges from the introduction to the catalogue
by Jacques Le Goff (Bertelli & Brogiolo 2000a: V-VI), the scientific director of the
subsequent series of exhibitions that went under the name of Charlemagne. The Making
of Europe. Alongside Brescia, the cities of Paderborn, Barcelona, Split and York hosted
exhibitions, which Alberto Forlani, president of the Fondazione Banca Credito Agrario
Bresciano, one of the sponsors, stated in the introduction to the exhibition were
“to show the variety of regional contributions that were synthesised in the political construction
made by Charlemagne and his successors” (Bertelli & Brogiolo 2000a: III).3
This new perspective on the Lombards was not only expressed through the scholarly
essays published in the accompanying monograph (Bertelli & Brogiolo 2000b), but
also through the choice of objects that were exhibited (Bertelli & Brogiolo 2000a).
Particular attention was devoted to Lombard written culture through the presentation
of manuscripts and inscriptions. Similar emphasis was placed on sculpture and
those metal objects that demonstrated classical influences. This included the famous
Valdinievole plate linked with king Agilulf who, at the beginning of the seventh
century, began to adopt the symbols of Byzantine royalty and situated himself closer
to Catholicism and the Pope (e.g. Delogu 1980: 39–44; Kurze 1980; Bertelli 2000).
A wider European gloss to the exhibition was achieved through the inclusion of
items originating from other countries that testified to the contacts and influence that
Lombard Italy had beyond the Alps.
The location of the exhibition in the complex of Santa Giulia was, itself, highly significant.
Founded in 753 by Desiderius, who would become the last king of the Lombards, and
his wife Ansa, this monastery has been considered a marker of a refined and civilised
Lombard elite who were fervently Catholic and prepared to invest in elaborate works of
art, as can be seen in the decoration of the church of San Salvatore. In general, all of
the locations in which these exhibitions were held are meaningful in Lombard history:
Cividale del Friuli, the first city conquered by the Lombards and the capital of their
first duchy; Milan that was the capital of the Lombard kingdom at the beginning of the
seventh century; and finally Brescia, centre of another important Lombard duchy that
preserves, as we saw, some of the architectural expressions of the period.
In this respect we can see here how, through a single event, different identities were
expressed simultaneously. At the widest, most inclusive level, we are witness to a super-
national European identity that sees the Lombards as a channel for the transmission
of classical and Christian culture into Medieval Europe. On a more localised level
the Italian national identity is presented as deriving from the merging of the Church,
Roman and Germanic heritage. Finally, in harmony with the staging of this and other
exhibitions, we see the portrayal of local identities in which the Lombards are shown
as ancestors of the inhabitants of specific localities within Italy.
I suggest that the emphasis on multiple identities as well as the need to integrate Italy
into a wider European context represents, in many respects, an answer to the new
world that emerged during the 1990s. This was a globalised world in which boundaries
and simple dualisms melted away and the static opposition that existed between two
philosophically divergent blocs apparently disappeared. The narratives on the Lombard
3
Translation from Italian by GV.
92 G. Vollono
period presented in these exhibitions downplayed the negative aspects that can result
from the encounter of cultures, the simplistic dualism between ‘barbarian’ and Roman,
and managed to resolve the opposition between the classical and the Germanic worlds.
An interesting postscript to this is the acknowledgement of the role that the Lombards
played in the construction of Medieval Europe from another intergovernmental
institution. In 2011 seven monumental sites dated to the Lombard period were registered
in the UNESCO’s World Heritage list under the title Longobards in Italy. Places of Power
(568-774 AD). The sites are: the Gastaldaga area and the Episcopal complex in Cividale
del Friuli (Friuli Venezia Giulia); the monastic complex of San Salvatore and Santa Giulia
in Brescia (Lombardy); the castrum with the Torba Tower and Santa Maria Foris Portas at
Castelseprio (Lombardy); the basilica of San Salvatore in Spoleto (Umbria); the Clitunno
Tempietto at Campello sul Clitunno (Umbria); the Santa Sofia complex in Benevento
(Campania); the sanctuary of San Michele at Monte Sant’Angelo (Puglia; UNESCO
2011a:7). As the inclusion of sites on the World Heritage list is usually proposed by single
States members of the UNESCO, this is further evidence of the desire of Italian experts
and institutions to project a specific image of the Lombard period and, thus, of Early
Medieval Italy, integrating it within European history (UNESCO CNI). The fact that the
proposed application was successful also suggests that this view of Lombard Italy was
shared internationally and that some of the material remains of the period are considered
to have ‘an exceptional and universal value’ beyond national borders (UNESCO 2011b).
The motivations behind this decision are eloquently stated in the UNESCO’s website:
“A people of Germanic origin, having settled and converted to Christianity, the

Lombards assimilated the material and cultural values inherited from the end of
the Roman world. Also in contact with Byzantine, Hellenistic and Middle Eastern
influences, the Lombards achieved a cultural, architectural and artistic synthesis, unique
in terms of its monumental and stylistic diversity and the various secular and religious
uses. It is one of the main roots of the beginnings of the medieval European world and
the establishment of Western Christianity.” (UNESCO 2011b).
However, in the last decade we have experienced further changes and complications.
The European project, as envisaged in the 1990s, has encountered significant problems
and the current economic crisis is aggravating the substantial differences between its
members. Globalization, too, has added to the general socio-political difficulties and
further emphasised issues such as identity and exposed the tensions between local,
regional, national and supra-national interests.
It is entirely plausible to suppose that these difficulties are reflected in the revival of
discussions surrounding the fall of the Roman Empire and the Migration Period. To
simplify a very complex debate, while some scholars believe in a gradual, internalised
transformation of society, others hold to a more abrupt process driven by the incursion
of new peoples (e.g. Pohl 2000; Heather 2005; Ward Perkins 2006). Contributions from
both sides of the debate are represented in the catalogue of the 2007 exhibition held in
Turin (Brogiolo and Chavarria Arnau 2007). This was not a celebration of the eighth
century and the ‘Lombard Renaissance’ but focussed instead on the period between
the fourth and the seventh centuries. At its heart were questions surrounding the social
and political implications of either cultural contact, or collision and the processes that
led to the formation of multicultural societies. In the introduction to the exhibition
catalogue it is openly acknowledged that the different interpretations of the migrations
of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages parallel, in some way, the variety of
readings and opinions voiced in the public debate. Brogiolo (2007: 19) reflects on the
link between historical interpretation and contemporary concerns, stating that:
“in the contradictory interpretations of the events that marked the end of the Western
Empire it is not difficult to see an echo of the contemporary debate between those who
see immigration not only as an economic opportunity, but also as a chance of cultural
enrichment and those who fear the risks and the uncertain outcomes.”4
This connection between past and present is one of the reasons that makes this period
worthy of being researched and presented to the public in its complexity (Brogiolo
2007: 19).
Conclusions
To conclude, I have attempted to show how the major social and political changes
brought about by the fall of communism in Europe have affected Italian Medieval
Archaeology in more subtle, but no less profound, ways than we might have expected.
Superficially, the Italian academic world, engaged in defining the themes and approaches
of this new discipline, appears to have been largely uninfluenced by these events.
What is clear, however, is that there was a significant change in the ways in which
certain historical and archaeological narratives were presented to the wider public.
The effects of social and political changes across contemporary Europe fed back into
archaeological research and synthesis through the medium of public engagement,
frequently providing a forum through which the (re)negotiation and projection of
identities could be achieved. This aspect of public engagement cannot, therefore, be
lightly dismissed from reflective analyses of archaeological theory and practice as long
as we understand that archaeological and historical research is about people in the
present as much as people in the past.
References
ArchMed 1974: Editoriale. Archeologia Medievale 1: 7–9.

