The relationship between archaeological classifications and prehistoric reality is a fundamental one.
The four terms used in the title have been used and misused – under changing political and ideological conditions – in prominent use and misuse to designate prehistoric groups (unfortunately, but rather
tellingly, their ideological significance in German research does not wholly survive the translation into
English). Two others terms, language and race, have been deliberately excluded.
The concepts of tribe (Stamm) and people (Volk) were already ideologically charged in 19 th century
Nationalism. But it was because of their importance in fascist archaeology that both words have been,
up to now, by and large, studiously avoided in German archaeological discourse. The discipline tended either to “postpone” the question of prehistoric realities “behind” archaeological assemblages or to
switch to seemingly more neutral (often only more imprecise) terms like “ethnos” or culture. But in
cultural anthropology, even the hitherto seemingly neutral term “culture” has been seen as being ideological. And, as the slogans of the New Right show “culture” can be used in political propaganda just
as well as “people” or “tribe”. We think that a discussion of a terminology basic to archaeology should
no longer be avoided. We want to look into the implicit meanings, the context of use and the consequences of this usage for all terms connected with both emic and etic description of groups.
The international conference “Middle and East European prehistory from 1933-1945” (HumboldtUniversity Berlin, 19. -23.Nov. 1998) opened up the way for a systematic discussion of the history of
prehistoric research. In the Colloquium “A pre-eminently national science: German prehistorians between 1900 and 1995” of the research project “Identities and alterities”, University of Freiburg (2. -3.
June 1999) this topic was put into a wider historical context. Here, the focus was less on methodology
than on the vocabulary, the use of language.
The project “Ethnogenesis and the construction of tradition; archaeological sources and their interpretation in the historiography of the 19th and 20th century”, which is part of the research project “Regional
processes of identification: the case of Saxony” (SFB 417) at the University of Leipzig, examines the
use of archaeological research in the constitution of regional vs. national identities. On the basis of this
research, we plan to continue the discussion begun in Berlin and Freiburg by providing a critical and
systematic perspective on the development of archaeological terminology. At the Conference at Leipzig, we want to examine the history and current use of ethnic designation of groups, their interpretation
and their potential dangers.
The problem of ethnic ascription, defined here as the ascription of assemblages of material culture to
either populations mentioned in historical sources or to archaeological “cultures” whose members are
believed to have formed a self-defined group with a certain amount of solidarity, is in our view a good
starting point.
When Gustav Kossinna first presented his “settlement archaeological method”, he believed to have
supplemented Montelius’ chronological method by providing a tool for the interpretation of geographical distributions. “Sharply circumscribed archaeological culture provinces always coincide with definite
peoples or tribes” (Kossinna 1911). V. G Childe, ostensibly more neutral, restricted himself to talking
about cultures, “...certain types of remains - pots, implements, ornaments, burial rites, house forms constantly recurring together” (Childe 1929). David Clarke attacked this monothetic concept of culture
in 1968, but without abandoning the concept as such. This is what both cultural anthropologists and
archaeologists especially in the Anglo-Saxon world are advocating now. They talk about situationally
defined ethnicity and polymorphic identity (“Patchwork identities”) instead.
This highly abstract discussion of a new terminology has quite practical roots. Increasingly refined
chronologies have shown that archaeological cultures are not the monolithic units they have been
thought to be as in the “drawers-model” of the post-war area. This makes the question of the kinds of
prehistoric emic groups which form the basis of these archaeological constructs – if any – all the more
opportune. But it can only be tackled after talking about an appropriate terminology.
This discussion is all the more necessary in consideration of the reviving nationalist and racist attempts to extend the roots of modern political communities into the distant past by means of fictitious
genealogies. We want to counteract this teleological view of history by consistently historicing all ethnical terms and by concrete archaeological studies that show the uneven course collective identitification-processes can take.
