Parczewski - Remarks on the Discussion of Polish Archaeologists on the Ethnogenesis of Slavs.pdf - allochtonizm - Wrytsleof

ISSN 1392–6748

Remarks on the Discussion of

Polish Archaeologists on

the Ethnogenesis of Slavs

Michaù Parczewski

The Slavs under this very name are mentioned in the written

records only as late as in the first half of the 6 th c. A. D. We

are not able to define when exactly they became a separate

ethnic community. We know for certain, however, that all

history scientists must consider the Migration Period, from

the 5 th to the 6 th c. A. D., as the key moment and the only

possible chronological point of departure for any sensible

exchange of opinions about the location of the earliest

span of settlement in the Slavic world.

Competent participation of archaeologists in the

discussion on the ethnogenesis of the Slavs became reality

no sooner than in the middle of the 20 th c., as only then

did the analysis begin of the excavation sources from the

appropriate period (i.e. the 5 th –6 th c. A. D.), unearthed

in the area between the Oder River and the left bank of

the Dnieper. Successive growth in the quantity of the

available data has been enormous in the course of the last

fifty years. And it is not just an increase in quantity, but,

more importantly, in the information potential which we

are able (or at least we should be able) to use in a more

proficient way. A similar quality leap, characteristic for

a relatively young domain of science, could not encompass

other disciplines, particularly history and linguistics, to

the same extent, although these disciplines had much

earlier than archaeology made successful attempts at

replying to the hard question on the origins of Slavs.

This dynamics, although not readily noticed by all

observers, is worth emphasizing, as it results in the process

of depreciation and quick aging of the hypotheses

proposed half a century ago, at the time when

archaeological source knowledge on the period of the

5 th –6 th c. A. D. was fragmentary and not systematised.

The Early Slavic culture, known thanks to

excavations, which developed in Central and Eastern

Europe in the 5 th /6 th –7 th c., was gradually isolated and

defined only in the 1950s–1980s. It seems paradoxical

that in the Polish territory the picture of this culture was

shaped quite late.

In my opinion the difficulties in defining the common

platform for discussion that we can observe in the current

argument among Polish archaeologists on the subject of

the Slavs’ primary settlements originate in the source-

oriented and methodological spheres. We are still

burdened by the fact that we properly joined the discussion

quite late (some of the authors still make statements on the

subject without taking under consideration the source value

of the artefacts, omitting their analysis – such patterns

dominated in archaeology in the 1950s and 1960s). On the

other hand, the methodological progress of our science in

the area of sociolinguistic interpretation of the excavation

data is slowing down. Unfortunately, the most progressive

concept in this field is thought to be a doctrine founded on

the criticism of an ill-formulated theory, built in Berlin

and developed in Poland in the mid-twentieth century

(usually referred to as ‘kossinism’). There have been few

sensible attempts to encompass the current – shaped by

today’s state of knowledge – cognitive reality.

The thesis on autochthonism of Slavs on the Oder

and Vistula Rivers, which dominated among Polish

archaeologists for at least thirty years after the Second

World War, was built on the foundations laid by

J. Kostrzewski, whereas the construction itself was built

by K. Jaýdýewski, W. Hensel, L. Leciejewicz, J. Ýak, and

Z. and St. Kurnatowski. Today we can claim that the

autochthonistic theory was ‘a sort of cognitive credo of

the Poznañ archaeological school, which was handed

down from generation to generation with great emotional

commitment… Arguments were drawn above all from

written records – mainly identifying ancient Veneti (from

works by Pliny, Tacitus and Ptolemy) with the Venedi

(Slavs) of early mediaeval chronicles (particularly

Jordanes), and also from the toponymy (mainly the

analysis of hydronyms), from hypothetical demographic

approximations, from the assessment of similarities in

economic activity, from the comparison of selected

archaeological findings, etc. However, the complete

138

Remarks on the Discussion of Polish Archaeologists on the Ethnogenesis of Slavs

analysis of settlement network and structure of both

periods throughout the whole territory of Poland was

taken under consideration to a lesser extent, or not at all.

This could once have been explained by the awareness of

the unsatisfactory state of research, but nowadays, in the

face of the progress noted in the area,… it should rather

be treated as a disability to accept a source-oriented

reality’ (Szymañski, 2000, p. 359, bibliography incl.).