Arslan, E.A, O. von Hessen & C. Calderini (eds.), 1978a. I Longobardi e la Lombardia:
Saggi. Milano, Palazzo Reale dal 12 Ottobre 1978. San Donato Milanese: Industrie Grafiche
Fratelli Azzimonti.
Arslan, E.A, O. von Hessen & C. Calderini (eds.) 1978b. I Longobardi e la Lombardia:
Introduzione alla Mostra. Milano, Palazzo Reale dal 12 Ottobre 1978. San Donato Milanese:
Industrie Grafiche Fratelli Azzimonti.
4
Translation from Italian by GV.
94 G. Vollono
Artifoni, E., 2000. Ideologia e memoria locale nella storiografia italiana sui Longobardi,
in: C. Bertelli & G. P. Brogiolo (eds.), Il Futuro dei Longobardi. L’Italia e la Costruzione
dell’Europa di Carlo Magno. Milan: Skira, 219–227.
Augenti, A., 2003. Archeologia medievale in Italia. Tendenze attuali e prospettive
future. Archeologia Medievale 30: 511–518.
Barbiera, I., 1998. ‘E ai dì remoti grande pur egli il Forogiulio appare’. Longobardi,
storiografia e miti delle origini a Cividale del Friuli. Archeologia Medievale 25: 345-357.
Barbiera, I. 2012. Memorie Sepolte. Tombe e Identità nell’Alto Medioevo (Secoli V-VIII).
Rome: Carocci Editore.
Bertelli, C. 2000. Lamina di Agilulfo (590-612), in: C. Bertelli & G. P. Brogiolo
(eds.), Il futuro dei Longobardi. L’Italia e la costruzione dell’Europa di Carlo Magno, Vol. 1,
Milano: Skira, 100.
Bertelli, C. & G.P. Brogiolo (eds.), 2000a. Il Futuro dei Longobardi. L’Italia e la
Costruzione dell’Europa di Carlo Magno. 18 Giugno - 19 Novembre 2000. Brescia-Santa Giulia.
Catalogo. Milan: Skira.
Bertelli, C. & G. P. Brogiolo (eds.), 2000b. Il Futuro dei Longobardi. L’Italia e la
Costruzione dell’Europa di Carlo Magno. 18 Giugno - 19 Novembre 2000. Brescia-Santa Giulia.
Saggi. Milan: Skira.
Brogiolo, G. P. (ed.), 1984. Archeologia Urbana in Lombardia. Valutazione dei Depositi
Archeologici e Inventario dei Vincoli. Modena: Panini.
Brogiolo, G. P., 1987. A proposito dell’organizzazione urbana nell’altomedioevo.
Archeologia Medievale 14: 27–46.
Brogiolo, G. P. (ed.), 1995. Città, Castelli, Campagne nei Territori di Frontiera (VI-VII
secolo). 5° Seminario sul Tardoantico e l’Altomedioevo in Italia Centrosettentrionale. Mantua:
Società Archeologica Padana.
Brogiolo, G. P. (ed.), 1996. La Fine delle Ville Romane: Trasformazioni nelle Campagne tra
Tarda Antichità e Alto Medioevo. 1° Convegno Archeologico del Garda. Gardone Riviera (BS) 14
Ottobre 1995. Mantua: Società Archeologica Padana.
Brogiolo, G. P., 2007. I Longobardi all’alba dell’Italia dalla caduta dell’Impero romano
agli stati romano-barbarici, in: G. P. Brogiolo & A. Chavarria Arnau (eds.), I Longobardi.
Dalla Caduta dell’Impero Romano all’Alba dell’Italia. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 15–19.
Brogiolo, G. P., 2009. Italian Medieval Archaeology: recent developments and
contemporary challenges, in: R. Gilchrist & P. Reynolds (eds.), Reflections: 50 Years of
Medieval Archaeology, 1957-2007. Leeds: Maney Publishing, 155–171.
Brogiolo, G.P. & G. Cantino Wataghin (eds.), 1998. Sepolture tra IV e VIII Secolo. Atti
del 7° Seminario sul Tardo Antico e L’Alto Medioevo in Italia Centro-settentrionale. Gardone, 24-
26 ottobre 1996. Mantua: Società Archeologica Padana.
Brogiolo, G. P. & A. Chavarria Arnau (eds.), 2007. I Longobardi. Dalla Caduta dell’Impero
Romano all’Alba dell’Italia. Milan: Silvana Editoriale.
Cavanna, A., 1978. La civiltà giuridica longobarda, in: E. A. Arslan, O. von Hessen &
C. Calderini (eds.), I Longobardi e la Lombardia: Saggi. Milano, Palazzo Reale dal 12 Ottobre
1978. San Donato Milanese: Industrie Grafiche Fratelli Azzimonti, 1–34.
Delogu, P., 1980. Il regno longobardo, in: P. Delogu, A. Guillou & G. Ortalli (eds.),
Longobardi e Bizantini. Turin: UTET, 3–216.
Delogu, P., 1986. Archeologia medievale: un bilancio di vent’anni. Archeologia Medievale
13: 493–505.
Francovich, R. & G. Noyé (eds.). 1994, La Storia dell’Altomedioevo Italiano (VI-X secolo) alla Luce
dell’Archeologia. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Siena 1992). Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.
Francovich, R. & M. Milanese (eds.), 1990. Lo Scavo Archeologico di Montarrenti e i Problemi
dell’Incastellamento Medievale: Esperienze a Confronto. Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.
Falco, G. 1952. La questione longobarda e la moderna storiografia italiana, in: Atti del
Primo Congresso Internazionale di Studi Longobardi (Spoleto 27-30 settembre 1951). Spoleto:
Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 154–166.
Gasparri, S., 2005. La memoria storica dei Longobardi, in: C. Azzara & S. Gasparri
(eds.), Le Leggi dei Longobardi. Storia, Memoria e Diritto di un Popolo Germanico. Second
Edition. XVII-XXXIV. Rome: Viella.
Gelichi, S., 1997. Introduzione all’Archeologia Medievale. Storia e ricerca in Italia. Rome:
Carocci Editore.
Gelichi, S., 2011. Archeologia Medievale. Intervento introduttivo, in: G. M. Varanini
(ed.) Intorno alla Storia Medievale. Archeologia Medievale, Storia dell’Arte Medievale, Antropologia
Culturale. Atti dell’Incontro Organizzato dalla Società Italiana degli Storici Medievisti (Roma 1-2
Ottobre 2010). Reti Medievali 12 (2): 5–15.
Gelichi, S., 2015. Il ‘canto delle sirene’ e l’Archeologia Medievale del futuro, in: S.
Gelichi (ed.), Quarant’Anni di Archeologia Medievale in Italia. La Rivista, i Temi, la Teoria
e i Metodi. Archeologia Medievale, Numero Speciale. Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio, 7–9.
Gramsch, A., 2000. ‘Reflexiveness’ in archaeology, nationalism and Europeanism.
Archaeological Dialogues 7 (1): 4–19.
Gramsch, A., 2013. Archaeology, the public, and Europeanism. Caught falling between
two chairs? in: D. Callebaut, J. Mařík & J. Maříková-Kubková (eds.), Heritage Reinvents
Europe. Proceedings of the Internationale Conference. Ename, Belgium, 17-19 March 2011.
Ename: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC), Association Internationale sans
But Lucratif (AISBL), 25–32.
Gundle, S. & S. Parker (eds.), 1996. The New Italian Republic. From the Fall of the Berlin
Wall to Berlusconi. London and New York: Routledge.
Hessen von, O., 1990. Il processo di romanizzazione, in: G. C. Menis (ed.), I Longobardi.
Catalogo della Mostra (Cividale del Friuli-Codroipo 2 giugno-30 settembre 1990). Milan: Electa,
222–234.
Heather, P., 2005. The Fall of the Roman Empire. London: Macmillan.
Hudson, P., 1981. Archeologia Urbana e Programmazione della Ricerca: l’Esempio di Pavia.
Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.
Kurze,W., 1980. La lamina di Agilulfo: usurpazione o diritto? in: Longobardi e Lombardia:
Aspetti della Civiltà Longobarda. Atti del VI Congresso di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo (Milano 21-
25 Ottobre 1978). Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo,
447–456.
La Rocca, C., 1986. ‘Dark Ages’ a Verona. Edilizia privata, aree aperte e strutture
pubbliche in una città dell’Italia settentrionale. Archeologia Medievale 13: 31–78.
La Rocca, C., 2008. Antenati, distruttori, semplicemenete inetti. I Longobardi nella
storiografia locale tra otto e novecento. Annales de Historia Antigua, Medieval Y Moderna
40: 1–12.
Marin, J. Y., 2001. How Europe is portrayed in exhibitions. Museum International. The
Hidden Facets of Exhibition LIII (3): 4–7.
96 G. Vollono
Menis, G. C. (ed.), 1990a. I Longobardi. Catalogo della Mostra (Cividale del Friuli-Codroipo 2
giugno-30 settembre 1990). Milan: Electa.
Menis, G. C., 1990b. Introduzione, in: G. C. Menis (ed.), I Longobardi. Catalogo della
Mostra (Cividale del Friuli-Codroipo 2 giugno-30 settembre 1990). Milan: Electa, 5–11.
Niklasson, E., 2013. Archaeology as European Added Value, in: E. Niklasson
& T. Meier (eds.), Appropriate narratives. Archaeologists, publics and stories. Budapest:
Archaeolingua Alapítvány, 49–86.
Pani Ermini, L., 2000. Archeologia Medievale, in Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani. Appendice
VI. Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, 83–85.
Pavan, G., 1990. Architettura del periodo longobardo, in: G. C. Menis (ed.), I Longobardi.
Catalogo della Mostra (Cividale del Friuli-Codroipo 2 giugno-30 settembre 1990). Milan: Electa,
236–298.
Pohl, W., 2000. Le Origini Etniche dell’Europa: Barbari e Romani tra Antichità e Medioevo.
Rome: Viella.
Pugliese Carratelli, G. (ed.), 1984. Magistra Barbaritas. I Barbari in Italia. XIII. Milan:
Libri Sheiwiller.
Rotili, M., 2010. I Longobardi: migrazione, etnogenesi e insediamento, in: G. Roma
(ed.), I Longobardi del Sud. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1–77.
Scardigli P., 1990. Dalla cultura orale alla cultura scritta, in: G. C. Menis (ed.), I
Longobardi. Catalogo della Mostra (Cividale del Friuli-Codroipo 2 giugno-30 settembre 1990).
Milan: Electa, 153–163.
Shore, C., 2006. “In uno plures” (?) EU cultural policy and the governance of Europe.
Cultural Analysis 5: 7–26.
Tzanidaki, J. D., 2000. Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam. The common European
heritage. Archaeological Dialogues 71 (1): 20–33.
Unesco CNI. Procedura Concordata per l’invio di candidature nelle liste e nei network
dell’UNESCO. Accessed 31 Mar 2016.
http://www.unesco.it/cni/index.php/candidature.
Unesco 2011a. The Longobards in Italy. Places of Power (568-774 AD). 2011.
UNESCO World Heritage List. Nomination Format. Accessed 31 March 2016.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1318/multiple=1&unique_number=1780.
Unesco 2011b. The Longobards in Italy. Places of Power (568-774 AD). 2011.
UNESCO World Heritage List. Nomination Format. Accessed 29 March 2016.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1318.
Unione Europea 1990-1999, Un’unione senza frontiere. Accessed 30 Mar 2015.
http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1990-1999/index_it.htm.
Ward Perkins, B., 2006. The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wood, I., 2013. The Modern Origins of the Early Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
APPENDIX
PERCHÉ
L’ARCHEOLOGIA?
An interview with Giovanni Azzena, Barbara Barich,

Giampietro Brogiolo, Renato Peroni, Mario Torelli
by Confederazione Italiana Archeologi

Ex Novo (with editors’ note)
Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Perché l’Archeologia?
An inteview with Giovanni Azzena, Barbara Barich, Giampietro
Brogiolo, Renato Peroni, Mario Torelli by Confederazione Italiana
Archeologi (with editors’ note)
Giovanni Azzena1, Barbara Barich2, Giampietro Brogiolo3, Renato Peroni2,

Mario Torelli4
Università di Sassari, 2Università di Roma, 3Università di Padova, 4Università di Perugia

1
Perché l’archeologia?
Editoriale tratto dall’orginario progetto Ex Novo pubblicato nel Novembre 2005
È quantomeno irrituale che una nuova rivista si presenti con una domanda. E certo
anche noi avremmo voluto proporre un manifesto compiuto, la summa delle nostre ri-
flessioni. A dire il vero ci abbiamo anche provato, ma ci siamo convinti che porre quel-
la semplice domanda, chiedersi e chiedere “perché?” fosse già di per sé un manifesto.
Nell’archeologia italiana da troppo tempo quella domanda non se la fa più nessuno.
Non che la nostra disciplina sia in cattiva salute, il problema è che si è persa l’abitudine
di discuterne, come dimostra inequivocabilmente l’assenza degli strumenti necessari
a impostare almeno le basi di una discussione di questo genere. Qualcuno potrebbe
rispondere che quegli strumenti mancano semplicemente perché non ce n’è bisogno;
posizione legittima, ma che non ci convince.
Se è vero che in questi anni agitati è cambiato praticamente tutto, dai comportamen-
ti agli stili di vita, all’architettura stessa delle nostre società, l’idea di una disciplina
che non si interroga e procede pigramente chiusa nel suo antico specialismo ci lascia
alquanto perplessi. Pensarci come un fortino assediato che resiste al cambiamento
davvero non è possibile. Del resto siamo già stati espugnati e quei cambiamenti hanno
trasformato più o meno direttamente gli strumenti e le metodologie dell’archeologia,
le sue applicazioni interdisciplinari ma anche (diremmo soprattutto) la vita di chi fa
archeologia, costretto a misurarsi con la precarietà e l’insicurezza di situazioni profes-
sionali sempre più discontinue e insieme con l’aumento delle informazioni accessibili e
degli strumenti con cui veicolarle.
A noi piace pensare che dovere degli intellettuali sia quello di contribuire, dall’interno
delle proprie discipline, alla comprensione del mondo moderno. Dunque perché ras-
segnarsi a questo lungo silenzio? Forse il problema è strutturale, è la nostra disciplina
a non essere più in grado di aiutarci a “sapere” qualcosa del mondo nuovo, forse l’ar-
cheologia è davvero diventata inutile. E noi con lei.
L’idea non ci esalta. Per questo abbiamo deciso di offrire un piccolo strumento, agile e
informale abbastanza da consentire di riprendere una discussione libera e franca.
Per questo abbiamo deciso di cominciare così, con una domanda semplice: perché l’ar-
cheologia? Altre ne verranno. Quali archeologi e per fare cosa, per esempio. Ma oggi
iniziamo da qui, cercando di dimostrare che serviamo ancora a qualcosa.
CONTACT Confederazione Italiana Archeologi, presidente@archeologi-italiani.it

100 Cia et al.
Archaeology, why?
From the former Ex Novo project published in November 20051
It may sound perilously unorthodox to launch a journal by asking such a simple, open-ended question.
Of course, we could have introduced Ex Novo with a polished manifesto, a sort of embodiment of our
thoughts. Honestly, we tried that approach, but we agreed that the very act of posing this fundamental
question – why? - should be considered a manifesto in its own right. Italian archaeology has avoided
the question for far too long. This is not to imply that our discipline is in turmoil, but rather that we
are a little rusty, and may have lost the ability to question our methods and objectives as we should. In
other words, we are in danger of losing our self-awareness as a discipline and our vision for the future.
It is certainly true that in these troubled years almost everything around us has changed: habits, life-
styles, the very structure of our society — yet archaeology seems to have been left untouched by any of
these transformations. We firmly refuse to accept that the discipline has stopped questioning its merit,
only inching forward in the confined space of its ancient specialism. Thinking of archaeology as a
besieged fortress that resists change is just plain unacceptable. After all, we have been taken already,
and those transformations have had a direct impact not just on the practice of archaeology and its
interdisciplinary applications, but also - and even more importantly - on the lives of those who “make
archaeology”. Today, archaeologists have to face, on the one hand, dramatic instability, job insecurity
and on-off contracts; and, on the other, they have to process and deal with an ever-growing amount of
accessible data and information as well as the proliferation of channels through which the data can
and must be communicated.
We do believe that it is the duty of every intellectual, thinker, scholar and researcher to contribute –
each and every individual from his/her own field - to a better understanding of the modern world.
Why, then, should we resign ourselves to this long silence? The problem is perhaps structural; our dis-
cipline is intrinsically unable to let us grasp the present. Maybe archaeology has really become obsolete?
And us, too.
Well, that definitely is not a thrilling prospect. This is why we feel compelled to provide a tool that is
flexible and informal enough to enable us to resume a frank and open discussion.
And, this is why we decided to begin by asking a very simple question: Archaeology, why? Other ques-
tions will come. Which archaeologists and for what, for instance. However, today we start at square
one, reflecting on our purpose, value, relevance and mission. Why? Because we must.
Confederazione Italiana Archeologi – Ex Novo
1
Translation to English by MRL
Perché l’archeologia? Risponde Giovanni Azzena
Giovanni Azzena è Professore associato di Topografia Antica presso la facoltà di Architettura