S. Rieckhoff/U. Sommer
1
Introductionary adress: Heinz-Werner Wollersheim, Speaker of the Sonderforschungsbereichs
417:
The formation of identities as the subject of regional research in cultural studies
Welcome Address: Prof. Dr. Volker Bigl, Rector of Leipzig University
Introduction: Sabine Rieckhoff, Historisches Seminar, Professur für Ur- und Frühgeschichte,
Universität Leipzig:
History: a construction site
Part I: concepts and theories
CHAIR: JOHN COLLIS, DEPT. OF ARCHAEOLOGY, SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY
1.1 Christoph Brumann, Institut für Ethnologie, Universität Köln:
Tribe, culture, identity: the current debate
This paper refers to the recent dicussion about the subject of the congress in ethnology, that is, the
discipline that explicitly defines itself by the study of human culture. The term “tribe” is a social and
legal reality for numerous ethnic groups for example in the US and Australia – and thus is still meaningful for the ethnologists working with them, but as an technical term it is more or less obsolete in
ethnology (except for very specific uses in political ethnology). The type of solidarity implied by the
term tribe or people today is described by the term “ethnic group“ instead. Proceeding from the work of
Frederik Barth this is defined as a often complex, interacting and always dynamic social unit that experiences cohesion both trough self-delimination and through delimination by others (that is, there always has to be a contrast to other units of the same kind). Cultural traits like language, religion, dress,
myth of origin etc. normally support this, but always form a more or less comprehensive selection. The
same holds true for the special case of a nation, that is, an ethnic group with an exclusive territorial
claim.
Culture is used to describe the socially transmitted knowledge and behaviour of a human group.
Sometimes the term is is restricted to knowledge, sometimes artefacts are included as well. The consequences in the field are minimal, as these two subjects are perceived as interconnected.
This definition implies an objective point of view: while the ethnic self-identification is an important
cultural trait, it is only only one amongst many, and non-ethnical cultures (like the customs and habits
of stock-brokers) are not necessarily excluded. The exact relation of the two variables “culture” and
“ethnic group”, for example the extent of the correlation between group-identity and objective common
traits is relatively badly known. It has been demonstrated that extraordinary flexibility can exist: both a
high degree of correspondence and marked differences between ethnic groups in can easily be ignored in the social practice. A considerable part of ethnological research on identity has been concerned with the deconstruction of ethnic and nationalist self-images. Additional complications are produced by the fact that similarities caused by age, gender, occupation, education and the effects of
globalisation increase in favour of local cultural traits. More and more people belong to more and more
different cultures.
Cultural studies that look into these phenomena can never exclude the possibility that their results are
included in an ethnic discourse and used to create or emphasise cultural similarities and differences.
The nationalist linguists and historians of the 19th century have been consciously looking for this effect.
Today historians who write against the ethnic and national discourse of self-definition can get into a
quandary between a claim to truth and political sympathies.
Keeping in mind these feedback-links, there there have been calls in ethnography to get rid of the
culture concept altogether, because the concept of culture, like the concept of race, it was originally
established to replace, is claimed to be inevitably exclusive.
This would rob the discipline of an important and central concept, that is widely known outside of academia as well. To me, it seems more sensible to keep the term, but to put it into the correct position in
relation to the ubiquitous individual variation and transcultural similarities. It is thus not the task of cultural studies to find as much culture as possible. Additionally, culture, ethnicity and identity have to be
kept separate analytically. Not all of culture is relevant to ethnicity, not every ethnicity is ethnically or
culturally founded (compare my article: Writing for culture: why a successful concept should not be
discarded in Current Anthropology 40, 1999 supplement, 1-27).
Because of the flexible relation between culture and ethnic identity I am sceptical of attempts to as2
cribe group-solidarity and ethnic identity to groups that are only known from outside observation or no
historical accounts at al. Plausible speculation is the most we can try for. The identification of prehistoric cultures is unproblematical in my view. But if the holistic culture concept of ethnology, that expects correlations between different areas of daily life (for example between religion and forms of cultivation) is transferred to archaeology, this should be based on a characteristic assemblage of all finds
and not on a single artefact type or class of material.
Hans-Peter Wotzka, Seminar für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Universität Frankfurt:
Archaeological culture-concepts: Glass cases for fossilised identities?
In the following, I shall consider the question of whether archaeological culture-concepts do reflect
past group-identity. The paper will concentrate on prehistoric archaeology, that is the part of archaeology that deals with preliterate periods and areas.