The autochthonistic concept was undermined, and

then refuted on the source-based grounds by

K. Godùowski, the founder of the so-called Kraków school

of historical archaeology. K. Godùowski – on the basis of

the available set of data from the 3 rd –5 th /6 th c. –

demonstrated the lack of cultural and settlement

continuation on Polish territory in the 5 th –6 th c. 1 I carried

out the analysis of the sources from the 6 th –7 th c., which

broadened and partly supplemented the picture of the

great breakthrough in the basin of Oder and Vistula

Rivers 2 . Further progress was brought by the monographic

work by M. Dulinicz (2001). The analysis of selected

categories of artefacts from the discussed period has been

undertaken 3 .

W. Szymañski has recently presented the assessment

of the current results of the dispute dividing Polish

autochthonists and allochthonists. He does not see ‘a

possibility of the straightforward filling the gaps between

the groups dated from the 3 rd –4 th c. and those from the

6 th –7 th c.’ (Szymañski, 2000, p. 360). In spite of long

years of research, ‘it has not been successfully proven that

there existed some intermediate stage between the late

antiquity and the early mediaeval specialised pottery

production. We are not aware of any reliable groups from

the 5 th –6 th c. containing the prototypes of ceramics of the

discussed type’ (Szymañski, 2000, p. 370).

‘The basic weapon in the practical research activity

for both sides is the comparative method. The supporters

of the discontinuity approach have without a doubt gained

advantage in the matter. First of all, they use incomparably

larger quantity of sources and their analyses, at the same

time displaying a much more thorough knowledge on the

appropriate artefacts from the neighbouring territories,

most of all from Byelorussia and Ukraine… Secondly,

they carry out a much more comprehensive analysis of

these artefacts… Thirdly, they believe it is extremely

important to compare the settlement processes, structures

and forms in both analysed periods on wide territories, at

the same time proving there was no continuity in this area

on Polish territory’ (Szymañski, 2000, p. 363).

Let me add that for a long time no significant analytical

works representing the autochthonistic concept have

entered the scientific world 4 . We observe, however, some

polemic essays whose authors avoid mentioning any

details from the source knowledge area (compare further).

In spite of many requests and appeals, none of the

archaeological groups from western Poland researched

in 1950–1975 has been published – and in literature these

groups are still representative examples of the cultural

continuity between the Roman Period and the beginning

of Early Middle Ages. Considering all this, autochthonists’

references to the mentioned groups that are impossible

to verify must be regarded as an obvious instant of abuse.

In the circles not dominated by the autochthonistic

concept the progress of source knowledge has been normal

and regular for several years now, i. e. reports on the field

research are made available in a more or less successful

way, and full analytical source knowledge works are

published now and again. The author of the most recently

published monograph shows that the oldest well-

documented traces of Slavic presence in north-western

Poland are dated as late as from the end of the 7 th c.,

although theoretically one cannot exclude that scarce

penetration of small groups arriving from the East began

even in the 6 th c. (Dulinicz, 2001, p. 207–211).

In the last decade the results of the newest analytical

research undertaken abroad have remained in constant

correspondence with the outcome of Polish source-based

research 5 .

It is worth emphasizing that according to the Kraków

school, the basis for interpretation of archaeological data

used in studying the localisation of the Slavic original

territory is the whole and untouched (not subject to any

1 Particularly Godùowski, 1979; 1985: 1989; 1999; comp.

also the same author, 2000.

2 Particularly Parczewski, 1988a; 1988b; 1993; 2002.

3 Broad analytical study was carried out by Zoll-

-Adamikowa, 1979; 1993 and Kobyliñski, 1988, among others.

4 In 1975 the work by J. Hasegawa was published,

although it had little value as for the critical remarks about

the sources, as well as their analysis. Another work was

published almost 20 years later (Brzostowicz, 1994).

5 Jelínková, 1990; Terpilovskij, Abaðina, 1992; Dulinicz,

1994, bibliography there; Fusek, 1994; Brather, 1996;

Oblomskij, 1996; Leube, 1996; Gavrituchin, 1997; Vjargej,

1999; Biermann, 2000.

139

M. Parczewski

interference) set of facts displayed by the written records

from the 1 st –7 th c. Autochthonistic concept, on the other

hand, is stained with the primal sin of the necessary

“active” approach to written records. The facts that are

inconvenient to the stated theses are most often omitted

or belittled; there are also more or less subtle attempts of

“correcting” the writings of the past authors.

Such vein of behaviour is characteristic not only of

archaeologists. Almost all great specialists in the Middle

Ages in the twentieth-century Poland – with H. Ùow-

miañski at the forefront – did not hesitate to interfere in

the texts of source records from the discussed period.