dell’Università di Sassari. Nel 2007-08 è stato Soprintendente Archeologo della Sardegna. È laure-
ato presso la Sapienza Universitá di Roma in Topografia e Urbanistica del mondo classico. La sua
formazione nel quadro metodologico della “scuola romana” di Topografia Antica, sviluppa in seguito
linee originali di indagine scientifica nell’ambito della cartografia storico-archeologica e della tutela dei
Beni Culturali.
Non credo fosse nelle intenzioni ma, a me, la domanda “perché l’archeologia?” è suo-
nata subito provocatoriamente personale: “perché fai l’archeologo?”. E, immediata-
mente, è sorto il conseguente dubbio: perché chiedere proprio a me, che l’archeologo
ho sempre cercato di non farlo? Per fare l’archeologo, per essere archeologi, occorre
pazienza, acume, metodicità, capacità analitica, spirito di adattamento e di sacrificio.
Tutte doti delle quali, ahimè, son privo: e siccome riconosco i miei limiti…
Ma la sfida! La sfida sì: quella mi attrae. E nel breve editoriale arrivato insieme all’invito
a partecipare al numero 0 della Rivista ho sentito aria di sfida. Sfidare un presente gri-
gio, un futuro incerto, un passato ingombrante è certamente una partita impegnativa.
Così, da vecchio ribelle, mi rimbocco le maniche e provo a rispondere. A modo mio.
Perché l’archeologia? Anzi: perché faccio l’archeologo? Non saprei e infatti non lo
faccio, o lo faccio a tempo perso. La mia attività principale, il mio lavoro, consiste
nell’insegnare. Questo è fondamentale. Questo già coglie nel segno: per insegnare “ar-
cheologia” non ti deve piacere tanto l’archeologia quanto insegnare. So che è tutta
un’altra storia, ma è meglio non dimenticarlo, in generale certo, ma, in particolare, nel
piccolo di questo discorso, perché il piacere di trasmettere è l’asse sul quale girano tutte
le argomentazioni che ho da esporre.
Riconosciamolo: quelli che fanno le scoperte più eclatanti, i veri archeologi, non hanno
secondi fini. Sono personaggi meravigliosi, presi da un sacro fuoco che tutto travolge,
da una passione, da una curiosità, da una voglia che certo non fa concessioni, non
lascia spazio, non dà tregua. Mi si dice: una razza ormai estinta. Di teste coronate o
tedeschi fuori di testa, di fascinosi Indiana Jones. Ma no: in qualche collega ancora ne
riconosco le tracce (tutti gli altri sono troppo occupati a sbarcare il lunario). Quello
che è vero è che i tempi, quelli sì, sono cambiati: sicuramente avvocati e chirurgi, den-
tisti e ingegneri, vecchie e giovani signore che, arrivati sullo scavo a bordo di poderosi
fuoristrada perfettamente puliti (anche le ruote!) ti dicono che, ahi, quanto gli sarebbe
piaciuto fare il tuo mestiere, probabilmente pensano a quei personaggi, certo non a me.
Allora: perché fai l’archeologo? Per poter star lì a recriminare, a far sapere a tutti che
per comprarti il fuoristrada devi lavorare una vita (o compilare 12.577.300 schede RA)
o a lamentarti delle mortificazioni burocratiche, dell’endemica mancanza di fondi, delle
beghe d’ufficio (o di Dipartimento), dei dissapori con la Soprintendenza, con l’Uni-
versità, della tristezza per le vendite all’incanto, della frustrazione per gli appelli non
recepiti, quando mai pervenuti?
102 Cia et al.
E perché continui a farlo, se senti nell’intimo che non sei convinto che le tre “i” pos-
sano veramente sostituire le “slg” (storia, latino, geografia)2 nella formazione dei futuri
archeologi? Se, dopo esserti sperticato in lodi e complimenti, ti chiedi angosciato il
motivo di tanta assenza di gioia nell’aver appreso che il migliore allievo del tuo corso
ha appena vinto la borsa per il Master in marketing dei Beni Culturali? Se, leggendo
l’ultimo progetto approvato dal Comune di XXX, ti rendi conto che la “Introduzione
storico-archeologica” sembra nata per essere saltata a piè pari anche dal più attento dei
valutatori? Magari stai solo invecchiando ma, certo, qualche dubbio ti viene.
Va bene, però “in fondo fai un mestiere che ti diverte, pensa a quelli alla Posta!” Allora il
punto deve essere un altro, cioè: perché ti diverte? Troppo semplicistica la risposta sulla
vita all’aria aperta, avventurosa, piena di sorprese. Abbiamo già detto che i tempi non
sono più quelli e, poi, alla lunga anche quella stufa (e vengono i reumatismi). Fuori tema
quella del contatto con i giovani perché vale solo per noi universitari: ci sono colleghi che
frequentano solo capi-cantiere, assessori alla cultura, impresari. Limitativa, quanto meno.
Sempre da capo, allora: perché fai l’archeologo? È stata una scelta di vita? Non credo,
non sapevo che vita avrei fatto; nessuno me l’ha mai spiegato, nessuno (nemmeno
io) lo spiega agli studenti di oggi. Ma non c’è trucco e non c’è inganno: non si tratta
di malafede dato che, in fondo, tutti già sanno che, comunque, non si diventa ricchi,
nemmeno un pochino. Forse sempre meno. La scelta non è di vita ma, questo forse sì,
è etica. Etica, non estetica. Politica più che filosofica (nota bene, i termini sono usati
nel loro significato proprio).
Faccio l’archeologo principalmente perché mi interessa chi ha interesse. E non voglio
riferirmi agli studenti (abbiamo già detto che, su questa strada, si va fuori tema). Mi
riferisco a chiunque abbia interesse per il passato, per la storia. Non solo. Con il mio
darmi da fare vorrei contribuire a che sempre più numerosi “chiunque” abbiano que-
sto tipo di interesse. Primo perché la conoscenza, si sa, è libertà e l’abbassamento del
livello culturale è il primo sintomo di un calo di libertà. Secondo perché in un contesto
sociale il cui senso storico arriva, al massimo, a mamma e papà, mi sembra comun-
que un’occupazione assai meritoria. Scollegati da ogni identità che non sia la famiglia
ristretta e la fede calcistica, si rischia di confrontarsi con problemi grossi come la glo-
balizzazione alla stregua della particella di sodio nell’ormai famosa bottiglia di acqua
minerale.3
Vi ricordate “i popoli senza storia”? o quelli che “passavano sulla terra leggeri”? A
parte quella vena zingaro-romantica nemmeno troppo nascosta nella poetica delle due
definizioni, in fondo entrambe fanno un po’ paura. Nessuno vuole appartenere ad un
popolo senza storia! Nessuno può vivere senza Identità, neppure nell’era della glo-
balizzazione. Soprattutto (come dice Salvatore Settis nel libro Futuro del Classico, 2004)
nell’era della globalizzazione. Semmai occorre costruire nuove identità, nuove tradizio-
ni, anche se può suonare strano questo quasi ossimoro nuove-tradizioni. Almeno fino
a quando non si riflette sul fatto che le tradizioni sono formate dalle tessere scomposte
2
Le “tre i” (inglese, impresa e informatica) facevano parte dei punti chiave del programma del Popolo
della Libertà per la scuola durante il Governo Berlusconi II (2001–2005) (n.d.r.).
3
Si fa riferimento allo spot pubblicitario per l’acqua Lete raffigurante una solitaria particella di sodio
realizzato nel 2001 che riscosse ampio successo fra il pubblico italiano (n.d.r.).
di tante “modernità” passate di moda. Chi è interessato a quelle tessere, all’intarsio

complesso di quelle tessere, alla possibilità di intarsiare ancora guidati dalle trame del
vecchio intarsio, ebbene, può stare sicuro: ci siamo noi ad aiutarlo. Prima risposta: fac-
cio l’archeologo perché voglio aiutare il mosaicista.
Non ho finito: prima devo sviluppare un’usurata metafora: quella dell’albero. Usque
tandem? La corda metaforica si spezza come tutte le altre: lo sanno anche i leghisti che
la forma dell’albero dipende dalle sue radici, che esse sono l’unica parte che non si
vede, che se non si curano le radici l’albero muore, che radici marcite fanno marcire
la pianta… Ma, forse, non si considera abbastanza il fatto che non si può realizzare
alcun progetto su un albero già cresciuto; semmai se ne possono piantare di nuovi e,
se si conosce bene tipologia e forma delle radici di quelli vecchi venuti bene, se ne può
orientare al meglio la crescita. Cioè: il progetto del futuro deve avere sì radici profonde
ma si può impostare solo su piante nuove; su quelle vecchie l’unico progetto possibile
è potare, curare, tenere o abbattere. Ma l’aspetto più eclatante della faccenda (oserei
dire il “nucleo metaforico”) consiste nel fatto che in entrambi i casi - albero vecchio o
albero nuovo - io conosco le radici che nessun altro può vedere, o so come studiarle.
Seconda risposta: faccio l’archeologo perché sono un giardiniere mancato.
Infine, confesso: trovo divertente stupire la gente. Adoro spiegare un’etimologia, l’ori-
gine di un’abitudine o del percorso di una strada ormai troppo conosciuta per suscitare
la minima curiosità. Amo aprire sipari, suggerire soluzioni inaspettate, invogliare alla
curiosità (abbiamo trovato en passant anche la terza risposta: faccio l’archeologo perché
sono egocentrico): lo faccio volentieri, perché trovo il genere umano simpaticissimo
(anche se pieno di difetti). Non solo quella parte - defunta - della quale mi diverte
studiare usi e costumi, ma anche quella - la presente e viva - alla quale li trasmetto, su-
scitando, di tanto in tanto, sincero stupore. In altre parole, l’avvocato in fuoristrada di
cui sopra, al quale cerco di comunicare conoscenza e, insieme, sempre nuova curiosità,
mi è simpatico tanto quanto il capocantiere, ormai stramorto, che, in età giulio-claudia,
aveva sbagliato tutte le fondazioni del suo manufatto, costringendo i suoi contempora-
nei a rifare tutto da capo e noi, dall’altro capo del filo, a lambiccarci il cervello in cerca
di dare un senso (anche se non ce l’ha) alle 25 fasi costruttive che, per ora, siamo riusciti
ipotizzare. Quarta e ultima risposta: faccio l’archeologo perché mi è simpatico il genere
umano. E scusate se è poco!
In conclusione e riassumendo: consiglio di diventare archeologo a chi voglia aiutare il
mosaicista, sentendosi nell’animo giardiniere, egocentrico ma di compagnia. Oppure,
fuor di canzonatura, oserei dire che faccio l’archeologo perché voglio partecipare al
progetto di un futuro che mi piaccia. Se non me lo fanno fare, insisto. E se anche il
tono non lo è, quando lo dico sono serissimo.
Editors’ note
Giovanni Azzena is Associate Professor of Ancient Topography at the Faculty of Architecture,
University of Sassari. In 2007-08 he was Superintendent Archaeologist of Sardinia. He graduated
from the University La Sapienza with a degree in Topography and Urban Planning of the Classi-
cal World. His methodological approach therefore developed within the so-called “Roman School” of
Ancient Topography, but followed its own original lines of scientific inquiry. Since 1985, Azzena has
104 Cia et al.
been working on the systematization of historical and archaeological cartographic synthesis, including
its applications for the protection of cultural heritage. In his reply, presented with abundant irony, Az-
zena recounts the questionable cultural policies of the then Berlusconi government while demonstrating
the cultural value that archaeologists have for society.
Perché l’archeologia? Risponde Barbara Barich
Barbara Barich è Professore Associato di Etnografia preistorica dell’Africa alla facoltà di Scienze
Umanistiche presso la Sapienza Università di Roma. Ha diretto numerose missioni archeologiche nel
Sahara libico e in Egitto.
Perché l’archeologia? La domanda non mi sorprende, poiché è una domanda che

spesso viene posta, nell’ambito del presente contesto generale, e delle mode attuali, che
tendono a privilegiare gli aspetti applicativi e gli esiti utilitaristici, in termini di mercato,
delle scienze. Cerco di rispondere, quindi, in base al significato che io attribuisco
all’archeologia e nella forma più consona al mio sentire.
In primo luogo penso che, se il problema è quello di un’applicazione concreta, di una
resa pratica delle conoscenze, la domanda dovrebbe essere formulata per le scienze
umane in toto, nell’ambito delle quali l’archeologia si pone, avendo come oggetto lo
studio dell’origine e delle trasformazioni delle società umane.
Di seguito, poi, mi sembra necessario opporre alla sottovalutazione del nostro territorio
scientifico l’enorme sviluppo teoretico, metodologico e applicativo che il campo
archeologico (forse impropriamente considerato, per quanto dirò più avanti, un unico
contenitore) ha conosciuto negli ultimi decenni. Attraverso questo percorso, che ha
portato l’archeologia a porsi come scienza e, quindi, ben lontano dalla rappresentazione
‘romantica’ che ne viene data impropriamente, il nostro campo diviene un territorio-
ponte tra scienze umane e scienze matematiche, esemplificando come la conoscenza
scientifica sia un processo che procede da campo a campo, senza fratture arbitrarie. Da
più parti ultimamente si è riaffacciato il concetto dell’unità delle scienze e penso che
l’odierno indirizzo dell’archeologia confermi in pieno tale affermazione. Dunque, se
è vero che la contrapposizione tra ambito scientifico matematico e scienze dell’uomo
sembra fuori luogo, è anche vero che l’archeologia dovrà tendere sempre di più alla
razionalizzazione dei propri metodi per costruire ampi e affidabili scenari del passato.
La nostra storia culturale, con le testimonianze imponenti che conosciamo, è patrimonio
collettivo e fonte di risorse per il nostro Paese. Non potremmo adeguatamente
preservare i monumenti che la rappresentano (e formare e potenziare gli organismi
di tutela) se non fossimo in grado di coglierne l’importanza e il significato. Si tratta
di tutelare la nostra identità culturale. Ciò è vero per tutti i settori dell’archeologia,
dall’archeologia monumentale a quella urbanistica, alla topografia antica e del territorio.
Implicazioni particolari ha poi l’archeologia preistorica, che si affianca al campo etno-
antropologico nello studio delle società antiche. Non so immaginare una scienza più
attuale in un mondo globale, in cui ci si chiede di comprendere e proiettarsi sull’altro. È
proprio attraverso questi studi che si riscopre l’idea della complessità della cultura e di
quanto sia improprio operare distinzioni tra culture avanzate e non, sulla base di scale
di valori stabilite arbitrariamente.
In molti casi, gli studi archeologici sono serviti a restituire ai legittimi autori la
paternità di molte delle innovazioni culturali che i regimi coloniali avevano usurpato.
Emblematico è il caso africano, un continente che troppo spesso è stato considerato
106 Cia et al.
un territorio incapace di innovazione e a cui sono state sottratte numerose prerogative