I will focus on the so-called traditional archaeological culture concept. Ever since the end of the 19 th
century, when it was first systematically defined and put to use, it has been closely entwined with national-chauvinist ethnic interpretations. Especially in the study of the European Neolithic the culture
concept is still used as organisatory principle and a means of interpretation. The historical roots and
supportive arguments for the implicit assumption of a normative connection between spatially and
temporally specific traits of material culture and basic social self-ascriptions of their manufacturers and
users shall be delineated and critically analysed.
The historical roots and arguments for the assumption of a normative connection between spatially
and temporally specific traits of material culture and the fundamental social self-ascriptions of the producers and users of material culture shall be elucidated and critically reviewed. From a cultureanthropological point of view, it is conspicuous that archaeologists do not sufficiently differentiate between different types and dimensions of identity.
A main reason for this is the limited interpretative potential of the archaeological sources. By the undifferentiated interpretation of patterns in space and time as identity groups that are not defined any
closer, nothing is gained for archaeology except yet another ascribed identity without explanatory
power. In this connection it will be discussed whether the currently fashionable concept of identity is
any more than a terminological sleight of hand.
The usual method of checking the distribution of either a single type of find or of an assemblage for
homogeneity does not seem useful in tracking past identities. This method elevates the claim that past
identities are necessarily reflected in spatially delimited differences of material culture to the status of a
general law. In addition, the considerable differences of scale in the distribution of archaeological cultures and “culture groups” can scarcely be brought into agreement with the ethnographically observed
definitely smaller spatial extensions of traditional identity-groups in pre-state societies.
The creation of archaeological distribution maps is too dependent too many different many factors the
detailed workings of which are only incompletely known to make one-dimensional interpretations appropriate. Keeping this in mind and considering the quality of the sources at hand, we have to consider
which aims prehistory can legitimately and usefully pursue in a search for identities.
1.3 Siân Jones, School of Art History and Archaeology, University of Manchester:
Ethnicity in archaeology
The identification of past peoples, variously referred to as tribes, nations and ethnic groups, has
played a central role in the production of archaeological knowledge throughout the history of the discipline. At times, often influenced by a nationalist agenda, tracing the history of past ethnic groups has
been the explicit agenda. At other times, cultures and ethnic groups have been relegated to a back
seat role, but implicitly remain a fundamental aspect of the classification of archaeological remains.
In this paper, I will briefly review traditional approaches involving the equation of discrete homogeneous culture areas with past ethnic groups. Such a model, I will argue, is derived from modern nationalist discourses which have had a profound impact on archaeological research far beyond the pursuit of
particular national origin myths. Just as modern nation states classify and control their populations,
attempting to engineer cohesion and a certain level of homogeneity, so archaeological evidence is
moulded into the form homogeneous types and cultures. In the case of both modern states and past
cultures diversity is ‘weeded out’ and heterogeneity suppressed.
Recent theories, however, highlight the fluid and situational nature of ethnicity, and the diverse, heterogeneous ways in which material culture is used in the expression of identity. Such an approach, I will
argue, requires a fundamental shift in approaches to archaeological evidence, not merely new interpretations of the distribution of particular cultural ‘types’ and styles. Existing archaeological categories
such as ‘cultures’ and ‘types’ need to be abandoned as primary units of analysis, and in their place we
need to focus on a contextual approach to social interaction and social practice. I will conclude by
3
providing examples of cases where a practice centred analysis of cultural identity has been successful
using an array of approaches focusing on architectural order, the structuring of movement interaction
and social space, and the structured deposition of material culture.
final remarks: John Collis
Part II: prehistoric emic groups or archaeological constructs?
CHAIR: SIEGMAR V. SCHNURBEIN, RÖMISCH-GERMANISCHE KOMMISSION FRANKFURT
2.1 Sebastian Brather, SFB 541, Universität Freiburg:
Ethnic Identity and prehistoric archaeology: the example of the Franks
1. Introduction
The attempt to connect material culture and ethnic groups was initiated by Early Medieval archaeology. It was attempted to trace back the origin and history of modern nations far into pre-literate times.
Since the beginning of the 16th century all over Europe the question was posed which of the „peoples“
described by the classical authors had stood at the origin of the respective national history. Romanticism saw the advent of a patriotic view on Antiquity – the so called „vaterländische Altertums-kunde“.
