Timo Salminen in SEARCH of a NORDIC IDEA? the FIRST FIVE NORDIC MEETINGS of ARCHAEOLOGISTS 1916–27
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fennoscandia archaeologica XXXIII (2016) Timo Salminen IN SEARCH OF A NORDIC IDEA? THE FIRST FIVE NORDIC MEETINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS 1916–27 Abstract International congresses of archaeology ceased abruptly after the outbreak of the First World War. The first Nordic Meeting of Archaeologists was held in 1916 in Kristiania (Norway). The first five meetings are analysed in this study. From the very beginning, these meetings were highly significant both for introducing new finds and for bringing interpretations under discussion. Also methodological questions, especially those relating to scientific methods, were included in the programmes. On the other hand, archaeological theory was not dealt with, nor was there any unanimity on theoretical questions. Diffusionist explanation models dominated the presentations, but a considerable plurality of views was allowed. Ideological connotations can be observed in several papers and excursions, but ethnic questions were relatively marginal. The various attempts to discover a common Nordic idea at the meetings did not lead to significant results. On a practical level, the meetings proved to be important from the beginning. Keywords: Nordic Meetings of Archaeologists, international contacts in archaeology, Nordic coun- tries, history of archaeology Timo Salminen, Lopentie 10 C 45, FI-11100 Riihimäki, Finland: [email protected]. Received: 2 Jun 2016; Accepted: 15 Sep 2016; Revised: 10 Oct 2016. NORDIC MEETINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS independence (Baudou 2004: 205–8; Salminen 2014a: 49–55). The first Nordic Meeting of Archaeologists was Was some kind of Nordic idea conceived in organized in Kristiania (Norway) in the summer the first five meetings from 1916 to 1927, and of 1916. Before the Second World War, five if so, how was its realization attempted? What other meetings were held: Copenhagen (Den- was presented at the meetings – new finds, new mark) in 1919, Stockholm (Sweden) in 1922, interpretations, or even new methods and ways Helsinki (Finland) in 1925, Bergen (Norway) in of doing archaeology? To what extent were dif- 1927, and Copenhagen with some other places ferent periods of time and different geographical in Denmark in 1937. This was also a period of areas represented and why? Did Nordic archae- institutionalization, but the creation of an ar- ologists have a shared message about the mis- chaeological profession was already completed. sion and goal of archaeology to convey to their With the deaths of Oscar Montelius in 1921 and audiences or were conflicting ideas presented? Sophus Müller in 1934, the founders’ genera- Human actions are communication with the tion had withdrawn from the stage. In the 1930s, external world. Founding an institution like the politics became more and more prominent also Nordic Meetings of Archaeologists and taking in archaeological circles, but in the 1920s, up any particular topic at these meetings con- political views were still more veiled. One obvi- veyed messages to the archaeological commu- ous change in the Nordic sphere was that Fin- nity and the general public. On a deeper level, land was accepted as a part of the Nordic ar- every conference presentation carried meanings chaeological institutions of cooperation after its and messages connected to the cultural back- 189 ground in which it was realized (Danow 1991: hagen in autumn 1915. Also the Director of the 13–6; also Lotman & Uspenskij 1984: 153, 160, Danish Museum of Industrial Art, Emil Han- 174). In this study, the Nordic meetings are read nover (1864–1923), has been mentioned in the as a narrative of communication, but the latter context of this meeting. The meeting resulted level of analysis is too wide-ranging to be car- in the founding of a Nordic Council of Muse- ried out here. ums for Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. The sixth meeting is excluded from the com- Sources of information differ on whether the ini- parison because it is analysed separately in Stef- tiative was originally Müller’s or Hannover’s. In fen Stummann Hansen’s book (2004). He also any case, Müller wanted to strengthen the ties gives a brief overview of the earlier meetings between Nordic archaeologists in the difficult (Stummann Hansen 2004: 11–2). Several other times of the World War (Gjessing 1918: 187; C.F. studies also discuss them briefly (Stenberger Meinander 1991: 143; Stummann Hansen 2004: 1963; Stjernquist 1991; also C.F. Meinander 11).1 The last pre-war World Congress of Pre- 1991: 143–7; Baudou 2004: 207–8, 229–30; history had been held in Geneva (Switzerland ) 2012: 350–1, 366–7; Edgren 2013: 113–5), but in 1912, and such extensive conferences could they have not been the focus of a special study. not be considered in wartime. Also the Baltic This study aims to provide a general overview (Sea Region) Congresses were not able to es- of the meetings of 1916–27 and to pose fur- tablish themselves because of the outbreak of ther questions for future analysis. Detailed the war (Kossinna 1912). Marc-Antoine Kaeser specifications of the contents of the presenta- (2010; also 2008: 383–8) has emphasized the tions cannot be provided here due to space con- international character of the research of prehis- straints. Also, some of the presentations were tory. Also in that context, it was to be expected never published and are thus no longer available that Nordic archaeologists attempted to compen- for analysis. sate for the severed wider international coopera- In addition to the published conference pa- tion at least by working together within smaller pers, personal correspondence between Nordic circles. archaeologists is used here to shed light on some There were also political reasons to organ- details. Contacts between Nordic archaeolo- ize meetings of Scandinavian archaeologists gists were lively from the very beginning, the in the early 20th century. After the Swedish- second half of the 19th century, and the meet- Norwegian union was dissolved in 1905, there ings can largely be seen as a result of this long were three independent states in Scandinavia and fruitful cooperation (see Salminen 2014a: instead of two, and more nationalistic senti- 16–9, 30–1, 36–40; also Baudou 2004: 207–8). ments were influencing archaeology in all of The correspondence reflects the personal level them. Danish and Swedish archaeologists had of contacts: scholarly questions are intertwined always simultaneously striven to cooperate and with other discussions. This paper cites letters presented conflicting interpretations (Müller to Aarne Michaël Tallgren and Carl Axel Nord- 1884; Baudou 2012: 219–49; also Baudou 2004: man in Finland and Sune Lindqvist in Sweden. A 207–8). The Danes were doubtless interested in general assessment of their correspondence can Nordic cooperation also in order to compensate be found elsewhere (Salminen 2014a: 14–5). A for their poor relations with the Germans, which more extensive look into archival material, such were also reflected in the field of research (Bau- as a study of the archives of the hosting institu- dou 2004: 208, 226). Evert Baudou has calcu- tions in different Nordic countries, has been left lated that around 1910, the whole Scandinavian for the future. community of archaeologists consisted of 25–30 persons, meaning that it was still relatively easy THE NORDIC MEETINGS: A SUBSTITUTE to arrange a meeting (Baudou 2004: 207–8). FOR EUROPEAN COOPERATION? Thus, in addition to replacing a more extensive forum of cooperation, Nordic meetings also an- Sophus Müller (1846–1934) from Denmark and swered an internal demand within the Scandina- Oscar Montelius (1843–1921) and Bernhard vian archaeological community, and not only in Salin (1861–1931) from Sweden met in Copen- a practical sense. 190 Nordic identity was being systematically built another two by Haakon Shetelig2 from Norway. in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The concept There were four Swedish, two Norwegian, and of ‘Nordic’, meaning Swedish, Norwegian, and seven Danish3 speakers. All presentations are Danish, comprehended a Germanic language, listed in the Appendix 1. Table 2 shows the dis- assumed shared roots, and certain shared histori- tribution of the presentation topics among differ- cal phenomena like Vikings and saga literature. ent countries or areas in percentages, and Table In the early 20th century, the same concept was 3 shows the distribution according to different also applied to archaeology and taken back to the main periods of time (according to the main in- Stone Age by means of interpreting both Mega- terest of each paper), also in percentages. Differ- lithic and Battle Axe cultures as Indo-European. ent periods were relatively evenly represented at In the 1930s, the Nordic idea and the northern the first meeting, but all Stone Age papers con- origins of culture were formulated as an ideol- centrated on the Neolithic period. ogy in Nazi Germany (B. Petersson 2003: 70–6, A visit was made to Norsk Folkemuseum and 129–33; H. Petersson 2005: 50, 62–7, 100, 155, excursions to Frognesæteren, the Borre graves, 176; Wallette 2008; Zernack 2008; Alkarp 2009: Oseberg, and the recently (1915) discovered 334–7; Tamminen 2015: 19–35). Stone Age rock drawings of Ekeberg (Gjessing 1918). The cemetery of Borre was considered ESTABLISHING A NORDIC INSTITUTION significant by Norwegians as a departure point of AND MANIFESTING NATIONALIST the mythical Ynglinga dynasty and Norwegian SENTIMENT IN KRISTIANIA IN 1916 sovereignty4, and after the Oseberg Viking ship was found, it was likewise incorporated into the Forty archaeologists and interested persons same national(ist) narrative. Scandinavian and gathered in Kristiania from 4 to 8 July 1916 (see especially Swedish audiences could experience Table 1). There were three female participants, both sites as a part of their shared Germanic past Maria Fanøe and Ingeborg Kindt from Denmark and, simultaneously, a competing Norwegian and Martha Steinsvik from Norway. attempt to explain early history. The Borre find There is no information available on why had recently been the subject of new research the first meeting was held in Kristiania, but the and publications by A.W.