e specificità culturali. Ai programmi archeologici sul terreno, che intervengono in
Africa, come del resto in altri Paesi stranieri, viene chiesto di non limitarsi all’indagine
di temi particolari, ma di proporre piani di conservazione e valorizzazione dell’‘eredità
culturale’, favorendo la divulgazione delle conoscenze e, al tempo stesso, formando
funzionari locali che possano essere in grado di assumere direttamente la tutela del loro
patrimonio archeologico e antropologico.
Quindi questo è il territorio scientifico dell’archeologia e così mi sembra che debba
essere inteso, contrastando le banalizzazioni che ne vengono presentate dai media. Sono
gli aspetti che ho citato (e se ne potrebbero citare altri) a rendere gli studi archeologici
così attraenti per moltissimi giovani, i giovani che numerosi seguono i corsi universitari
e che, in un mondo sempre più meccanizzato e tecnologico, non perdono di vista il
fondamento umano e umanistico della nostra tradizione.
Editors’ note
Barbara Barich is Associate Professor of Prehistoric Ethnography of Africa at the Faculty of Hu-
manities, Sapienza University of Rome. She was deputy director of the Italian fieldwork project in
the Libyan Sahara between 1970 and 1985, and since 1987 has directed two other projects in Libya
and Egypt based at the University of Rome. In 1992, she was appointed Permanent Secretary of
the Forum for African Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. Thanks to the experience gained from
her involvement in several international research projects, she has always promoted and applied a mul-
tidisciplinary approach to the study of prehistoric societies between the Sahara and the Nile Valley,
placing particular emphasis on ecological and ethnographic issues. The following answer to the question
‘Archaeology, why?’ refers to a discipline that, after decades of formalization and theoretical reflection,
responds to the idea of the unity of science, allowing the discovery of the complexity of culture from
its origins. Drawing on her experience in Africa, she highlights the value of the work of archaeologists
for preserving cultural identity through their contribution to conservation, enhancement and training,
finally shifting away from the banalities of romantic stereotypes.

Perché l’archeologia? Risponde Gian Pietro Brogiolo
Gian Pietro Brogiolo è Professore Ordinario di Archeologia Medievale all’Università di Padova. Ha

lavorato lungamente come libero professionista negli anni ’70 in collaborazione con numerosi archeologi
inglesi. Dal 2008 al 2011 ha fatto parte del gruppo di lavoro della Presidenza del Consiglio dei
Ministri per gli interventi di tutela e fruizione del patrimonio archeologico di Roma.
Uscire dalla crisi

Appartengo alla generazione che negli anni ‘70 del secolo ormai trascorso ha imparato
a fare archeologia fuori dalle istituzioni, direttamente sul campo. Non perché fossi
digiuno di studi universitari specifici, ma perché, a quel tempo, dalle cattedre, anche da
quelle più illuminate, si insegnava soprattutto storia dell’arte, antica e medievale. Per chi
intendeva l’archeologia come scavo e ricerca sul campo era assai più formativo unirsi
alle èquipes inglesi impegnate nelle differenti articolazioni temporali e tematiche di una
disciplina che gli archeologi anglosassoni proprio in quel decennio stavano rifondando.
Sono anche tra coloro che, entrati in Soprintendenza nel 1980 in occasione di un primo
significativo ampliamento degli organici, vi ha introdotto la rivoluzione stratigrafica
e l’impiego delle cooperative al posto delle ditte edili che fino ad allora avevano
condotto gli scavi. E ho dato il mio contributo, sia sul piano teorico metodologico sia
con progetti pluriennali mirati, allo sviluppo della nuova archeologia. Cercando da un
lato di dare un senso e un obiettivo storiografico all’archeologia dell’emergenza, che
assorbe oltre il 90% delle risorse umane e finanziarie che la società destina alla ricerca
e alla salvaguardia dei beni materiali del proprio passato. Dall’altro di indirizzare quella
di pura ricerca verso progetti innovativi e con una ricaduta sulla politica culturale,
contribuendo a recuperare l’identità culturale di un territorio e di una società.
Con alcune idee ben chiare in testa che ci hanno guidato in questi trent’anni di impegno
militante:
(1) l’archeologia mette in luce manufatti, che esistono indipendentemente da chi la
pratica, ma come ogni scienza umana riesce a comprenderne i più reconditi significati
e le reciproche relazioni solo se muove da una predefinita impostazione teorica;
(2) una ricerca ben fatta richiede risorse e strumentazioni che hanno un costo che alla
lunga la collettività può sostenere solo se ne comprende il valore (scientifico o come
ricaduta per una valorizzazione);
(3) compito precipuo dell’archeologo è dunque di misurarsi con gli organismi sociali e
con l’opinione pubblica, barricarsi in una torre d’avorio è un errore che alla fine può
determinare non solo la crisi, ma anche il rifiuto di un modello culturale.
I sintomi di una crisi dell’archeologia, che nelle ultime due decadi ha avuto uno sviluppo
travolgente moltiplicando le opportunità di lavoro sia nelle istituzioni che nella libera
professione si avvertono da alcuni anni, sia per una implosione del sistema al suo
interno, sia per il venir meno in molti strati della popolazione di un riconoscimento dei
valori che l’archeologia esprime.
La crisi a livello istituzionale è sotto gli occhi di tutti, ma a soffrirne di più sono gli addetti
ai lavori. Nelle Soprintendenze, ottusi burocrati che hanno imposto una dittatura della
108 Cia et al.
tutela sulla ricerca, impedendo sia a chi ha condotto per loro le ricerche sul campo, sia
alla comunità scientifica, di pubblicare e di utilizzare i dati dell’emergenza, coesistono
con illuminati funzionari che cercano di rendere noti con tempestività i risultati del
proprio lavoro.
Nelle Università un sistema perverso di moltiplicazione dei corsi e delle cattedre,
senza alcun rapporto con la richiesta del mercato del lavoro, sembra avere l’unico
scopo di fornire un alibi per un reclutamento per cooptazione che privilegia gli allievi
dei potentati accademici escludendo di fatto le altre categorie di studiosi, estranee al
sistema di potere.
Il ripiegarsi del sistema su se stesso è emerso con tutta evidenza negli ultimi anni dalla
totale indifferenza rispetto ai contradditori cambiamenti legislativi (dal Testo Unico al
codice Urbani alle ripetute riforme universitarie) imposti a turno dai due schieramenti
politici. Ha inoltre impedito agli addetti ai lavori di cogliere i sintomi più generali di una
disaffezione da parte della società, che riguarda non solo l’archeologia, ma più in generale
tutti i beni culturali. E che si manifesta nel disinteresse dell’opinione pubblica di fronte
alla distruzione del patrimonio che la nuova legislazione, nazionale e regionale, consente
e nell’insofferenza degli imprenditori verso ogni forma di controllo sui loro interventi.
E soprattutto non ha permesso di capire che siamo alla fine di un ciclo, quello nato
dal “movimento stratigrafico” che è divenuto dominante nell’archeologia italiana, ma
non è riuscito a risolvere alcune questioni nodali: dare un fine scientifico all’archeologia
dell’emergenza, coinvolgere istituzionalmente nella ricerca i professionisti esterni,
sprovincializzare i molti settori dell’archeologia impermeabili al confronto europeo.
Uno scossone a questo punto non può avvenire, come è stato negli anni ‘70, che
dall’incontro tra chi opera al di fuori delle istituzioni cristallizzate e quei settori che pur
operando al loro interno ne hanno consapevolmente avvertita la crisi. Servono idee,
esempi, discussioni come quelle che allora hanno dato vita a nuove discipline (si pensi
all’impatto dell’Archeologia Medievale) e a nuovi indirizzi di ricerca, quali ad esempio
l’archeologia urbana, dell’architettura, dei paesaggi.
Editors’ note
Gian Pietro Brogiolo (Polpenazze del Garda, Brescia, 1946) is full Professor of Medieval
Archaeology at the University of Padua. He worked as a freelance archaeologist in the 1970s in
collaboration with several British archaeologists who were active in Northern Italy, and to whom we
owe the establishment of some of the most important archaeological companies in the northern part
of the country. During the 1980s Brogiolo worked as an officer for the Ministry of Heritage and
Culture, and was then appointed Professor of Medieval Archaeology. In his reply to the question
‘Archaeology, why?’, he thinks back to his formative years and emphasizes the importance of engaging
the public with archaeological discoveries. Brogiolo also points to the general crisis of all archaeological
institutions, both at an academic and state level, highlighting the need to involve freelance professionals
and archaeological companies in the scientific debate, as was initially envisioned by the proponents of
the “stratigraphic revolution” dating back to the 1980s.
Perché l’archeologia? Risponde Renato Peroni
Funzionario del Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione dal 1965 al 1971 presso il Museo Etnografico
Luigi Pigorini (Roma), Renato Peroni (1930-2010) divenne nel 1974 Professore Ordinario in Pro-
tostoria Europea presso l’Università di Roma La Sapienza, dove lavorò fino alla pensione nel 2003.
Di salute malferma, muore improvvisamente il 4 Maggio 2010.
Dalla ‘società degli archeologi italiani’ alla ‘confederazione’: motivi e no per

un’unità ‘politica’
Sono passati oltre quarant’anni da quando un gruppo di allora giovani archeologi
elaborò e rese pubblico il documento che riporto. Questo documento costituiva la
risposta (una risposta di adesione condizionata) all’appello da poco pubblicato sulla
rivista Archeologia Classica, col quale Massimo Pallottino aveva chiamato gli archeologi
italiani alla costituzione di un’associazione nazionale che si battesse per l’apertura di
nuove prospettive di sviluppo dell’archeologia in Italia. Al di là della forma moderata,
il documento era di denuncia e di protesta: si faceva presente, in sostanza, ai notabili
dell’archeologia italiana, che la prospettiva della costituzione di un’associazione unitaria
poteva interessare i giovani e i meno garantiti solo nella misura in cui tutti si fossero
fatti carico dei problemi di tutti, ivi compresi i problemi più prosaici.
“Alcuni giovani archeologi operanti in Roma, riunitisi il 30-XI e il 3-XII-1962 per

discutere il contenuto dell’articolo di Massimo Pallottino Per una coscienza ed un’azione
unitaria degli archeologi;
fatto proprio con appassionato interesse il concetto espresso in tale articolo, dell’op-
portunità di costituire un’associazione degli archeologi italiani, che si batta per l’aper-
tura di nuove prospettive allo sviluppo della nostra disciplina;
convinti che tale associazione, per poter veramente nascere viva e vitale, dovrà necessa-
riamente esprimere un linguaggio comune, una visione matura ed unitaria dei problemi
che travagliano l’archeologia del nostro Paese;
che la natura di questi problemi sia, inscindibilmente, e culturale e organizzativa;
che essi dunque potranno trovare un’impostazione valida solo attraverso un ampio ed
approfondito, pubblico dibattito tra la totalità degli archeologi, di qualsiasi ambiente e
categoria;
ritengono che il modo più giusto per impostare una discussione fruttuosa sia quello di
proporne francamente e coraggiosamente i temi;
additano perciò, considerandoli come i principali, i più critici, i più angosciosi problemi
della vita dell’archeologia italiana:
1) - La scarsità dei fondi destinati a finanziare l’attività delle Soprintendenze, ed i molte-
plici intralci che ne impediscono la libera disponibilità da parte degli uffici competenti.
2) - L’esiguità del personale scientifico delle Soprintendenze, del tutto inadeguato a
svolgere l’immensa mole di lavoro, pur necessario alla vita culturale ed economica del
110 Cia et al.
Paese; cui fanno assurdo contrasto le energie e le competenze di decine e decine di