The case is simple: in order to make the written-records-

based autochthonic theory seem convincing, one should

at any price (including undermining the reliability of the

sources in use) “move” the settlements of the ancient

Veneti to the area west of the Vistula River, which is

obviously inconsistent with the mentioned records. The

autochthonists easily comply with the high cost of this

operation – without questioning or “perfecting” the

essential elements of the relations of Pliny, Tacitus,

Ptolemy and Jordanes, all of whom located Veneti/Venedi

in a closer or further distance to the east of the Vistula

River, and without rejecting the information of

Geographer from Ravenna about the eastern origin of

Sclavenians – autochthonism inevitably loses its ground.

Modern archaeologists-autochthonists who in the

examined discussion try to refer to source-based

argumentation do not have an easy task. Although the

leading representative of this option claims strongly that

‘there is a large amount of archaeological data convincing

enough to think that next to the currently well-defined,

eastern zone of the crystallisation of the early mediaeval

culture in the 5 th –6 th c.…, there also existed at the same

time the western zone, in the basin of the Oder and Vistula

Rivers’ (Leciejewicz, 1998, p. 32), unfortunately from

among this “large amount of archaeological data” the

author does not quote even one specific and assessable

example.

A yet separate cognitive current in the field of study

on the ethnogenesis of Slavs, which I will call negationism,

started developing relatively recently. The researchers

within this current claim that archaeological sources do

not produce basis for discussion on the ethnic matters.

The opinions and suggestions of St. Tabaczyñski, the

most eminent Polish methodologist and theoretician of

archaeology, require careful reading and reflection. In the

collective work “ Sùowianie w Europie wczeúniejszego

úredniowiecza ” ( ‘Slavs in Europe of Early Middle Ages’ ),

therefore in the context directly relevant to our discussion,

he placed a very educational statement about the experience

of archaeology in examining ethnogenetic processes

(Tabaczyñski, 1998). St. Tabaczyñski is sceptical about the

attempts of ethnical identification of archaeological data

carried out so far, but at the same time in his article he

emphasises strongly the value of the theory of

communicative communities, little known among

archaeologists, a superb cognitive tool whose use opens

new perspective in the area of sociolinguistic interpretation

of archaeological cultures (Parczewski, 2000).

Having read the works of other “negationists”

(Mamzer, 1999; Kurnatowski, Kobusiewicz, 2000,

p. 627–628), I am unfortunately forced to state that the

authors only imitate a scientific dispute with the backward,

in their opinion, approach of the Kraków school. They

carefully avoid the core of the research knowledge of their

adversaries, i. e. the priority of written records in the

criticized attempts of defining the localization of the

original Slavic settlements. Therefore such voices –

probably with full awareness of the consequences – ignore

the only sensible point of reference to the authentic

knowledge on the origins of Slavs, to the advantage of a

completely speculative argumentation.

Another idea needs to be mentioned which, in my

opinion, leads the discussion astray. P. Urbañczyk

developed a vision of the great expansion of Slavs as the

expansion of “specific cultural pattern” , to the wider

extent than just demographic expansion. Early Slavic

culture was indeed deficient and primitive, but that is

why it was attractive to others, if ‘the integrating potential

of rural communities and economic advantages of

extensive exploitation of natural environment – easy to

implement in almost any conditions – turned out to be

attractive for the inhabitants of huge areas of Europe,

who, with the standard pattern of material culture, took

over the language as well from the Slavic guests’

(Urbañczyk, 2000, p. 136–137 et al.). The author does

not quote any real historical examples or evidence of such

an astonishing mechanism of linguistic expansion, of

course completely inconsistent with the descriptions of

Slavs colonising the Balkans.

It is time to close this review with an attempt of a

forecast. What is the direction that the enquiries of Polish

archaeologists on the origins of Slavs will take?

The answer to this question seems easier in the part

regarding the source-based knowledge. The set of

archaeological sources introduced into academic

circulation has been constantly growing. This means that

140

Remarks on the Discussion of Polish Archaeologists on the Ethnogenesis of Slavs

there has been constant testing of reliability of both

introduced research source-based hypotheses. Thanks to

this process the concept of the settlement and ethnic

discontinuation in the Polish territory in the 5 th –6 th c.

has in fact during the last fifty years become the option

with the strongest supporting evidence. It is highly unlikely

that the trend reverses.