In Germany, the essential question was whether the archaeological finds were of Celtic, Germanic or
Slavic origin. During the period of Imperialism prehistoric archaeology achieved political relevance as
well. Archaeological finds could be used as an excellent argument for territorial claims, sometimes
until today.
2. The systematics of ethnic ascription
In Early Medieval archaeology the „ethnic paradigma” principally covers the following subjects: the
ethnic ascriptions of settlement areas, the combination of cultural and ethnic continuity, processes of
ethnogenesis, the substantiation of migrations and the identification of foreigners and „minorities“. All
these aspects are close connected, but it is possible to separate them analytically. The five systematic
aspects can be put in an (imaginary) chronological order, that is, they can be put one after another on
a chronological trajectory.
3. Differentiation
The example of the Franks can serve to show how Early Medieval archaeology tried to separate „indigenous Romance“ and „foreign Germans“ - Franks in north-eastern Gaul and Alemanni in southwest Germany - in the "Reihengräberfelder". All these attempts are based on the assumption that the
ethnic groups to be identified are internally homogeneous and clearly distinctive units externally. Additionally, different layers of argumentation have to be congruent as well: regional groupings of material
culture, ethnic self-ascription, language-group and finally biological kinship (common descent). I will
consider some recent publications in order to demonstrate the limits of this approach. Recent historiographic studies have demonstrated a common Lebenswelt for the early Middle Ages. Because of this,
it is mainly social categories (status, gender, age, family and burial community) that ought to be used
in the analysis of grave inventories.
4. Ethnic symbols as a methodological way out?
Analyses of the material culture do not show any clear borders, but, on the contrary, a diffuse continuum. Therefore, the delineation of ethnic borders is mainly based on a few select symbols that are used
to elevate cultural differences to fundamental distinctions, which are highly charged ideologically.
Chronicles of the Middle Ages sometimes point out such „ethnic signals“, but often they are not contemporary, or they belong into to a different context. Without additional information, archaeology is not
able to deduce ethnic symbols from the context, because we do not know this context.
2.2 Slavomir Kadrow, Instytut Archeologii, Uniwersytet Jagielloński Kraków:
Social and ethnic structures in the Polish Bronze Age
My paper proceeds from the following assumptions: a. Ethnic groups are self-conscious units that
originate by way of a social and cultural comparison with other groups (we/them). b. Ethnic identification is strengthened by the pursuit of common interests.
From this it follows that: (1) ethnicity has to be understood as a dynamic process and (2) ethnic analyses should concentrate on the social organisation and the mechanisms of political power.
There is no reason to believe that ethnic processes are necessarily patterned after organic models. On
the contrary, it can be expected that many important ethnic processes take place according to quite
different models (e.g. colluvies gentium).
The paper discusses the communities that inhabited the Eastern part of Poland from the End of the
4
Neolithic till the beginning of the Lusatian culture (2500-1000 BC). Multi-component settlement analyses, complemented by the analyses of graves form the basis for inferences about their social structure.
The processes of cultural, economic and ethnic development of the Early Bronze Age communities of
Eastern Poland differed very much from Central Europe. In general, Late Neolithic patterns persisted,
and Bronze Age (Central or Southern European) influences were only superficially adapted. The fluidity and low degree of organisation of the very small ethnic units corresponded to a stagnation of the
cultural, economic and social development. Thus it seems extremely doubtful that the membership of
this fluid, slowly changing small societies could form the basis of historically attested bigger ethnic
units.
2.3 Albrecht Jockenhövel, Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Universität Münster:
Mobility and borders in the Bronze Age
2.4 Andreas Zimmermann, Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Universität Köln:
Are there Linearbandceramic tribes?
Based on two case studies, this paper will argue the existence of a border between two different population units of the Linearbandkeramic culture (at the end of the 6 th Millenium bc). The term border is
used here to denote a zone where the intensity of communication drops off.
I will start by considering the composition of lithic raw material assemblages and the style of ceramic
decoration. For the areas in question, a different raw material spectrum can be attested for the whole
Middle Linearbandkeramic. Differences in the style of ceramic decoration on both sides of the “border”
only show up by Late Linearbandkeramic times. Thus in both classes of material, the information flow
was not completely severed. A low amount of “foreign” elements are still found on both sides.