studiosi qualificati che restano inutilizzate, spesso costrette a volgersi ad altre attività.
3) - La mancata disponibilità da parte delle Soprintendenze dei più moderni strumenti
tecnici di ricerca archeologica sul terreno, oggi in mano ad Enti che se ne valgono per
proprio conto, quasi in un’assurda concorrenza con gli organi competenti.
4) - La conseguente impossibilità di preparare una progettazione sistematica delle ri-
cerche sul terreno e di controllare efficientemente sia i rinvenimenti casuali, moltipli-
cati dalla crescente industrializzazione del Paese, dalla trasformazione agricola in atto,
dal sempre maggiore impulso dato ai lavori pubblici; sia le attività di scavo condotte
da parte di Enti e persone spesso non sufficientemente qualificate dal punto di vista
scientifico.
5) - La necessità di adeguare i mezzi a disposizione delle ricerche sul territorio nazio-
nale a quelli disponibili per le missioni di scavo italiane all’Estero, per le quali si auspica
una più adeguata e completa programmazione.
6) - Il pregiudizio recato, nonostante ogni buona volontà e ogni sforzo, alla capacità di
lavoro di funzionari, avventizi e salariati delle Soprintendenze dalla drammatica situa-
zione morale, giuridica e sociale in cui essi si trovano, accentuata da una netta spere-
quazione nei confronti del personale universitario regolarmente retribuito.
7) - Il lungo intervallo di tempo tra un concorso e l’altro per le Soprintendenze alle
Antichità, che provoca un notevolissimo ritardo (con grave pregiudizio, tra l’altro, dei
diritti previdenziali) all’inserimento nell’Amministrazione di molti giovani, spesso or-
mai sulla soglia degli assurdi limiti di età, solo occasionalmente rimossi.
8) - Il progressivo deperimento del patrimonio archeologico nazionale, spesso sacrifi-
cato a ristretti interessi privati, con grave danno per un armonico sviluppo urbanistico
delle più belle città italiane, e per l’industria turistica.
9) - Le difficoltà di ogni genere che impediscono ai funzionari delle Antichità, specie se
della periferia, di attendere con serenità allo studio e alla pubblicazione dei monumenti;
difficoltà fra le quali vanno soprattutto menzionate la povertà delle biblioteche e delle
fototeche, al di fuori di quelle di Roma, soprattutto appartenenti a Istituti stranieri, e
l’inadeguatezza degli organi editoriali ufficiali, per cui le edizioni di materiali sono spes-
so confinate in sedi disperse e poco accessibili.
10) - Le ristrette possibilità di vita concesse alle singole discipline archeologiche specia-
lizzate, che ne hanno causato in Italia una grave atrofia, vergognosa al confronto con il
grande sviluppo da esse assunto negli altri Paesi d’Europa.
11) - La sempre maggiore centralizzazione degli studi e delle ricerche, a svantaggio di
organi periferici un tempo o tuttora fiorenti.
12) - La difficoltà in cui versa l’insegnamento delle discipline archeologiche negli Isti-
tuti universitari, sia per insufficienza di personale e di mezzi finanziari, sia per gli anti-
quati ordinamenti accademici.
13) - La necessità di potenziare e ristrutturare la Scuola Nazionale di Archeologia;
si impegnano a diffondere questi temi, a contribuire, assieme a cerchie sempre più vaste
del mondo archeologico, a impostarne in modo aperto e concreto la discussione;
invitano tutti gli archeologi italiani a partecipare attivamente al dibattito, ad elaborare
insieme quelle soluzioni comuni ai nostri problemi, che dovranno costituire il pro-
gramma dell’Associazione, l’unica vera forza da cui essa possa trar vita.
Firmano: Peroni, Bianco Peroni, Giuliano, Torelli, Tamassia, Rocchetti, Mercando,
D’Henry, Guerrini, Baldassarre, Scrinari, Coco, Bonghi Jovino, Conticello, Lissi, Gal-
lina, Meschini, Staccioli, Parlato, Coarelli, Fabbrini, Scichilone, Colonna, Zevi, Cerulli
Irelli, La Regina, Carandini, Targioni-Violani.
I firmatari intendono consegnare il valore morale di questa mozione a studiosi più au-
torevoli e di maggiore esperienza, affinché essi, promuovendo un’assemblea costitutiva
che tenga presenti i limiti e i problemi dell’archeologia italiana, denunciati in questo
documento, agiscano con precisa volontà perché a tali problemi sia data sollecita so-
luzione;
chiedono a tutti gli archeologi italiani di pronunziarsi sui temi proposti e, se lo credono,
di comunicare ai sottoscrittori la loro personale adesione alla mozione.”
Inviarono la loro adesione: Albricci, Alfieri, Alvisi, Annibaldi, Bermond Montanari,
Bocci, Bonacasa, Bravar, Bussagli, Camporeale, Canciani, Carettoni, Castaldi, Chiap-
pella, Coccia, Cornaggia Castiglioni, Cremonesi, d’Agostino, Delli Ponti, Di Stefano,
Dondero, Elia, Falconi Amorelli, Feruglio, Finocchi, Fortuna, Frova, Fusco, Grifo-
ni, Gualandi, Joly, Lollini, Maetzke, Mansuelli, Marzi, Merolla, Momigliano, Moreno,
Nicosia, Napoli, Orlandini, Puglisi, Radmilli, Rellini Rossi, Riccioni, Rittatore, Rizza,
Santangelo, Soprano, Tamburello, Virzì, Zuffa.
Di contro alle numerose adesioni, già da subito non mancarono le prese di posizione
fondate sul distinguo tra “questioni di carattere sindacale”, da esaminare “in un secon-
do tempo”, e “problemi scientifici” su cui andava “polarizzata l’attenzione”. Costitu-
itasi agli inizi del 1964 la Società degli Archeologi Italiani (S.A.I.), nell’ambito di essa
-si legge in Dialoghi di Archeologia I, 1, 1967- i soci più giovani cominciarono a operare
secondo la linea indicata nella risposta a Massimo Pallottino, e si trovarono in accordo
con altri che ad essi si unirono, condividendone la linea di condotta e il programma di
azione: i giovanissimi, cioè, che avevano preso coscienza fin dalle esperienze universi-
tarie dell’importanza dei problemi proposti.
Prese forma così un gruppo di opinione, che nella S.A.I. si adoperò a che un’effettiva
circolazione di idee conducesse alle soluzioni sperate. Nello stesso momento in cui si
veniva costituendo la S.A.I. si realizzava la riforma del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ri-
cerche con la creazione del Comitato per le Scienze storiche, filosofiche e filologiche;
consapevoli del fatto che la Società, sia pure di recentissima costituzione, non doveva
perdere l’occasione che le si offriva, di indirizzare cioè a scopi e secondo modi sempre
pensati e mai attuati le ricerche che un altro nuovo organismo iniziava a patrocinare in
maniera inconsueta, i giovani archeologi impegnavano il Consiglio Direttivo della So-
cietà con una mozione, nella quale venivano indicati come nuovi organismi di ricerca,
sulla scorta di quanto era già avvenuto per altre scienze, gruppi di studiosi organizzati
112 Cia et al.
in equipe, l’attività dei quali avrebbe dovuto svolgersi nell’ambito di un programma

coordinato della ricerca archeologica approvato dalla S.A.I. Questo tipo di organiz-
zazione programmata del lavoro incontrò opposizioni tanto da parte di chi intendeva
conservare entro gli schemi già prefissati le propose di ricerca, quanto da parte di chi,
avendo usufruito fino a quel momento di situazioni particolarmente favorevoli, non
aderiva nemmeno alla possibilità di una pianificazione, preferendo mantenere le ricer-
che in un ambito di fatto privato.
Il problema della riforma della Scuola Nazionale di Archeologia, l’urgenza del quale era
stata espressa sin dal primo documento pubblicato in Archeologia Classica, fu affrontato
dalla S.A.I. in occasione della discussione sulle proposte e i suggerimenti da fornire alla
Commissione Parlamentare d’indagine per la tutela e la valorizzazione del patrimonio
storico, archeologico, artistico e del paesaggio. Data la sua importanza, si decise che
esso fosse trattato in una speciale riunione assembleare; mentre procedevano i lavori
della commissione eletta dalla S.A.I. per la stesura della proposta di riforma, il gruppo
dei giovani elaborava per conto suo un progetto di nuovo statuto della Scuola, che fu
poi presentato in sede di discussione assembleare. In quell’occasione ci si oppose allo
specialismo inteso tecnicisticamente come specializzazione limitata a determinati og-
getti (ad esempio epigrafia, numismatica, topografia, ecc.), e si favoriva invece una spe-
cializzazione in un ambito cronologico e geografico, come già suggerito per il C.N.R.
Il documento, presentato in sede di commissione, forniva base di discussione una
assemblea S.A.I. tenuta a Napoli e a Roma (5 e 12 dicembre 1965), dove ottenne con
alcune lievi modifiche l’approvazione della maggioranza. Il Consiglio Direttivo della
S.A.I. dichiarava però, senza sufficienti giustificazioni, nulli i deliberati dell’assemblea,
e rendeva nota la sua decisione di inviare alla Commissione Parlamentare di indagine il
testo approvato insieme con altri documenti che l’assemblea aveva respinto. In seguito
a ciò il Consiglio si trovò nella situazione di dare le dimissioni, un eufemismo per dire
che, per la verità storica, fu rovesciato da un voto di sfiducia dell’assemblea. Seguì la
scissione. La quasi totalità dei notabili dell’archeologia italiana uscì dalla S.A.I., costi-
tuendo un’altra associazione. La sinistra archeologica, rimasta nominalmente padrona
del campo, si accorse ben presto che non le era rimasto in mano altro che un guscio
vuoto. Il dibattito si esaurì ovviamente in breve. Ogni categoria restò con i suoi pro-
blemi, compresi i più prosaici, e nessuno fu più in grado di preparare un approccio a
tali problemi che non fosse parcellizzato, e dunque perdente. Ci si illuse che avrebbe
potuto risultare producente trasferire la lotta sul piano culturale: nacquero così la rivi-
sta e il gruppo di Dialoghi di Archeologia.
È passata una quindicina d’anni dalla pubblicazione di Verso una professione - Seminario per
l’elaborazione di una proposta di ordine professionale per gli archeologi - Roma 23-24 febbraio 1988,
promosso dall’Associazione Nazionale Collaboratori Scientifici e Tecnici del Ministero
per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali (A.N.Co.S.T.), che ospitò una versione praticamente
identica di questo mio scritto. Vi si sosteneva che, sotto la maggior parte dei punti di
vista, le condizioni per un’unità politica degli archeologi erano ormai di gran lunga
peggiori che venticinque anni prima. Non si dipendeva più da un unico ministero, ma
da tre ministeri diversi (oggi ridotti a due), oltre agli Enti Locali. La sperequazione
economica e di carriera tra gli archeologi delle Soprintendenze e gli altri, in particolare
gli universitari, si era aggravata fino a farsi intollerabilmente oscena. La Scuola Nazio-
nale di Archeologia, un tempo importantissima come momento post-universitario di
maturazione comune, come crogiolo in cui si confrontavano giovani archeologi dalle
provenienze e dalle destinazioni più diverse, era stata sì ristrutturata, ma alla rovescia:
aveva proliferato nelle molte, troppe scuole locali, che si contrapponevano in una reci-
proca ghettizzazione ai corsi di dottorato di ricerca, questi destinati a formare i futuri
(?) universitari, quelle i futuri (?) funzionari tecnici.
Tuttavia, due fatti nuovi mi pareva andassero segnalati come positivi. Il primo era l’au-
mento notevolissimo, verificatosi durante gli anni ’70 e ’80, dei posti di lavoro per ar-
cheologi in Italia. Anche se ciò era avvenuto nei tempi e nei modi più macchinosi, più
irrazionali, più arbitrari, più clientelari possibili, era un fatto che gli organici archeologici
delle Soprintendenze, delle Università, del C.N.R., degli Enti Locali si erano enormemen-
te dilatati. Da questo punto di vista, beninteso puramente numerico, l’Italia aveva ormai
raggiunto il livello degli altri maggiori paesi europei. Ciò stava a significare che un’azione
che fosse riuscita a coinvolgere e unificare la generalità degli archeologi avrebbe avuto
la prospettiva di mobilitare una forza piuttosto consistente; e che come tale essa potesse
effettivamente venir recepita dal potere era documentato proprio da certe operazioni
clientelari, allora più o meno recenti, che negli anni ’60 sarebbero state impensabili.
Il secondo fatto sarebbe stata la crescente vitalità che sarebbe andata assumendo la
figura dell’archeologo libero (si fa per dire) professionista, figura che negli anni ’60
esisteva, certo, ma in modo estremamente embrionale; si potrebbe citare il caso di chi
scrive. Questo fenomeno appariva -e ancor più appare oggi- tanto più significativo,
in quanto investe anche e soprattutto i più giovani e meno garantiti; si tratta -oggi mi
rendo meglio conto che il traslato suona sgradevolmente sarcastico! - di un’importan-
te innovazione nel processo di sviluppo delle forze produttive in campo archeologico. La
prospettiva dell’archeologia come professione può avere -così mi illudevo si potesse
pensare- questo di determinante, che riguarda soprattutto alcuni ma non può non
coinvolgere tutti, sia pure in diversa misura. Di conseguenza, avrebbe potuto venir ri-
proposta in quel momento su basi più solide l’ipotesi di un’alleanza, di un’unità politica
tra archeologi sulla base di una coincidenza di interessi oggettivi (nulla di più sbagliato,
come vedremo!). Ai tempi della S.A.I. l’assunto, diciamo pure l’illusione, era stato che
gli interessi, morali certo ma anche ben materiali, dei più giovani, dei meno garantiti,
dei funzionari delle Soprintendenze potessero trovare in una libera associazione un
punto d’incontro con un interesse eminentemente morale, dando la possibilità ai nota-
bili dell’archeologia italiana di non dover troppo arrossire dei risultati della propria ge-
stione. Ai tempi dell’A.N. Co.S.T. -anche se probabilmente non era casuale il ricorrere
di alcuni firmatari della mozione del ’62 tra i nomi degli intervenuti al Seminario dell’
’88- l’aria che tirava sarebbe stata diversa, più pragmatica, e i comuni e concreti interessi
proposti, sostenevo, sarebbero stati di natura tale da poter creare non un’opzione più
o meno nobile, ma un’ipotesi di vincolo organico, di solidarietà reale.
Che quell’analisi fosse errata, è oggi manifesto; ma in che cosa era sbagliata?
La strategia politica del gruppo di giovani del ’62 partiva dal presupposto errato che
esistesse un interesse generale degli archeologi italiani, che potesse travolgere le resistenze
dei pochi notabili, e alla fine trascinare con sé anche quelli. In realtà, già allora la socio-
logia dell’archeologia italiana era più complessa, pluristratificata. Anche se si trattava
114 Cia et al.
di un precariato istituzionale, e non free lance come quello di oggi, esistevano già allora
forme di sfruttamento funzionali agli interessi di strati intermedi, e non del solo nota-
bilato di vertice. E quegli strati intermedi, in un primo momento attirati dall’appello dei
giovani, finirono per capire, e per far macchina indietro.
Peggio nell’ ’88, e peggio ancora oggi. La stratificazione si è alquanto complicata. La
‘professione’ è diventata bracciantato, accompagnato, com’è normale, dal relativo ca-
poralato. Le cooperative si sono trasformate in società; i ‘collaboratori esterni’ in sca-
vatori tuttofare, alienati -leggi: a un tempo impediti e indifferenti- allo studio e alla
pubblicazione di ciò che trovano e osservano, come l’operaio fordista alla macchina
con cui lavora. Altro che interesse generale!
Della Confederazione Italiana degli Archeologi so poco, o nulla. Mi pare tuttavia già
un passo avanti, magari l’aver fatto tesoro di vecchie esperienze, che abbia preso diret-
tamente l’iniziativa di costituirsi, senza aspettare “studiosi più autorevoli e di maggiore
esperienza” come nel ’62, senza collocarsi all’ombra di un Ministero, come nell’ ’88.
Ma forse, almeno per ciò che personalmente mi riguarda, la realtà è di gran lunga più
semplice, anche se un po’ amara: più si invecchia, più le illusioni si rifiutano di morire.
Editors’ note
Renato Peroni (1930-2010) was born in Vienna into an Austrian-Italian family. He graduated
with a degree in paleoethnology in Rome in 1950, and from 1965 to 1971 he worked at the Eth-
nographic Museum Luigi Pigorini (Rome). In 1974 he became full Professor at the University of
Rome La Sapienza, where he taught until his retirement in 2003. In this article Peroni recalled the
political and social process that resulted from the constitution of the Society of Italian Archaeologists
in the 1960s and led to the present Italian Confederation of Archaeologists. Peroni passed away on 4
May 2010. For further details on the relevance of his work see Cella, Gori & Pintucci, The Trowel
and the Sickle. Italian Archaeology and its Marxist Legacy, in this volume.
Perché l’archeologia? Risponde Mario Torelli
Dal 1975 al 2010 Mario Torelli è stato Professore Ordinario di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte greca
e romana presso l’Università di Perugia. Ha ricoperto inoltre numerosi incarichi istituzionali presso il
MiBACT e la Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici dell’Etruria Meridionale. Ha diretto numero-
si scavi, fra cui quelli del santuario greco di Gravisca, l’antico porto di Tarquinia (1969 - 1979), del
santuario extra-urbano di Afrodite a Paestum (1982 - 1985) e del santuario di Demetra e dell’agorà
di Heraclea (1985 - 1991) presso Policoro.
Confidenze ai giovani di Ex Novo