It is less clear which way the theoretical thought will

travel in the future. In my view the issue of greatest

importance should be the potential benefits which

archaeology is offered by the theory of communicative

communities (Verkehrsgemeinschaften) developed by

linguists (comp. Tabaczyñski, 1998, p. 83–85;

Parczewski, 2000). The theory opens new interpretative

perspectives for cultures distinguished by archaeology,

which brings a chance to break from the cursed circle of

the alleged complete worthlessness of archaeology in the

studies on ethnic matters.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Biermann F., 2000. Slawische Besiedlung zwischen Elbe,

Neiße und Lubsza. Bonn.

Brather S., 1996. Feldberger Keramik und frühe Slawen.

Studien zur nordwestslawischen Keramik der Karolingerzeit.

Bonn.

Brzostowicz M., 1994. Elementy kultur okresu rzymskiego

w zespoùach wczesnoúredniowiecznych póùnocno-zachodniej

Polski. In: Slavia Antiqua . XXXIV. Poznañ, pp. 43–76.

Dulinicz M., 1994. Problem datowania grodzisk typu

Tornow i grupy Tornow-Klenica. In: Archeologia Polski . 39.

Warszawa, pp. 31–49.

Dulinicz M., 2001. Ksztaùtowanie siê Sùowiañszczyzny

Póùnocno-Zachodniej. Studium archeologiczne. Warszawa.

Fusek G., 1994. Slovensko vo vèasnoslovanskom období.

Nitra.

Gavrituchin I. O., 1997. Chronologija praþskoj kul’tury.

In: Etnogenez i etnokul’turnye kontakty slavjan. Trudy VI

Meþdunarodnogo Kongressa slavjanskoj archeologii , t. 3.

Moskva, pp. 39–52.

Godùowski K., 1979. Z badañ nad zagadnieniem

rozprzestrzenienia Sùowian w V–VII w. n. e. Kraków.

Godùowski K., 1985. Przemiany kulturowe i osadnicze w

poùudniowej i úrodkowej Polsce w mùodszym okresie

przedrzymskim i okresie rzymskim. Prace Komisji

Archeologicznej PAN. Oddz. Kraków 23. Kraków.

Godùowski K., 1989. Ziemie polskie w okresie wædrówek

ludów. In: Barbaricum , pod red. J. Okulicza-Kozaryna.

Warszawa, pp. 12–63.

Godùowski K., 1999. Spór o Sùowian. In: Narodziny

úredniowiecznej Europy , pod red. H. Samsonowicza.

Warszawa, pp. 52–85, 340–343.

Godùowski K., 2000. Pierwotne siedziby Sùowian. Wybór

pism, pod red. M. Parczewskiego. Kraków.

Hasegawa J., 1975. Chronologia i rozprzestrzenienie

ceramiki typu praskiego w Europie Úrodkowej. In: Prace i

Materiaùy Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w

Ùodzi . Seria Archeologiczna . 21. Ùodê.

Jelínková D., 1990. K chronologii sídliðtních nález J s

keramikou praþského typu na Morav

. In: Prav

Kobyliñski Z., 1988. Struktury osadnicze na ziemiach

polskich u schyùku staroýytnoúci i w poczàtkach wczesnego

úredniowiecza. Wrocùaw.

Kurnatowski St., Kobusiewicz M., 2000. Osiàgniæcia i

zaniedbania w polskiej archeologii i prahistorii ostatniego

póùwiecza. In: Archeologia i prahistoria polska w ostatnim

póùwieczu , pod red. St. Kurnatowskiego i M. Kobusiewicza.

Poznañ, pp. 581–662.

Leciejewicz L., 1998. O modelu kultury wczesno-

sùowiañskiej. In: Kraje sùowiañskie w wiekach úrednich.

Profanum i sacrum , pod red. H. Koèki-Krenz i W. Ùo-

siñskiego. Poznañ, pp. 31–37.

Leube A., 1996. Germanische Völkerwanderungen und

ihr archäologischer Fundniederschlag. Slawisch-germa-

nische Kontakte im nördlichen Elb-Oder-Gebiet (II).

In: Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift. 36. Berlin,

pp. 259–298.

Mamzer H., 1999. Problem etniczny w archeologii. In:

Slavia Antiqua . XL. Poznañ, pp. 169–201.

Oblomskij A. M., 1996. Kul’tury Srednego Podneprov’ja

i Dneprovskogo Levobereþja v tret’ej èetverti I tys. n. e.. In:

Gavrituchin I. O., Oblomskij A. M., Gaponovskij klad i ego

kul’turno-istorièeskij kontekst , Ranneslavjanskij mir 3.

