The European Association of Archaeologists has long fostered critical analysis of the relationship between archaeology and politics, particularly the politics of national, regional and supra-regional identities. Although the role of nationalism in the birth of archaeology as a discipline is well recognized, the events of the past few years – from the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, to the movement for secession in eastern Ukraine, and the rise of explicitly nationalist political movements across the continent – suggest that the (re)formulation of national identities is likely to continue to have major implications both for our interpretation of the past and for the practice of archaeology in the present. In light of this, the Archaeological dialogues editorial board organized a round table at the EAA meeting in Glasgow in September 2015 to explore the extent to which institutional, legislative and funding structures as well as political and cultural imperatives continue to bind our discipline into the construction of nationalist narratives, and this more or less in spite of long-standing critical debates within the discipline itself that for decades have problematized the relationship. Are we caught in a ‘can't-live-with-and-can't-live-without’ situation? While explicitly nationalist archaeologies have become almost obsolete in the European academies, we rarely contemplate the impact of nationalism on funding or the definition and protection of cultural heritage, for example. Several of the following papers suggest that without the nation state's involvement, the vicissitudes of global capitalism would result in a situation where it would be extremely difficult to adequately protect our ‘heritage’, however that is defined.

中文翻译：

---

考古仍然是民族国家的项目吗？编辑评论

欧洲考古学家协会长期以来一直致力于对考古学与政治之间的关系进行批判性分析，特别是对国家、地区和超地区身份的政治。尽管民族主义在考古学作为一门学科的诞生中所起的作用是公认的，但过去几年的事件——从 2014 年苏格兰独立公投，到乌克兰东部的分裂运动，以及明显民族主义政治的兴起整个大陆的运动——表明国家身份的（重新）制定可能会继续对我们对过去的解释和现在的考古实践产生重大影响。有鉴于此，考古对话编辑委员会于 2015 年 9 月在格拉斯哥举行的 EAA 会议上组织了一次圆桌会议，以探讨制度、立法和资金结构以及政治和文化要求在多大程度上继续将我们的学科约束到民族主义叙事的构建中，这或多或少尽管该学科本身存在长期的批判性辩论，但几十年来一直使这种关系成为问题。我们是否陷入了“不能有也不能没有”的境地？虽然明确的民族主义考古学在欧洲学院几乎已经过时，但我们很少考虑民族主义对资助或文化遗产定义和保护的影响。以下几篇论文表明，如果没有民族国家的参与，