Non posso nascondere di essermi commosso nel ricevere l’invito dei giovani archeo-
logi del gruppo EX NOVO a scrivere un intervento per una rivista che essi si propon-
gono di diffondere on line. Sono passati esattamente quaranta anni dalle tumultuarie
riunioni presso la Fondazione Besso in Largo Argentina a Roma del 1965, nel corso
delle quali un folto gruppo di giovani archeologi, fra i quali ero anche io, attivi all’in-
terno dello schieramento di sinistra, decidevano di fondare una rivista, che due anni
più tardi, nel 1967, si sarebbe concretata nel primo numero dei Dialoghi di Archeologia.
Leggendo in superficie gli eventi di allora e le circostanze di oggi, si può senz’altro
affermare che i temi agitati nel 1965 sembrano essere quasi gli stessi proposti oggi dai
giovani di EX NOVO all’attenzione di alcuni seniores dell’archeologia come sono io e
come mi risultano essere gli altri colleghi oggetto di analogo invito.
Si direbbe dunque quasi un dejà vu degli eventi del 1965, ma scriverlo sarebbe un gros-
solano errore. Partendo dalla stessa formulazione del documento, è facile osservare
che il linguaggio di oggi, garbato e sommesso, contrasta con il linguaggio di allora,
molto aggressivo e self-sufficient, non privo della retorica che preannunciava quella del
non lontano ‘68. Anche allora, usciti dai primi dibattiti tenuti all’interno della neonata
Società degli Archeologi Italiani, tanto timidi sul piano dei contenuti quanto violenti
sul piano delle forme, veri e propri scontri con la vecchia generazione clerico-fascista
a quel tempo di fatto coincidente con l’intera ufficialità accademica, sia quella delle
Soprintendenze che quella delle Università, i futuri Amici dei Dialoghi di Archeologia si
rivolsero ad un senior, allora unico a militare a sinistra, Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli,
perché sponsorizzasse (a quei tempi naturalmente non si diceva così) una rivista, che
egli poi di fatto con grande coraggio fondò e diresse fino alla sua morte nel 1975. A
differenza di allora, oggi non solo non c’è bisogno di alcuna sponsorship di accademici
di peso per fondare una rivista, che il web consente di ospitare praticamente senza
spese, ma anche l’ufficialità archeologica non si può dire sia comunque tutta schierata
su posizioni dichiaratamente reazionarie, pur presentandosi di fatto “bigia” e molto
“amebica”: questo, sia detto fra parentesi, paradossalmente ma non troppo, non è un
vantaggio, perché, a differenza di quanto accadeva quarant’anni fa, non consente di ve-
dere ictu oculi quale sia il vero nemico. È vero. Le discussioni contenute nei “documenti
politici” dei futuri Amici dei Dialoghi di Archeologia erano confuse e astratte e io stesso,
a molti anni di distanza, non ho lesinato critiche a quella astrattezza, scrivendo una
prefazione al bel libro Antico e archeologia. Scienza e politica delle diverse antichità, che sulla
116 Cia et al.
storia della tutela ha scritto P. G. Guzzo nel 1993 [e da poco ristampato: lo leggano,
se non l’hanno già fatto, i giovani di EX NOVO, perché, come insegnano i padri della
sinistra, la conoscenza della propria storia costituisce notoriamente un’arma in più di
cui servirsi]: eppure quei dibattiti e i documenti successivamente approvati dal gruppo
degli Amici dei Dialoghi di Archeologia erano il frutto di una presa di coscienza del modo
di fare archeologia, di un lucido bisogno d’impegno (nel senso di quell’engagement cui
ci avevano abituato le elaborazioni politiche del PCI), che, secondo quelle opinioni,
doveva accompagnare il lavoro intellettuale e che oggi, in un quadro politico nazionale
dominato dalla “morte delle ideologie”, oscuramente riemerge nella proposta dai gio-
vani di EX NOVO, i quali, in conseguenza di quella “morte”, finiscono per formulare
i loro più che giusti interrogativi in maniera più ingenua e confusa rispetto ai proclami
degli Amici dei Dialoghi di Archeologia.
Quello che rispetto a quarant’anni or sono è radicalmente diverso è proprio il quadro
generale nel quale un giovane archeologo si accinge a lavorare, diverso sul piano delle
ideologie correnti e diverso sul piano del lavoro. Il quadro generale del lavoro di oggi è
fatto di una miriade di attività superprecarie, mille volte più numerose rispetto alle for-
me d’impiego della mia gioventù, fra le quali spiccava il “novantista”4, figura identica a
quella dell’attuale “trimestrale”, peraltro - a quel che so - sconosciuto nelle Soprinten-
denze di oggi. Sul piano professionale specifico non esistevano attività remunerative
di sorta, tranne forme d’impiego temporaneo francamente miserabili, in pratica sol-
tanto quella di capocantiere dei cantieri di lavoro gestiti dal Ministero del Lavoro (in
cui ho prestato la mia opera per tre mesi nel lontanissimo 1957 a Subiaco) o quella di
titolare di schedature, peraltro allora tanto rare, che nei cinque anni di servizio come
ispettore di Soprintendenza per l’Etruria Meridionale ricordo soltanto un caso, quello
di una simpatica giovane schedatrice (poi saggiamente passata all’insegnamento), im-
pegnata nello studio dei frammenti Campana del Museo di Villa Giulia. Insomma il
mercato del lavoro era arcaico, e soprattutto legato a pratiche clientelari neanche tanto
occulte. Per entrare in una Soprintendenza come “novantista” occorreva essere cliens
di Soprintendenti o di alti funzionari ministeriali o raccomandati da “pezzi grossi” dei
partiti di governo: una volta ottenuta la grazia si poteva nutrire la non infondata spe-
ranza di diventare “avventizi”, in pratica stabili, in previsione di qualche “anno santo”
responsabile di una generalizzata immissione in ruolo, che avrebbe fatto degli “avven-
tizi” altrettanti ispettori. Non pochi “avventizi” sono con il tempo divenuti addirittura
Soprintendenti, che in molti casi non sono stati peggiori di altri entrati nell’Ammini-
strazione in seguito a quel regolare concorso, obbligatorio (!) secondo la Costituzione
della Repubblica. Insomma da un paleocapitalismo di stampo borbonico, saldamente
gestito in maniera “morbida”, con stile ecclesiastico, dalla DC, si è passato al turboca-
pitalismo di oggi investito della missione di imporre ovunque il lavoro “flessibile” e di
procedere alla sistematica distruzione dello Stato liberale, costruito a fatica nei primi
4
Con il termine ‘novantista’ l’autore qui si riferisce a una formula di assunzione a tempo determinato
ante litteram utilizzata nella Pubblica Amministrazione tra gli anni ’60 e ’70. Il novantista era in genere
assunto per coprire i buchi in organico del personale e/o come rinforzo nei periodi di maggiore lavoro,
non poteva avere più di 24 anni e per tutta la durata del contratto non poteva assentarsi dal lavoro pena
il licenziamento (n.d.r.)
cinquant’anni del Regno e sopravvissuto attraverso due Guerre Mondiali, il fascismo e