One of these zones of reduced information flow is located between Werl and Soest (Westphalia, Germany) and the other in the region of Nieder-Mörlen, Steinfurth, Echzell (Hesse, Germany). There are
two possible ways of explaining the origin of this apparently long-term development:
1. Both border zones are located in the vicinity of a scarce resource. Later on, salt was produced later
on. In this interpretation the different identities on both sides of the border would have originated of in
a quarrel for rights of access.
2. A detailed analysis of the process of neolithisation and the spread of the middle-Neolithic shows
that there are indications for cultural influences from different regions clash in the areas in question.
The fact that ethnic interpretation has a tainted history should not, in my opinion, lead to the conclusion that a search for identities cannot be a proper area of investigation. This would mean to abandon
a central topic of historical research. In order to understand identities, their embeddedness in differently sized social units, and the diachronic change of their meaning has to be looked into. Presumably, an
increased consciousness of the changeability of such social groups will serve to reduce the danger of
misleading interpretations.
final comment: Siegmar v. Schnurbein
Festvortrag: Georg Meggle, Universität Leipzig, Institut für Philosophie:
Who are we?
5
Part III: historical vs. archaeological sources: the example of the
Celts
Chair: SIEGMAR V. SCHNURBEIN
3.1 Jörg Biel, Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg:
Celts in South-West Germany?
3.2 John Collis, University of Sheffield, Dept. of archaeology:
Celts and politics
In studying the relationships between archaeology, race, ethnicity and politics, the Celts is one of the
most interesting case studies, both in the way the Celts were used in Antiquity, in the rise of the nations states in the 19th century, and more recently in the development of a pan-European identity.
There has been a considerable literature over the last 15 years, and so I can only touch on a few aspects.
In modern Europe the concept of the Celts is employed at for different levels:
1
In promoting a pan-European entity, emphasising common roots, from Ireland to Turkey, and
from Poland to Portugal.
2
A regional identity for those on the Atlantic Fringes who speak Celtic languages, or identify
with modern ‚Celtic‘ culture.
3
In the mythology of the origin of modern nation states, such as France, Ireland and Spain.
4
At a local level, either to emphasis local identity (e.g. Galicia in Spain), or in the development
of Tourism (Tara, Navan Fort, Mont Beuvray).
For archaeologists there is a problem about what role we should play, as though we may be sympathetic to these political aims, in the past archaeology has been used to promote racism, extreme nationalism, and other forms of cultural dominance. We should not use false methodologies because
they suit our particular aims (e.g. to help minorities) or because they seem innocuous. Thus, for instance, archaeologists condemn the methodology of Gustav Kossinna because it is tainted by its use
by the Nazis, yet the methodology to explain the origin and spread of the Celts is virtually identical
(and equally false!), but it is still widely promoted in academic books and exhibitions.
Archaeologists need to be aware of the theoretical basis of their methodologies, and of the history of
their subject. The concept of the Celts is in fact based on a number of false assumptions in the past
that are now never questioned. There include:
1
The assumption that the inhabitants of the British Isles were Celts, but this is a modern invention starting in the 16 th century (George Buchanan).
2
The definition of the Celts as a people who speak Celtic languages is also modern, based on
the misconception by the Abbé Pezron that Breton was a survival of the ancient language of
Gaul, and so it and related languages are ‚Celtic‘.
3
Celtic Art is so-called because in the 19th century it was thought the ancient population of Britain was Celtic, and so their art must be Celtic (Tara brooch, Battersea Shield).
4
The association of a ‘La Tène Culture‘ with the Celts, spreading from northern France and
southern Germany, is based one the assumptions that the Celts arrived from outside central
Europe sometime in the Iron Age. This has little textual support.
5
The archaeological distribution of the Celts as shown on most maps is based on the assumption by Joseph Déchelette that the Celts could be identified from their burial rite of extended
inhumation (contrasting with the cremation burial rite of the Germans).
Most archaeologists are unaware these aspects, and because of their ignorance, continue to diffuse
false information and false methodologies to a wider public, which can then be used for political aims.
