Introduction: turns and returns

When politicians engage in archaeology, it is convenient for all concerned to say that they ‘turn’ to it: for both parties, this move confirms that the discipline itself is essentially neutral and independent from extrinsic considerations. Already subject to much suspicion, this comforting conception can be further undermined with the case of Field-Marshal Jan Christiaan Smuts (1870-1950), for half a century South Africa's leading soldier, statesman and intellectual, as well as a driving force behind the setting up of the Commonwealth and the LJnited Nations (FIGURE 1).

Introduction

In this article we set out to analyse, from an archaeological point of view, a political problem which, as demonstrated by current debate, including acts of violence, goes well beyond archaeology. Throughout the 19th century, and especially in its latter half, a centralist political model for Spain was developed in which a political balance could not be found between the State and [lie autonomous traditions of the varions regions of the Iherian Peninsula. As a result of this failure, legitimation programmes began to be constructed towards the end of 19th century, based on the history of the peoples of these regions. This led to a search in protohistorical archaeology [Iberians, Celts, Tartessians, etc.) for a possible solution to the political problems caused by a lack of institutional agreement between states and regions.

New research fields and areas of scientific specialization often bring division and disciplinary divides. Here Brown & Pluciennik discuss the impact of genetic research on archaeology.