The global financial crisis has not quite consigned the EU to the history books, despite the best (or worst) efforts of Europe's political class. Future archaeologists will probably give as much attention to digging up the EU as the Brussels gives to unearthing the rich and diverse history of the continent.
The role archaeology and history can have in confirming the history of a people, and subsequently in forming consciousness and being used to form identity, has long been recognised. Consuelo Leon Lozano, of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, commented in 2005 that historical sites can “contribute to people’s quality of life and sense of identity”. The entire area of culture is a powerful tool for shaping conscious identity.
This is why the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Union was found in 2009 to be researching fairy tales across Europe in an attempt to find common strands to support Brussel's attempts at forging a European identity. The value of abstract culture and physical heritage sites in the European Union is huge, and has also been recognised by the pro-federal European People's Party, the party of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in the European Parliament.
Small competence, wasted
Most of the EU's efforts in relation to supporting the history found in the EU are conducted through the Culture Directorate General of the Commission (DG Culture). Currently, DG Culture is operating a programme from 2007-2013 promoting cultural diversity and dialogue, with a budget of 400 million Euros, to be used over the period to "enhance our shared cultural heritage".
In an effort to make Slovak culture somehow 'shareable' with the culture of Ireland, or Finnish culture 'shared' with the culture of Portugal, DG Culture has been funding projects promoting the mobility of cultural actors and artefacts, to try and familiarise people in the EU with symbols and objects from different cultures and make those objects somehow familiar and 'owned' by the people they are being introduced to. Familiarity, it is figured, promotes integration.
DG Culture works closely with the aforementioned Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, and appears to have a primary focus on performing arts and projects giving results 'now', focusing on achieving Brussel’s political aims, rather than long-term projects requiring investment or careful excavation, that have great historical value for the history and identity of particular people groups but obviously a smaller value for the idea of a United Europe.
The EU would argue that, under the Treaty of Lisbon, it only has supporting powers to promote or help cultural or archaeological projects. The consolidated Treaty states in Article 6 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that the EU only has power to “…coordinate, support and supplement the actions of Member States…” in the area of culture; a reduced role when compared with other policy competencies.
However, the question is then asked about how the EU is using even the small competencies it has. As seen above, the answer is clear: quick-result projects, based on arts and events that are easily moved between countries, have been chosen instead of long-term excavation projects which would reveal cultural and historical divergence, evidence of conflict, and generally, the real differences between the people who live in Europe. A report by Hilary Bishop of the University of Liverpool in 2009 found that “there has been a definite marginalisation of the built heritage within both national and EU environmental conservation policy.” This reflects the EU's failure to live up to Article 167.2 of TFEU, giving the EU powers to support conservation activities.
Heritage labels
Because of Europe's history of division, the Council of Europe, a non-EU organisation, set up European Heritage Days to try and focus on common, uniting themes and counter xenophobia and racism within the European continent. The European Union, motivated by its political aims of creating one federal state, started supporting this scheme, and now every year in September, previously closed sites across Europe are opened to the public to raise awareness of Europe’s diverse heritage.
However, the Commission then took a step further with the introduction of the European Heritage Label. The consolidated treaty says in Article 167 that the EU shall bring common heritage to the fore, and the heritage label appears to be a manifestation of this. It is a scheme to highlight heritage sites that "…celebrate and symbolise European integration, ideals and history." Since 2006, this scheme has tried to turn sites linked to the development of the European Union into sites that people would want to visit, to "strengthen Europeans' sense of belonging to the EU…". The Heritage Label further distinguishes itself as not having any connection with UNESCO World Heritage sites, Council of Europe Cultural Routes or Europa Nostra Award sites, but rather "promoting the European dimension of sites…" choosing "sites which have played a significant role in the history of Europe and the building of the EU" with sites chosen "…on the basis of their European symbolic value…"
And, in contrast with the Heritage Days, the EU-Heritage Label will focus on “shared cultural heritage” and “choose sites on the basis of their European symbolic value, rather than beauty of architectural quality”. How long will it be before Maastricht will become a tour site on the national curriculum, a Mecca for Eurocrats?
The EU is treading on thin ground here. Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union states that the EU should protect cultural heritage, but does not say that the EU should decide what cultural heritage is. The heritage label is a step into grey area, with only Article 167 of TFEU to support it, and then only tentatively. It is a classic example of mission creep.
Preservation and promotion of Europe’s rich history and heritage should be a priority for national governments, and if the EU is to be involved, its involvement should be free from self-obsessed political aims derived from finding worthless sites connected with itself, and supporting them. The vast heritage and history of Europe needs promoting and protecting, reflecting the glory of each individual nation, and the achievement of national democracy in enabling nations to live together peacefully, despite the EU.