Archaeologists thus need to understand their subject more, and the social and political implications of
what they are doing.
6
3.3 Laurent Olivier, Musée des Antiquités Nationales à Saint-Germain-en-Laye and Olivier
Buchsenschutz, CNRS Paris:
The role of archaeology in the conflict between regional and national identity in France
Depuis le Moyen Age, les Gaulois occupent une place essentielle dans la constitution de l’identité
collective française, en tant que peuple des origines attesté par les sources historiques antiques. En
réalité, ces sources sont disparates, discontinues et contradictoires et se concentrent pour l’essentiel
dans les Commentaires de la Guerres des Gaules de César. Relu et réédité sans cesse depuis le
16ème siècle, ce texte fondateur de l’histoire et de l’archéologie gauloises a contribué à asseoir successivement la légitimité de la monarchie absolue comme de l’état-nation républicain. La Gaule de
César est le modèle de l’hexagone français dans ses frontières naturelles. Plus profondément, le
mouvement des Lumières et l’idéologie républicaine opèrent un renversement de l’histoire telle qu’elle
était perçue jusqu’alors, en escamotant les Francs, considérés comme à l’origine de l’ordre inégalitaire
de l’Ancien Régime, pour leur substituer les Gaulois, qui incarnent désormais le droit de la collectivité.
Pourtant, ce mouvement qui prolonge le processus de centralisation engagé plusieurs siècles auparavant sous l’ordre monarchique, laisse dans l’ombre la question des revendications identitaires régionales (notamment comme celle de l’identité bretonne), comme il ne parvient pas complètement à
étouffer les tentatives de restauration antirépublicaine, qui se succéderont tout au long des 19 ème et
20ème siècles. Cette interprétation est mise aujourd’hui en crise à la fois par l’effondrement du modèle
traditionnel de l’Etat-nation, comme par la recherche actuelle, qui met en évidence une inadéquation
totale entre les divers Etats-nation contemporains et les groupes culturels antiques, qu’ils soient
celtes, germains, italiques ou encore hispaniques. Aux Gaulois de la République s’opposent donc
désormais les Celtes des mouvements régionalistes. Ce que ces groupes connaissent de l’histoire
joue un rôle à côté de la musique, de la langue, du paysage, pour définir leur identité, mais tout cela
est secondaire par rapport à leur revendication autonomiste.
Since the middle ages, the Gauls, being the ancestors attested by the classical sources, played a
fundamental role in the constitution of French collective identity. In reality, these sources are contradictory, discontinuous and consist mainly of Caesars “de bello Gallico”. This text, constantly reprinted
since the 16th century, is the foundation for the history and later on the archaeology of the Gauls. It has
served consecutively both in the legitimisation of the absolute monarchy and the republic. Caesar’s
Gaul is the model for today’s hexagon, France in her natural borders. The enlightenment and the republican ideology reversed the interpretation of history that had been dominant up to then. More importantly, the Franks, who were seen as the founders of inequality in the Ancien Regime were substituted by the Gauls, who enbodied civil rights at the roots of French history. Like the absolute monarchy, the republic continued the centuries-long process of centralisation as the heir of “nos ancêtres,
les Gallois”. The demand for regional identities, especially in Brittany, were ignored, as were the attempts at an antirepublican restoration, that recurred repeatedly during the 19th and 20th century and
could not be totally stamped out.
The idea of national Gallic roots is controversial today, because the traditional model of a nation-state
has collapsed and because recent research has demonstrated that the modern nations have nothing
in common with cultural groups described by the classical authors, be they Germanic, Italic or Hispanic.
final comment: Siegmar v. Schnurbein
Part IV. Ethnic interpretation in a national and regional perspective
Chair: J.H.F. BLOEMERS, IPP AMSTERDAM
4.1 Jan Klàpště, Archeologický ústav Akademie ved CR, Praha:
The dichotomy of identities in Medieval Archaeology: The case of Bohemia.
1. Germani : Slavs
The beginning of the Slavic settlement of Bohemia, a comparison of archaeological and linguistic concepts.