Moskva, pp. 96–124.

Parczewski M., 1988a. Poczàtki kultury wczesnosùo-

wiañskiej w Polsce. Krytyka i datowanie êródeù archeo-

logicznych. Wrocùaw.

Parczewski M., 1988b. Najstarsza faza kultury wczesno-

sùowiañskiej w Polsce. Kraków.

Parczewski M., 1993. Die Anfänge der frühslawischen

Kultur in Polen. Wien.

Parczewski M., 2000. Kultury archeologiczne a teoria

wspólnot komunikatywnych. In: Kultury archeologiczne a

rzeczywistoúã dziejowa , pod red. St. Tabaczyñskiego.

Warszawa, pp. 207–213.

Parczewski M., 2002. Praojczyzna Sùowian w ujæciu

êródùoznawczym. In: Cieñ Úwiatowita czyli piæã gùosów w

sprawie etnogenezy Sùowian , pod red. A. Kokowskiego.

Lublin, pp. 23–68.

Szymañski W., 1998. Trudne problemy w poznawaniu

starszych faz wczesnego úredniowiecza na ziemiach polskich.

141

ké a slovanské

osídlení Moravy. Sborník k 80. narozeninám Josefa Poulíka. Brno,

pp. 251–281.

M. Parczewski

In: Archeologia i prahistoria polska w ostatnim póùwieczu ,

pod red. St. Kurnatowskiego i M. Kobusiewicza. Poznañ,

pp. 353–379.

Tabaczyñski St., 2000. Procesy etnogenetyczne:

doúwiadczenia badawcze archeologii i przyszùoúã. In:

Sùowianie w Europie wczeúniejszego úredniowiecza , pod red.

M. Miúkiewicz. Warszawa, pp. 79–99.

Terpilovskij R. V., Abaðina N. S., 1992. Pamjatniki kievskoj

kul’tury. Kiev.

Urbañczyk P., 2000. Wùadza i polityka we wczesnym

úredniowieczu. Wrocùaw.

Vjargej V. S., 1999. Pomniki typu Pragi-Karèak i Luki

Rajkaveckaj. In: Archealogija Belarusi , t. 2. Þalezny vek i

rannjae sjarednjaveèèa , pod red. V. I. Ðadyra i V. S. Vjargej.

Minsk, pp. 317–348.

Zoll-Adamikowa H., 1979. Wczesnoúredniowieczne

cmentarzyska ciaùopalne Sùowian na terenie Polski, Czæúã 2.

Analiza. Wnioski. Wrocùaw.

Zoll-Adamikowa H., 1993. W kwestii genezy sùowiañskich

praktyk pogrzebowych. In: Miscellanea archaeologica

Thaddaeo Malinowski dedicata , pod red. F. Roýnowskiego.

Sùupsk; Poznañ, pp. 377–385.

LENKØ ARCHEOLOGØ DISKUSIJOS SLAVØ ETNOGENEZËS KLAUSIMU BÛKLË

Michaù Parczewski

Santrauka

Per pastaruosius penkiolika metø Lenkijoje vël pagyvëjo

ginèai dël pirmøjø slaviðkø gyvenvieèiø. Pasirodë gana daug

archeologijos srities publikacijø, beje, labai nevienodos

vertës, suorganizuota keletas ádomiø diskusiniø susitikimø.

Pasisakymuose galima paþymëti dvi pagrindines kryptis.

Pirmoji, remdamasi archeologiniais ir istoriniais ðaltiniais,

pripaþásta, kad tezë apie slavø autochtoniðkumà Oderio ir

Vyslos baseinuose yra labai menkai argumentuota. Kartu

aptariama kryptis ðios etninës grupës ðaknø ieðko vidurinëje

ir aukðtutinëje Padneprëje. Kita kryptis remiasi teoriniais

samprotavimais (vadovaujamasi kultûros antropologø

nuomone), pagal kuriuos kasinëjimø duomenys ir raðytiniai

VI–VII m. e. a. ðaltiniai neduoda pagrindo kalbëti slavø

etnogenezës tema. Reikia pagaliau paminëti ir para-

mokslinius pasisakymus, kuriø emocionalus santykis su ðia

labai sena problema iðeina uþ normalios dalykiðkos diskusijos

ribø.

Ið lenkø kalbos vertë M. Michelbertas

Áteikta 2002 m. spalio mën.

142

Parczewski - Remarks on the Discussion of Polish Archaeologists on the Ethnogenesis of Slavs.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: