(uneven) sections, I was not too aware of this structure while reading the volume and so will not follow their theming in my discussion below. Their three themes embraced topics of identity creation and manipulation, and one shorter final section on absences; although the included chapters certainly corresponded with these broad themes, they acted more as placeholders than anything else. Although some of the contributions to this volume explore identity formation in the past through the archaeological record (Predovnik on Hapsberg Slovenia, Jenks on New Mexico), it is a pity there were not more studies of this nature, given the historical archaeological perspective of the volume. Instead, most of the papers take the more familiar route and examine the intersections of nationalist narratives on archaeological remains and research. Of this larger group, there are nonetheless still some interesting differences in the way the authors have approached their topic. Several adopt a mostly critical review of the way archaeological remains of the historic past have been mobilized in the service of nationalist narratives (Fowler and N€oel on Nova Scotia, Mytum on the Isle of Man, Comer on Denmark and De Cunzo on New Sweden/Delaware). This is familiar fare, but nonetheless underlines the fact that the recent past is as potent a resource for nationalism as prehistory. Somewhat more original were two contributions that explored the way nationalist agendas have impacted the course of archaeological research. Belasus’ paper on the influence of German maritime nationalism on maritime archaeology and ship taxonomies revealed the extremely subtle and deeply hidden ways that ideologies can direct archaeological research. In contrast, Dikkaya’s analysis of the absence of Ottoman archaeology among Turkish scholars exposes a more blatant and overt bias in the wake of Kemalism and the ‘modernization’ of Turkey from the 1920s. However, I felt the most powerful contributions took the debate one step further. Horning’s chapter on Ireland, Newstead’s chapter on Plymouth and Sch avelzon and Igareta’s paper on Easter Island all addressed the usual issues of how archaeological remains have been conscripted into the service of nationalist agendas; they also revealed the ways in which nationalist narratives have influenced the direction of archaeological research. But, in addition, they also argued for and indicated the more active role historical archaeology can play, intervening in such narratives. Deconstructing imagined homogeneity or perceived ruptures, reconstructing forgotten histories. This is archaeology in the active voice, not simply as a pawn of nationalism. To be fair, some of the other contributors also make this point (especially De Cunzo and Dikkaya), and perhaps all the papers do implicitly, but, after 30 years of publications on nationalism and archaeology, this surely ought to be more a prominent theme than one that largely relates the ways in which nationalist narratives have employed archaeology in its service. One of the reasons why nationalism is still a ‘hot’ topic, despite now being around for three decades, is because it is still a very potent force in contemporary society, as Brooks and Mehler stress in their opening pages. The increasing discourse on immigrants in the Europe, and its not so subtle link to terrorism, underlines the continuing tensions between the civic and ethnic dimensions of nationalism, as Comer discusses in the context of Denmark, and Horning in Ireland. But the flip side to this ‘immigrant crisis’ is tourism, especially that linked to diasporic communities such as Irish or Swedish Americans. Exactly the same tensions are at work here, as both Horning and De Cunzo reveal in their chapters. These tensions are also addressed in some of the papers where national and civic identities are being forged in multi-ethnic contexts (Eichert on Austria, Jenks on New Mexico). Moreover, as Brooks and Mehler astutely observe, there are potentially important differences between the way these tensions play out in Europe and North America because of colonial history, and in significant ways the shadow of colonialism hangs over many of the papers in this volume. The intimate connection between nationalism and colonialism is too obvious to ignore, of course, and yet, given the special focus of this volume on historical archaeology, I think more could have been made of this. This volume nonetheless is to be applauded for drawing out debates on nationalism within historical archaeology, and has established an important and incipient framework for future discussion.

中文翻译：

---

威尔士石板-考古学和一个行业的历史。大卫·格温（David Gwynn）。291页，243图。阿伯斯威斯：威尔士古代历史古迹皇家委员会，2015年。ISBN978-1-871184-51-8（hbk）。

（不均匀的）部分，在阅读本书时我不太了解这种结构，因此在下面的讨论中将不遵循它们的主题。他们的三个主题包括身份创建和操纵的主题，以及关于缺席的较短的最后一节。尽管所包含的章节确实与这些广泛的主题相对应，但它们比起其他任何东西都更充当占位符。尽管对该卷的某些贡献过去是通过考古记录来探索身份形成的（哈普斯伯格斯洛文尼亚的普雷多夫尼克，新墨西哥州的詹克斯），但可惜的是，鉴于该考古学的历史考古学观点，没有更多的研究卷。取而代之的是，大多数论文都采取了更为熟悉的方法，并考察了关于考古遗迹和研究的民族主义叙事的交集。在这个较大的群体中，作者处理其主题的方式仍然存在一些有趣的差异。一些人对民族主义叙事的动员方式采用了对历史遗迹考古遗迹的动员方式进行了最严格的审查（新斯科舍省的福勒和纳乌尔，曼岛的Mytum，丹麦的Comer和新瑞典的De Cunzo /特拉华州）。这是大家熟悉的情况，但仍然强调了这样一个事实，即最近的过去像史前时期一样，对于民族主义来说是一种强大的资源。更原始的是对民族主义议程如何影响考古研究过程的两种贡献。贝拉索斯（Belasus）在关于德国海洋民族主义对海洋考古学和船舶分类学的影响的论文中揭示了意识形态指导考古学研究的极其微妙和深层的方式。相比之下，迪卡娅（Dikkaya）对土耳其学者缺乏奥斯曼考古学的分析揭示了在凯末尔主义和1920年代土耳其的“现代化”之后，公然而明显的偏见。但是，我觉得最有力的贡献使辩论更进一步。霍宁（Horning）关于爱尔兰的一章，纽斯特德（Newstead）关于普利茅斯和Sch avelzon的一章以及伊加雷塔（Igareta）关于复活节岛的论文均论述了如何将考古遗迹纳入国家主义议程中的常见问题。他们还揭示了民族主义叙事影响考古研究方向的方式。但，此外，他们还主张并指出历史考古学可以在这种叙事中扮演更积极的角色。解构想象的同质性或感知到的破裂，重建被遗忘的历史。这是考古学中活跃的声音，而不仅仅是民族主义的典当。公平地说，其他一些贡献者（尤其是De Cunzo和Dikkaya）也指出了这一点，也许所有的论文都隐含了这一点，但是，在有关民族主义和考古学的出版物发表了30年之后，这无疑应该成为一个更加突出的主题。在很大程度上，这与民族主义叙事为考古服务采用考古学的方式有关。尽管民族主义已经存在了三十年，但它仍然是一个“热门”话题的原因之一是因为它在当代社会中仍然是非常强大的力量，正如布鲁克斯和梅勒在开幕词中强调的那样。正如科默在丹麦和爱尔兰的霍宁所讨论的那样，关于欧洲移民的讨论日益增多，而且与恐怖主义之间的联系并不那么微妙，这突显了民族主义的公民和种族层面之间的持续紧张关系。但是，这种“移民危机”的另一面是旅游业，特别是与爱尔兰或瑞典裔美国人这样的流离失所社区有关的旅游业。正如霍宁和德库佐在他们的章节中所揭示的那样，这里确实存在着同样的紧张关系。在一些在多种族背景下建立国家和公民身份的论文中，也解决了这些紧张局势（Eichert在奥地利，Jenks在新墨西哥州）。而且，正如布鲁克斯和梅勒敏锐地观察到的那样，由于殖民历史的缘故，这些紧张关系在欧洲和北美的表现方式之间可能存在重要的差异，而且在很大程度上，殖民主义的阴影笼罩着本卷中的许多论文。当然，民族主义与殖民主义之间的亲密联系太明显了，不容忽视，但是，鉴于本书的重点是历史考古学，我认为可以做得更多。尽管如此，该卷因在历史考古学范围内展开有关民族主义的辩论而受到赞扬，并为以后的讨论建立了重要而初期的框架。当然，民族主义与殖民主义之间的亲密联系太明显了，不容忽视，但是，鉴于本书的重点是历史考古学，我认为可以做得更多。尽管如此，该卷因在历史考古学范围内展开有关民族主义的辩论而受到赞扬，并为以后的讨论建立了重要而初期的框架。当然，民族主义与殖民主义之间的亲密联系太明显了，不容忽视，但是，鉴于本书的重点是历史考古学，我认为可以做得更多。尽管如此，该卷因在历史考古学范围内展开有关民族主义的辩论而受到赞扬，并为以后的讨论建立了重要而初期的框架。