2. Unity and organisation
Tribe, tribes, small tribal groups or something completely different? Evidence for the early medieval
territorial organisation of Bohemia according to written and archaeological sources. An attempt at a
7
comparison and a historical assessment of the phenomenon.
3. Czechs : Germans
The ethnical map of Bohemia and 13th century material culture – a comparison of linguistics and archaeology.
The high Medieval discrepancies: exception or general rule?
4.2 Predrag Novakovic, Oddelek za arheologijo Univerze v Ljubljani:
Archaeology and the changing identity in the former Yugoslavia
Through all 70 years of its history as a state, Yugoslavia, a mosaic composed of a number of national,
ethnic, religious, and cultural histories and identities, was in constant search for a balance between its
nations and for an identity and common grounds in the fields of politics, history and culture. Two major
attempts at creating a common identity were instigated by the ruling political elites: the Yugoslav integralism (1918-1941) and the ideology of brotherhood and unity (1945-1991). Both attempts failed and
ultimately ended in inter-ethnic and civil wars. Although the Yugoslav Communist Party, led by Tito,
succeeded in reconstructing the state of Yugoslavia after WW2, based on new ideological foundations, by the late 80s and early 90s there was no such power capable of accomplishing the same. The
decade that followed Tito's death (1980) was marked by two major political issues: the growing discontent with the socialist regime and claims for a democratic system, as well as the heightened displays of
nationalism and claims for independent national states. The two issues were not strictly independent
of one another.
Most of the discourse concerning historical, cultural and identity issues, was to a large extent “centrifugal”, since the “Yugoslav” stance became unbearable for the new nationalist elites emerging in all the
republics. The socialist regime and ideology was the first to be assaulted. The claims for a democratic
system were soon followed by claims for national independence. The latter claims assailed the ideology and doctrine of brotherhood and unity, as was advocated by the communist regime.
A reinterpretation of the past represented one of the most evident strategies in this process. History,
rich in episodes of open ethnic, religious, political and cultural conflicts, illiberal regimes and dictatorships, provided an abundant »reservoir« of issues and topics then applied in a nationalistic discourse.
While the Communist party still persisted upon those elements of history conceived as common
ground for the identity of the state and of the regime (the national liberation movement as the basis for
new post-war Yugoslavia, the crucial role of Tito and the Communist party in the process of molding a
new (post-WW2) Yugoslavia, the projection of the elements of brotherhood and unity in the past etc.),
new nationalist elites in the republics were far more inclined towards national histories and identities
making them as different as possible from the “official” narrative. It was not only endeavored to revise
modern history, but ancient history and archaeology as well.
The attempts to revise the ancient and archaeological past manifested many different forms, among
which three major phenomena can be outlined: the appearance of autochthonal “theories” of ethnogenesis, the claims for independent states, which were based on the statehood of the early medieval
and medieval states of Slavic nations and on the myths associated with them, and the growing aspirations of the Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) and Muslim clergy in shaping moral and public issues
and, consequently, the views on the past as well. Though many such claims wielded false theories
and bad science, the national politics during the period in question willingly coquetted with them and
helped in establishing “new” traditions - as different as possible from the traditions of other Slavic nations in Yugoslavia, and from the tradition favored by the communist interpretation of the past.
The role of scientists and intellectuals varied substantially. Indeed, it is almost impossible to find a
common denominator. Most of them disagreed with the most extreme aberrations as well as with the
bad science; yet on the other hand, influential groups of historians, linguists, art historians, novelists,
poets and artists found their respective ways among the new political elites in their corresponding
republics and subsequent states, and actively contributed to the production of national ideologies and
identities.
The paper examines several cases of the invention of tradition, claims for historical rights and of the
production of new identities, which included archaeology and its practice in the former Yugoslav republics and subsequent states.
8
4.3 Milos Jevtic, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Odeljenje za arheologiju:
Modern Serbian archaeology and the problem of ethnic identification.
4.4 Sam Lucy, Dept. of archaeology, University of Durham:
Constructing the English: Early Medieval cemeteries and changing conceptions of AngloSaxons.