la Ricostruzione, che bene o male è riuscito a conservare al Paese almeno una parte dei
Beni Culturali tramandatici dal nostro glorioso passato, che ora, come è noto, l’attuale
governo vorrebbe invece festosamente vendere5.
Allora, i giovani Amici dei Dialoghi di Archeologia sapevano (o credevano di sapere) cosa
fare: l’analisi marxista dello Stato capitalista era chiara ai loro occhi e chiarissime erano
le ricette suggerite dalle esperienze sovietiche, come si può dedurre dalla lettura dei
documenti della parte “politica” dei Dialoghi di Archeologia, veri esercizi di socialismo re-
ale, che naturalmente non hanno fatto un sol passo nella realtà ferreamente controllata
dalla DC. Non è un caso che la morte della parte “politica” della rivista - e con essa la
vita politica del gruppo degli Amici dei Dialoghi di Archeologia- si collochi alla fine degli
anni ‘70, all’epoca della solidarietà nazionale e dell’inizio della “fine della sinistra”. Tra
le molte cose allora non comprese, il PCI non ha saputo capire la portata devastante
dell’assalto clientelare portato allo Stato, nello specifico dei Beni Culturali, con la legge
285/78 da una classe di governo profondamente corrotta. Nella legge tutti noi, io per
primo, abbiamo stoltamente e ciecamente creduto: oggi essa ci appare come il primo
passo che avrebbe condotto l’Italia negli anni Ottanta nell’abisso di Tangentopoli, di
cui la finanziaria del 1985, con i famigerati “giacimenti culturali” di De Michelis, costi-
tuisce l’inesplorato capitolo relativo ai Beni Culturali. Negli anni successivi la questione
dei Beni Culturali è definitivamente morta come questione nazionale, mentre la sini-
stra, duramente provata da una serie di sconfitte, veniva rapidamente smarrendo ogni
guida teorica per affrontare il “lungo inverno”.
A mio modestissimo avviso, ai giovani di EX NOVO gioverebbe moltissimo riprende-
re il vecchio metodo di analisi, quello stesso da noi a suo tempo impiegato (evitando
dogmatismi di ogni genere), per sottoporre a critica i caratteri della formazione econo-
mica della società in cui oggi viviamo, partendo dal riconoscimento della condizione di
“proletariato intellettuale”, che i giovani di EX NOVO larvatamente denunciano per se
stessi, per porsi poi il problema di una rappresentanza, delle necessarie alleanze, primo
passo in direzione di un’efficace azione di tutela della propria professionalità: una delle
prime battaglie da fare nello specifico del modo in cui essi sono costretti a prestare
la loro opera, c’è quello che li vuole meri raccoglitori di dati, e che invece di quei dati
dovrebbe vederli elaboratori ed editori, venendo definitivamente sottratti a quella vera
e propria “alienazione” intellettuale, che li rende, nel campo del lavoro intellettuale,
molto simili agli operai delle fabbriche di un secolo e mezzo fa così efficacemente
descritti da Karl Marx. Non debbo essere certo io (e non perché, come ingenuamente
si diceva nel ‘68, i professori possono costituire per la contestazione giovanile la “con-
troparte”, chiaramente collocata altrove) a dire ai giovani di EX NOVO quali alleanze
5
L’autore fa qui riferimento al processo di sdemanializzazione del patrimonio storico-artistico italiano
iniziato dal Governo Berlusconi con il dibattuto ‘decreto Tremonti’ (poi convertito nella Legge 15
giugno 2002, n. 112), che vide l’istituzione delle due gemelle società per azioni ‘Patrimonio dello Stato
S.p.A.’ e ‘Infrastrutture S.p.A.’. Seppure tali propositi politici non seppero tradursi in coerente disciplina
normativa, la direzione indicata dal ‘decreto Tremonti’ venne ribadita dalla successiva legge finanziaria
del 2004 (l.n. 350/2003, approvata insieme all’art. 27 sui beni culturali), che modificò sostanzialmente le
norme sino ad allora vigenti sull’inalienabilità del patrimonio culturale.
118 Cia et al.
cercare, dove collocare la rappresentanza dei propri interessi: quello che sento invece
il dovere di segnalare loro è la necessità di sottoporre a dura critica il loro modo di
fare scienza. Oggi è imperativo che l’archeologia sia e resti una scienza storica, come
indicato trent’anni or sono da Bianchi Bandinelli, e non diventi una variante salottiera
delle scienze sociali, inutile manifestazione di un’evasione tanto cara alle classi agiate di
tutti i tempi (come me avrete sentito mille volte dire da gente di ogni ceto “che invidia!
Quanto avrei voluto anch’io fare l’archeologo!”), cui vorrebbero ridurla le dottrine
neo-archeologiche e le loro “revisioni”, da Renfrew a Hodder; sappiamo che il loro
fondamento metodologico posa su di un monumentale equivoco, tutto anglosassone,
dell’eternità e immutabilità del common sense, metro di ogni fenomeno e di ogni ipotesi,
senza parlare del fatto che esse pretendono di sostituire ogni altro genere di evidenza
(in primis le fonti letterarie) e di porsi come forsennatamente nomotetiche. Questo
metodo, assieme allo “scavo per lo scavo”, altro demone dell’ultimo trentennio, va cri-
ticato e combattuto, così come vanno combattuti quanti se ne servono o se ne fanno
scudo metodologico, nelle Università come nelle Soprintendenze: solo riconoscendo
le radici storiche del metodo archeologico si può recuperare la vera funzione sociale
della nostra professione. Allo stesso vaglio critico vanno sottoposti tutti i maestri che
avete avuto, esattamente come quarant’anni fa ha fatto la parte a quel tempo migliore
della mia generazione - e dio solo sa con quanti eccessi e quanta durezza! -, facendo
però attenzione a non “buttar l’acqua sporca con il bambino”: non si tratta di uccidere
i padri, ma di vedere quanta responsabilità ognuno di loro abbia nell’aver determinato
l’attuale stato delle cose nell’archeologia sia teorica che militante. Niente catarsi aristo-
teliche, dunque, ma solo meditata anatomia di una situazione, quella di voi giovani di
EX NOVO e della scienza nella quale con la vostra iniziativa fate mostra di credere
nella maniera per me migliore.
Editors’ note
Full professor of Greek and Roman Archaeology at the University of Perugia, Mario Torelli (Rome,
12 May 1937) - pupil of Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli - held several important positions at the Min-
istry of Heritage and Culture as well as in academia. He was appointed by the Soprintendenza per i
Beni Archeologici dell’Etruria Meridionale (Archaeological Service for Southern Etruria) to coordi-
nate the Etruscan Museum of Villa Giulia and the archaeological sites of Veii and Gravisca. He
has been a visiting professor in many institutions abroad, including Paris I-Pantheon La Sorbonne,
College de France, the Universities of Oxford, Bristol, Colorado, Michigan, California, Institute for
Advanced Studies in Princeton, and the Getty Center in Los Angeles, to mention only a few. In his
reply, Torelli compares the experience of the journal Dialoghi di Archeologia, established by a group
of very opinionated Italian archaeologists in the mid-1960s, to the newly formed journal Ex Novo,
sharing his view on the importance of actively engaging with politics and ideologies as researchers and
archaeologists strive to raise the profile of our profession and make archaeology relevant to our con-
temporaries.
REVIEWS
Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Satricum – Scavi e reperti archeologici. Exhibition in Le Ferriere,

province of Latina, Italy, 11 June 2014 – 11 January 2015 (prolonged
until 1 June 2017)
and
M. Gnade (ed.), 2007. Satricum. Trenta anni di scavi olandesi, Am-

sterdam: Amsterdams Archeologisch Centrum, Universiteit van
Amsterdam. ISBN 978-90-78863-14-4. 208 pp., € 25,00
Reviewed by Niels Steensma
University of Amsterdam
Satricum (Le Ferriere, prov. Latina, Italy): a new, on-site exhibition

Today, the ancient town of Satricum (modern Le Ferriere, province of Latina), located
approximately 60 kilometres southeast of Rome, may be counted among the better-
investigated sites of Latium Vetus. Excavations at Satricum were already carried out in
the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, but it was not until 1977 that
the site began to be systematically excavated, by teams from various Dutch research
institutes. These investigations, currently under the aegis of the University of Amster-
dam, have continued uninterrupted up to today, producing a vast amount of valuable
data. The site has yielded several burial grounds, roads, many different architectural
structures, and two sanctuaries, among which a monumental temple to the Latin deity
Mater Matuta, for which the site is particularly known. At present, about 40 percent
of the ancient settlement has been systematically excavated. Results of the long-term
Satricum Project are now presented at a new exhibition in Le Ferriere.
A new, on-site exhibition

Satricum – Scavi e reperti archeologici is the third temporary exhibition solely devoted to
this ancient Latin town. In 1982, an exhibition was organized in Latina, as part of the
celebrations surrounding the provincial capital’s fiftieth birthday. A similar show was
held at the Dutch Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden a few years later (1985-1986)
(Beijer 1982; Attema et al. 1986). Drawing on 36 years of research, the current exhibi-
tion, created by the University of Amsterdam (Prof. M. Gnade) in collaboration with
the Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo and the Soprintendenza
per i Beni Archeologici del Lazio, provides a new account of the history and culture
of Satricum, from its beginnings in the Iron Age to its decline in the Imperial period
(ninth century BCE – c. 100 CE). The new exhibition may well be considered a mile-
stone in presenting Satricum to the public: for the first time, a large selection of finds
normally tucked away in storage can now be viewed at Le Ferriere itself, in a former
factory that was renovated specifically for the purpose. The building lies at the foot
of the ancient acropolis, allowing for not only an easy visit of the exhibition, but of
CONTACT Niels Steensma, nsteensma@hotmail.com

