Center for Open Access in Science (COAS) OPEN JOURNAL FOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDIES (OJAS) ISSN (Online) 2560-5348 * ojas@centerprode.com

OJAS Home

2018 - Volume 2 - Number 1

Social Values of Antiquities in Bulgaria: Anthropological Perspectives

Tsvete Petrova Lazova * tlazova@gmail.com * ORCID: 0000-0001-5276-9522 * Researcher ID: E-5799-2018
New Bulgarian University, Department of Anthropology, Sofia

Open Journal for Anthropological Studies, 2018, 2(1), 1-12 * https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojas.0201.01001l
Online Published Date: 20 July 2018

LICENCE: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ARTICLE (Full Text - PDF)Social Values of Antiquities in Bulgaria: Anthropological Perspectives

KEY WORDS: antiquities, national identity, politics of the past, history of archaeology, uses of culture-historical approach, theory of ethnogenesis, production of antiquities.

ABSTRACT:
This article analyses some aspects of the processes constructing values of the remote past and their role in the formation of national identity. The useful debate on “identity” provides a space to look at it not only as an analytical category but also as a practical one. As a category of practice it is concerned to be used by “lay” actors in some everyday settings to make sense of themselves and how they differ from others (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000). I focus therefore on antiquities – material and non-material artifacts – which play active role in everyday life as identity marker. They are seen as anthropological terrain where the “eye of anthropology” makes possible to evaluate the nature of discourses on antiquities as cultural products in the context of the imagined nation. This supposes to look not only at the rhetoric of the national(ist) discourse but also at its content. In a “longue durée” perspective it becomes possible to be traced the uses of antiquities in Bulgaria with its complexities and beyond the dynamics of transformations within the academic fields and their research agenda. This perspective is useful as it introduces the needed sensitivity to different intensities of nationalism across time and space as well as within the same space (Todorova, 2015). Rooted in Romanticism the academic and non-academic research practices of antiquities are coupled with the doctrines of cultural survivals and continuity of the 19th century and enriched by the German Altertumswissenschaft. These trends provide sound basis for the advent of the Soviet theory of ethnogenesis and thus the national continuum seems monolithic and never broken even by the strong political perturbations in 1944 (the beginning of the communist regime) and 1989 (the beginning of democratic changes) in Bulgaria. After the changes some archaeological sites interpreted through ancient Greek imageries entered the marketplace as culture-historical “authentic” heritage.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Tsvete Petrova Lazova, Sofia 1330, JK Krasna Poliana III, 37A, vh. V. ap. 58, BULGARIA. E-mail: tlazova@gmail.com.

REFERENCES:

Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference. Boston.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.

Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “identity”. Theory and Society, 29: 1-47.

Brubaker, R. (2013). Categories of analysis and categories of practice: A note on the study of Muslims in European countries of immigration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36, 1, 1-8.

Danforth, L. (1984). The ideological context of the search of continuities in Greek culture. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 2(1), 53-85.

Daskalov, R. (2013). Kak se misli Balgarskoto Vazrajdane. 10 godini po-kasno. Sofia: Izdatelstvo “Prosveta”.

Daskalov, R. & Vezenkov, Al. (Eds.) (2015). Entangled histories of the Balkans. Vol.3: Shared pasts, disputed legacies. Brill, Leiden/Boston.

Detchev, S. (ed.) (2010). V tarsene na Balgarskoto: mreji na natsionalna intimnost (XIX-XXI) [In search for the essentially Bulgarian: Networks of national intimacy 19th – 21st Centuries]. Sofia: BAN.

Eriksen, Th. (2002). Ethnicity and nationalism: Anthropological perspectives. London: Pluto Press.

Fabian, J. (1983). Time and the other. How anthropology makes its object. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fol, A. (1986). Trakiyskiyat orfizam. Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo.

Fol, A. (1991). Trakiyskiyat Dionis, Vol. 1: Zagrey. Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo.

Fol, A. (1994). Trakiyskiyat Dionis,Vol. 2: Sabaziy. Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo.

Guentcheva, R. (2003) Seeing language: Bulgarian linguistic maps in the second half of the twentieth century. European Review of History, 10, 3, 467-485.

Hamilakis, Y. & Duke, Ph. (2007). Archaeology and capitalism. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press.

Hamilakis, Y. & Anagnostopoulos, A. (2009). What is archaeological ethnography. Public Archaeology: Archaeological Ethnographies, 8(2-3), 65-87.

Herzfeld, M. (1997). Cultural intimacy: Social poetics in the nation-state. New York: Routledge.

Hroch, M. (1985). Social preconditions of national revival in Europe: A comparative analysis of social composition of patriotic groups among smaller European nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hutchinson, J. (1994). Modern nationalism. London: Fontana Press.

Iliev, I. (1998). The proper use of ancestors. Ethnologia Balkanica, 2, 7-18.

Kohl, Ph. (1998). Nationalism and archaeology: On the construction of nations and the reconstruction of the remote past. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 223-246.

Lazova, T. (2014). Perperikon entre nature et histoire: les dimensiones multiples d’une site archeolgique et le peysage de identite Bulgare. Etudes Balkaniques: Paysage religious et memoriels en Europe du Sud-Est: visions anciennes, pratique et politiques recentes (pp. 221-247). Paris.

Lazova, T. (2016). Antichnost, archeologia i natsionalno vaobrazjavane. Antropologichni perspectivi [Antiquity, archaeology and national imagination. Anthropological perspectives]. New Bulgarian University, Sofia.

Lazova, T. (forthcoming). Consumption of the past: Constructing antiquity of an archaeological site in Bulgaria and marketing the narrative representations.

Lilova, D. (2006). Vazrojdenskite znachenia na natsionalnoto ime. Sofia: Izdatelstvo Prosveta.

Marcus, G., & Fisher, M. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Marinov, Tch. (2015). Ancient Thrace in the modern imagination: Ideological aspects of the construction of Thracian studies in Southeast Europe (Romania, Greece, Bulgaria). In: R. Daskalov & Al. Vezenkov (Eds.), Entangled histories of the Balkans. Vol. 3. Shared pasts. Disputed legacies – Balkan Studies Library, vol. 16 (pp. 10-118). Leiden, Brill, The Netherlands.

Mishkova, D. (2006). Balkanskijat XIX vek. Drugi prochiti. Sofia: Izdatelstvo“Riva”.

Naumovic, Sl. (1998). Romanticists or double insiders? An essay on the origins of ideologised discources in Balkan ethnology. Ethnologia Balkanika, 2, 100-120.

Samah, S. (2007). Imagining nations. Anthropological perspectives. Nexus, 20(1), 4.

Todorova, M. (1992). Historiography of the countries of Eastern Europe: Bulgaria. American Historical Review, 4, 1105-1117.

Todorova, M. (2015). Is there weak nationalism and is it a useful category. Nation and Nationalism, 21(4), 681-699.

© Center for Open Access in Science