Since its inception, early Anglo-Saxon archaeology (the archaeology of eastern Britain from the fifth to
the seventh century AD) has operated within a ‘common-sense’ framework. We ‘know’ that people
from northern Europe migrated to Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries AD, for the documentary
sources tell us. The archaeological evidence supports this. Or does it? This paper will return to the
origins of Anglo-Saxon archaeology, showing that the concept of the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ was one formulated within the nationalist discourse of the nineteenth century. Archaeological evidence came to form
part of this discourse, used to help define the very idea of ‘Englishness’ itself. The interpretation of
new burial rites and grave-goods as indicators of Germanic migration has thus never seriously been
challenged. However, recent critiques within prehistoric archaeology of the concept of ‘culture’ are also
applicable to Anglo-Saxon archaeology. This paper will argue that much of the terminology and methodology used by scholars of this period can be questioned, and that historicising the debate is one
way of starting this process.
4.5 Ulrike Sommer, SFB 417, Universität Leipzig:
Archaeology and Saxon identity
The question of the ethnicity of the producers of prehistoric finds and monuments lies at the roots
Saxon archaeology. After it was generally accepted that pots and stone implements were indeed artefacts, already in 1781 the Oberlausitzische Society in Görlitz offered a reward for essays on the question of whether "Germans or Sorbs were the first inhabitants of the Oberlausitz". At first, only written
sources were utilised in the pursuit of the first Saxons. The actual archaeological finds only served as
illustrations.
In the 1820ies a number of authors started to deduce criteria for an ethnical ascription of the finds from
the written sources. Thus, for example hillforts were identified as Germanic, as Slavs were of an decidedly peaceful character and thus not in need of fortifications. Since the middle of the 1830ies the
distribution and associations of finds are used as arguments as well. Thus, K. B. Preusker advocated
a systematic comparison of Saxon finds with those from purely Germanic and purely Slavonic settlement areas in order to be able to assign them unequivocally to one people.
Writers like Karl August Engelhardt (1802) and Karl Benjamin Preusker (1841) comfortably managed
to incorporate prehistoric finds in the history of the Saxon fatherland. But no consensus was reached
about the identity of the first inhabitants of the Meißen margravate. While the ascription of individual
finds and assemblages was hotly debated, the question as such does not seem to have created any
real conflicts. The reason might be that Saxon identity could find a foundation in either of the possible
forebears - depending on the author’s political orientation. Whilst the Celts slowly disappeared into the
romantic mists they had emerged from, the Germani stood for warlike prowess and political freedom,
and the Sorbs (Slavs) for economic success and peaceful culture. In the main without the help of a
genealogical succession line, the Saxons of the 19th and 20the century recognized themselves in the
stereotyped descriptions of the industrious Slavs originating with Herder and Polish and Czech panslavic authors.
It was at least partly the attempt to solve the problem of ethnic ascription that led to an increasing professionalisation of archaeology. Subsequently, this created an increasing rift between scholarly research and popular interpretation. For one, the simple account of a timeless - be it idyllic, be it rude past was rapidly becoming obsolete because of the rapidly increasung time-depth of prehistory and
the concommitantly improving methods of chronological classification. On the other hand, the the singular find was torn out of its connection with a holistically perceived landscape and popular tradition by
systematic inventarisation and mapping und reduced to a simple dot on the map.
A specifically Saxon interpretation of prehistory was hard put to keep it’s own in the 20th century. The
predominating historical master-narratives now no longer formed part of a regional, but a National
framework. During the "3rd Reich", Saxony was seen as a bulwark against the East and the model of a
successful re-germanisation. In the GDR, the positive role of the Slavs was emphasised. Research
concentrated on Slavic early feudal structures to counter the NS-claim of their missing nation-building
abilities. But in historical overviews the germanocentric worldview was is still pertinent, even if the
general assessment had changed.
It was mainly K. H. Blaschke who managed to create a new narrative about a specifically Saxon identity. Saxony was described as an age-old place of transit, where the positive typically Saxon qualities
9
originated by the mixture of many different peoples. While this fits better into the political climate of our
times than a recourse on the Germani, it still is based on the model of a group-identity that is genealogically founded and transmitted over a long period of time, and thus has exclusive connotations.
concluding remarks: J.H.F. Bloemers
Translation: U. Sommer/P. Rahemipur, with thanks to H.-M. Moderow
10