122 N. Steensma
the site as well. Organizing the exhibition proved to be a difficult undertaking; it was
initially scheduled to be opened in 2007, to coincide with the 30-year anniversary of
Dutch archaeological research at Satricum, but was delayed several times over the years
due to various circumstances. It is the organizers’ intention to eventually make the
temporary exhibition space into an official site museum, but the plan is still awaiting
approval from the Italian authorities.
The exhibition displays about 700 objects divided over three floors. The main arrange-
ment is chronological, each floor being devoted to a different period. The arrangement
perfectly reflects archaeological stratigraphy: the oldest finds are shown on the lowest
floor, artefacts from the Archaic and Hellenistic period on the next, and materials from
the post-Archaic and Roman period on the top floor. Within the rooms, objects are
displayed in thematic sections that elucidate clearly and effectively the different facets
of the ancient town and its multi-layered community (e.g. sacred and private architec-
ture, daily life, social relations, religious activity, burial customs and funerary ideology).
In the room dedicated to the Iron Age, architecture is among the principle themes. At
least 47 huts of different layouts and dimensions have been identified on the acropo-
lis hill, which was the first place of settlement in Satricum, the earliest of which can
be dated to Latial period IIB/III. The exhibition addresses their layout, chronology,
function and use. Excavations in this zone have also produced some evidence regard-
ing funerary and religious practices. For instance, on display are the physical remains
and accompanying grave goods from a number of infant burials. The fact that these
graves were found at the acropolis, rather than in the contemporaneous Northwest
Necropolis (the oldest cemetery, late ninth - late seventh century BCE) shows that
the settlement area was occasionally also used as a burial place. The infant graves are
linked to the suggrundaria mentioned in ancient literature. As for the evidence of early
religious activity, excavations have shown that Hut 1 probably was the earliest place of
cult: it had associated votive deposits and was superseded by a sacellum/oikos (Temple
0) in the late seventh/early sixth century BCE.
In the rooms dedicated to the Archaic and Hellenistic periods, main themes are the
sanctuary of Mater Matuta and the changing townscape. During the course of the
sixth century BCE, the settlement underwent dramatic changes. It reached its largest
size (c. 40 ha), was fortified with a ditch and rampart, and huts were replaced by more
monumental structures with stone foundations and tiled roofs. On the acropolis, the
appearance of new architecture is well illustrated by the replacement of the modest
Temple 0 with a larger structure (Temple I) in about 540 BCE, which in its turn was
supplanted by a temple of enormous dimensions (Temple II) in the first decade of the
following century. Each of the three successive buildings had different sets of roof
terracottas. Extensive research has revealed much about the original appearance and
iconographic programme. A rich selection of finds from the enormous votive deposits
illustrates the past religious activity in the sanctuary area. The diversity of languages
used in the votive inscriptions (Greek, Etruscan, Latin) reflects the ‘international’ char-
acter of the sanctuary. Of particular importance in this respect are a large vernice nera
skyphos (320-280 BCE, no. 638 in the catalogue), found in Votive Deposit III on the
acropolis, and a fragment of a Late Republican votive cippus (cat. no. 640), found in
front of the temple, which both carry dedications to the Latin deity Mater Matuta.
The inscribed cippus indicates that the cult was still alive in the Late Republican period.
When the sanctuary fell out of use remains obscure; it is possible that the building
burned down after a lightning strike in 207 BCE (cf. Livy 28.11.2).
The room on the top floor, dedicated to the Post-Archaic period, features materials
from a Roman villa site, and many sets of grave goods from burial grounds in the
lower city, which are generally linked to the Volscian occupation of the area.
Catalogue
The accompanying publication, Satricum: trenta anni di scavi olandesi, edited by M. Gnade,
is structured into four forewords, seven thematic chapters, a catalogue of the exhibited
objects, a glossary, and a bibliography. The introductory first chapter offers an over-
view of the history of archaeological research at Satricum, and the concluding chapter
discusses the various inscriptions found at Satricum. Chapters 2-6 and the catalogue
are organized chronologically, following the exhibition’s main arrangement. The chap-
ters, all written by specialists, are concise but informative and richly illustrated. No
bibliographical references are included in the running text, but readers will find a com-
prehensive list of scholarly publications at the end of the book. A proper catalogue,
consisting of 641 entries, provides specific information on most of the exhibited items
as well as bibliographic references to academic publications. About 60 percent of the
entries are illustrated. The glossary of technical terms makes the book more accessible
to a wider range of readers.
Evaluation
The exhibition offers precisely what its somewhat prosaic title promises: a presenta-
tion of results of archaeological research at Satricum. Many of the items on view
come from old excavations and have already been shown before, but the exhibition
also includes some newly discovered material. Some of these recent finds are highly
interesting and open up new pathways for additional research, such as a richly fur-
nished infant’s grave (Latial period IVA1) found isolated in the lower city area during
the 2013 campaign. One of the major assets of the exhibition is the holistic and
diachronic approach: rather than laying the focus upon one particular aspect, such as
elite material culture, the exhibition aims at providing visitors with a comprehensive
understanding of the complex history and culture of Satricum from its beginnings
to its decline. On display are not only finds from the acropolis with its famous sanc-
tuary, but also from many other zones of the site. Even materials from another site
are included in the exhibition: the so-called Laghetto del Monsignore, a small lake
located near Campoverde a few kilometres to the northeast of Le Ferriere, which
served as an open cult place for a long period of time (tenth to fifth century BCE),
as apparent from a large quantity of votive objects found in the lake and the direct
surrounding area (for the Laghetto del Monsignore, not covered in the exhibition
catalogue, see Giovannini & Ampolo 1976: 347; Crescenzi 1978: 51–55; Kleibrink
1997-98: 441–511; van Loon 2009: 1–8).
In the light of this broad scope, it is somewhat surprising that the aforementioned North-
west Necropolis of Satricum is not covered in the exhibition. Like in other parts of the
central Italic peninsula, Satrican society became increasingly stratified during the course
124 N. Steensma
of the second half of the eight and the seventh centuries BCE, a process clearly reflected
by the presence of lavishly furnished, monumental chamber tombs, the so-called tombe
principesche in that cemetery. A proper presentation and discussion of the results of re-
search in this zone would certainly have contributed to a better understanding of impor-
tant matters such as the development of social stratification, funerary practices and tomb
architecture (for the Northwest Necropolis, see Attema et al. 1985: 47–50, 120–30, and
especially Waarsenburg 1995; 2001). A selection of finds from this cemetery are on per-
manent display at the Villa Poniatowski of the Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia,
Rome. Also, the absence in the exhibition of some of Satricum’s most celebrated finds,
e.g., the famous Lapis Satricanus or the splendid architectural terracottas of the Mater
Matuta temple, may be disappointing to some informed visitors, but such highlights are,
of course, not essential to an effective narrative. The Lapis Satricanus is now in the Museo
Epigrafico of the Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome.
The exhibition narrative is solid, and the spatial organization and presentation are clear
and effective. Objects are consistently subservient to the narrative, without a hint of
oggettistica. The exhibition is also serene: the organizers have clearly chosen not to follow
the modern tendency to create a show that is a multimedia extravaganza. It is in many
respects a traditional archaeological exhibition, very much comparable to the permanent
exhibitions in many local archaeological museums in Italy. Some would argue that such
an exhibition is more interested in communicating to a specialist audience than to the
general public. However, the exhibition has a strong didactic component; for example,
visitors learn much about the archaeological activities themselves: a short film, shot dur-
ing one of the excavation seasons, shows the typical activities on site, and a section
called Dallo scavo alla pubblicazione, addresses the processing, study and publication of the
excavated material. Scale models and reconstructions are used to facilitate a better un-
derstanding of the past domestic and sacred architecture. The information provided at
the exhibition is written in a comprehensible style largely free from professional jargon.
The exhibition has attracted many visitors from Italy and abroad, and has proved
of special interest to members of the local community. In fact, the fact that after
a long period of abandonment the old factory was renovated and given a new
purpose has had major effects on the local community. The building is deeply
embedded in the history of Le Ferriere; the iron mill/strawboard factory that was
located here (and to which the town owes its name) had many employees from Le
Ferriere. To (re-)acquaint the locals with both the ancient and modern history of
Le Ferriere, with their heritage, is one of the exhibition’s primary aims. Text panels
in the entrance hall narrate the modern history of the area, while large photo-
graphs portraying Dutch archaeologists together with locals, hanging prominently
throughout the building, underline the longstanding and close Dutch-Italian rela-
tionship. The square in front of the building with its adjacent theatron-like stairs, is
frequently used for cultural events. In this respect, the building has again become a
social and economic focal point of the area. As such, the exhibition also encour-
ages contemplation on notions of heritage and identity. For these reasons, it is of
pivotal importance that the current exhibition space will be granted a permanent
status. At any rate, this exhibition can already be regarded as a successful step to-
wards the establishment of a “Museo Archeologico di Satricum”.
References
Attema, P. A. J., J. Euwe-Beaufort & M. Gnade (eds.), 1986. Nieuw licht op een oude
stad: Italiaanse en Nederlandse opgravingen in Satricum; Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, 22
november 1985 - 22 februari 1986; Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam, Nijmegen, 7 maart 1986 - 5 mei
1986 2. Rome: Nederlands Instituut te Rome.
Beijer, A.J. (ed.), 1982. Satricum. Una città latina. Comune di Latina, cinquantenario
1932 – 1982. Firenze: Ali.
Crescenzi, L., 1978. Campoverde. Archeologia Laziale 1: 51–55.
Giovannini V. & C. Ampolo. 1976. Campoverde, in: G. Colonna (ed.), Civiltà del Lazio
primitivo. Rome: Multigrafica Editrice, 347.
Kleibrink M., 1997-98. The miniature votive pottery dedicated at the ‘Laghetto del
Monsignore’, Campoverde. Palaeohistoria 39–40: 441–511.
van Loon T., 2009. Ritueel als indicator van sociale veranderingen: het votiefdepot
Laghetto del Monsignore (Campoverde), een casus. Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie
42: 1-8.
Waarsenburg D. J., 1995. The Northwest Necropolis of Satricum. An Iron Age cemetery in
Latium Vetus. Amsterdam: Thesis Publisher.
Waarsenburg D. J., 2001. Living like a prince. The habitation counterpart of tombe prin-
cipesche, as represented at Satricum, in: J. Rasmus Brandt & L. Karlsson (eds.), From
huts to houses. Transformations of ancient societies. Stockholm: Åström, 179-88.
Figure 1. The renovated factory building that houses the exhibition (photograph by N. Steensma).
126 N. Steensma
Figure 2. Floor plan of the exhibition space (courtesy Satricum Project, University of Amsterdam).
Figure 3. Room II (photograph by N. Steensma).
Figure 4. Grave goods from an infant’s grave at Poggio dei Cavallari (photograph by N. Steensma).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Print: ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8
Published Online: 16 Dec 2016 EX NOVO Journal of Archaeology, Volume 1, Number 1, 2016 131
Thanks to our backers:
Luca Alessandri Giada Fatucci Aurora Raimondi Cominesi

Matteo Alviti Francesca R. Festuccia Maria Chiara Rassu
Paolo Amati Maja Gori Chiara Revello Lami
Viviana Amati Elisa Gusberti Giovanni Revello Lami
Agostina Appetecchia Amanda Hoogestraat Enrico Sanzo
Alberta Arena Jill Hilditch Anobius Sardous
Maria Grazia Barbieri Veronica Iacomi Andrea Schiappelli
Zaphod Beeblebrox Timbert Kriek Carlotta Schwarz
Valeria Boi Federica Lamonaca Nicola Siciliani De Cumis
Roberta Borrelli Andrea Lauria Immacolata Stendardo
Andrea Cardarelli Giovanni Leonardi Enrico Tarantino
Gianni Cardillo Maria Cristina Leotta Daniela Timpanaro
Filippo Carlà Frank Loose Giancarlo Tomassetti
Claudio Cavazzuti Tommaso Magliaro Anna Troilo
Claudio Cella Benedetta Martini Marina Valentini
Elisa Cella Daniela Mignone Loretta Viarengo
Valerio Cerasani Michele Milella Donata Zirone
Enzo Cipriani Matteo Orfini
Pasqualina Cipriani Silvia Pallecchi Sponsored also by
Mauro Colapicchioni Simone Pensieroso Confederazione Italiana
Maria Bianca D’Anna Tatjana Perović Archeologi
Doriana De Padova Alessandro Pintucci
Valentina Di Stefano Alceste Pintucci
Maurizio Falcitelli Daniele Putortì
Simona Fanini Francesco Quondam
A rb or sapie ntia E
e d i t o r e
Roma
www.arborsapientiae.co m
Finito di stampare a Città di Castello

nel mese di Novembre 2016

Albania Old New

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Albania Old New

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EX NOVO

To cite this issue

© 2016 - Associazione Ex Novo

Print: Associazione Ex Novo (Rome, Italy) ISBN 978-88-903189-4-8

Online: Associazione Ex Novo (Rome, Italy) ISSN 2531-8810

Publisher (Editore Commerciale): Arbor Sapientiae s.r.l. – www.arborsapientiae.com

Maja GORI, Martina REVELLO LAMI, Alessandro PINTUCCI, Elisa CELLA

The Impact of the Fall of Communism on European Heritage.

Maja Gori1, Martina Revello Lami2, Alessandro Pintucci3, Elisa Cella4

Etrusco Romano di Trevignano Romano

CONTACT Maja Gori, maja.gori@zaw.uni-heidelberg.de; Martina Revello Lami, m.revello-lami@uva.nl;

Kick starting Ex Novo: between crowdfunding and academia

“Science crowdfunding is a potential feedback mechanism to help scientists target inter-

It is precisely towards this direction that we embarked on this project. On the

Open Access policy

Reviewing Archaeological Museums, Sites & Parks

Introducing the Special Issue

Edited by Maja Gori & Valerie Higgins

Archaeology in the Adriatic. From the Dawn to the Sunset of

Elisa Cella1, Maja Gori2, Alessandro Pintucci3 4

Keywords: Albania, Yugoslavia, Nationalism, Fascism, Communism

Regime Archaeology in Wartime

The Cold War Era

undermined by socio-political changes. Local identities became more relevant and

The Sunset of Communism

Figure 3. Vladimir Demitriović Blavatski and Hasan Ceka in Apollonia, 1958.

the fall of Hoxha’s regime functioned as a trigger to transform interpretative

Are We Still Illyrians?

Keywords: Albania, Butrint, cultural heritage, Illyrians, Cold War.

CONTACT Valerie Higgins, v.higgins@aur.edu

Figure 2. ‘Steel of the Party’ Metallurgical Combine at Elbasan (photograph

Importance of different periods of history

Reasons for Studying Archaeology

The Role of Archaeology in Albania’s Future

1. Important for identity within the country – 21 (60%)

Figure 8. The 3rd Century BC site of Antigoneia (photograph by V. Higgins).

The development of heritage tourism was seen by 15 of the respondents as a

The desire expressed by some survey participants of portraying Albania as a country

Figure 10. Gjirokastra Castle (photograph by V. Higgins).

Figure 11. The tunnels under Gjirokastra castle (photograph by O. Gilkes).

goni). Although still in its early stages, its

Nepravishta, F., 2014. Regeneration of Brownfield military heritage in Albania, in: A.

Heritage for Development, Multiethnic Communities, and the

Keywords: Cultural heritage, community development, post-socialism, European

CONTACT Dana Phelps, dfphelps@stanford.edu

Part I. Sustainable development and heritage under a neoliberal apparatus

“to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civili-

Figure 2. Roman Theater at Butrint (photograph by D. Phelps).

Community Development Projects

socio-economic improvement in one of Albania’s most agriculturally rich areas. Each

Therefore, given the positive reac-

Participation and Local Elitism

genuine anthropological approach prevented an understanding of the realities of the

Exploring the public perception of Communist Heritage in Post-

Francesco Iacono1 and Klejd L. Këlliçi2

Keywords: Albania, Tirana, Cultural Heritage, Dictatorship, Communist Heritage

Framing the problem

CONTACT Francesco Iacono, fi216@cam.ac.uk - Klejd L. Këlliçi, k.kellici@gmail.com

The Pyramid as an Hoxhan commemoration

The Pyramid in the aftermath of the regime

Figure 2. The Piramida in its current state of preservation. Photograph by I. Gramo.

“a contextual horizon of perceptions, providing both a foreground and a background

“bunkers are personified by people and

This is particularly interesting as