УДК 902(091)(498)”18/19”

S.-C. E n e a

ROMANIAN PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY, BETWEEN TRADITION AND INNOVATION *

With this text, the author intends to present a short The antiquarian phase history of the evolution of Romanian prehistoric ar- th chaeology, from the moment of its appearance in the The 19 century generally represented a peri- 19th century to the present day. Thus, several distinct od of theoretical refinements and crystallization stages that mark this evolution have been detected, of the institutional framework. stages influenced by the charisma and activity of cer- This first stage is characterized by the activ- tain personalities. It can be noticed that the scientific ity of identification and investigation of sites con- foundations of this discipline were laid after World ducted by some enthusiast collectors. A notewor- War I by Vasile Pârvan, the founder of Romanian ar- thy example is Al. Popovici, land surveyor, who chaeology, whose followers have dominated the scien- discovered the first Neolithic settlements from tific discourse to this day. Romanian prehistoric ar- the Romanian Plain in the 1830s; the National chaeology, just like other areas of historical research, Museum, where the discoveries were collected, mirrored the political discourse, and, unfortunately, was under its sway during certain periods of time.1 was founded in 1834. The treasure of Pietroasa is discovered by two K e y w o r d s: prehistoric archaeology, Antiquari- locals — who unfortunately destroyed a number anism school of archaeology, Positivism, Marxism, of pieces — in 1837, and in 1842 the hoard enters New Archaeology. into the patrimony of the National Museum. A notable collector of the 19th century was Nicolae Prehistoric archaeology appears in Western Mavros, one of the founders of the National Mu- Europe as the result of a long series of intellec- seum, its first and biggest donor, the same who, tual acquisitions, specific to the environment of in 1864, pleaded to Prince Al.I. Cuza in favour of Western European society, and which material- establishing the National Museum of Antiquities. izes in the second half of the 19th century through During the first years of the museum, the collec- the emergence of a research domain, a corpus of tion consisted of donations from public figures methods, and a small cohort of specialists [Ang- such as C. Bolliac, D. Sturdza, N. Kretzulescu helinu, 2003, p. 72]. [Dumitrescu, 1993, p. 7—8]. Archaeology has its first beginnings in Roma- The enthusiastic collecting of the antiquarians nia in the 17th and 18th centuries through the con- compromised the archaeological contexts or led to cerns of collectors of coins, inscriptions and an- the estrangement of artefacts, but also contribut- tiquities, but a manifest interest is fostered only ed to saving the numerous heritage objects that, with the beginning the 19th century. via donation or purchase, entered the collections In the evolution of we of museums. can distinguish several phases, each with different characteristics and points of contention. The Romantic phase The first theoretical horizons (19th * У статті збережено авторську редакцію. century) was the stage of the intellectuals of 1848 Revolution. They collected particularly the © S.-C. Enea, 2012 artefacts that were beautiful and not broken, 93 Enea S.-C. Romanian Prehistoric archaeology, between tradition and innovation without attempting a cultural or chronological (« before the Romans», 1880), well-received classification. by his contemporaries. With respect to the theoretical field, we bring In , as almost everywhere in the world, attention to M. Kogălniceanu and N. Bălcescu, archaeology became a science only in the early who stressed the importance of the archaeological, 20th century, through the «union of typology with epigraphic, and numismatic evidence for writing stratigraphy», marking thus the separation from the national history. the antiquarian approach. Cezar Bolliac (1813—1881) is the most Tocilescu was followed by Vasile Pârvan both prominent figure of the Forty-Eighters’ generation in the management of the museum, and in the in archaeology, also being an active collector; he research endeavour. has the merit of having noted and even surveyed Prehistory research was inaugurated in some pre- and protohistoric sites. He was the by N. Beldiceanu and Gr. Buţureanu, the first to carry out excavations at the Neolithic first archaeologist to dig at Cucuteni [Ursulescu, settlement of Vădastra, between 1871 and 1873. Văleanu, 2006, p. 21]. The results achieved He created and supported the magazine Răcnetul attracted the interest of foreign archaeologists, Carpaţilor («Howl of the Carpathians»), and including Hubert Schmidt, who digs at Cucuteni also joined the Archaeological Committee that in 1909—1910, and publishes the monograph of managed the National Museum of Antiquities. the excavation in 1932. He established the three From 1865, Bolliac focused his excavations on the stages of the Cucuteni culture (A, A—B, B). For -Dacian sites of Tinosu, Piscul Crăsani, and the research methodology, the monograph of the , while continuing the excavations of the German archaeologist played an important role Neolithic settlement from Vădastra. in the development of the Romanian archaeology Al. Odobescu (1834—1895) remained in [Ursulescu, Văleanu, 2006, p. 26]. the memory of the archaeologists as a cabinet Archaeological research in southwest archaeologist, mainly because of his conceptual stood at the beginnings of the 20th and theoretical assessments, being the one that century under the sign of the powerful personality truly entrenched Romanian archaeology as a of Fr. Laszlo. Starting with 1904, he directed his scientific discipline; he is arguably the first great attention to the site of Ariuşd, after seeing the Romanian archaeologist, and the founder of private collection of J. Teutsch. Romanian scientific archaeology. Between 1907 and 1913 he will carry Odobescu introduced the critical spirit into systematic excavations on the site of Dealul archaeology, calling into question any discovery; Tyiszk. The excavation was restarted in 1925, he had a rich field activity that resulted in the contributing substantially to defining the area identification of several archaeological sites. In and characteristics of the painted pottery 1874 he taught the first course in Archaeology at civilization from Transylvania. The research in the University of . He was constantly Ariuşd was the first systematic excavation on concerned with the introduction of a rigorous Romanian territory, preceding by three years system for prehistoric research, being basically the those of H. Schmidt at Cucuteni. In 1908, after two first one to introduce scientific methods into the excavation campaigns, and then again in 1909, archaeological approach. Thus, he employed the the site from Ariuşd was visited by H. Schmidt three-age system, divided into the Stone, Bronze, himself, who took part in the digging activity for and Iron ages, and insisted on both the need for a two days, expressing his favourable opinion on chronological classification of the archaeological the excavation techniques used (the impressive findings (based on stratigraphic and typological discoveries from Ariu d also piqued the interest principles), and on their ethnic attribution. of G. Childe). He publishes in Paris Le Trésor de Pétrossa. ș Étude sur l’orfèvrerie antique (I—III, 1889, 1896, Early twentieth century, 1900) [László, 2006, p. 58], a seminal work to this day. until World War I In the Department of Archaeology from the University of Bucharest, and in Romanian During this time span, the confusions and fables archaeology, he is followed by of the antiquarians’ period were finally eliminated (1850—1909); it is the age in which archaeology through the use of more systematic methods; pre- becomes a separate field of study. Tocilescu history detached itself from history and geology, dug extensively, even if not always with an achieving full methodological autonomy [Anghe- adequate methodology, as his excavations were linu, 2003, p. 101]. conducted using approximated techniques. The emergence of archaeology in Romania is Unfortunately, there are very few reports left of linked to the search, development and affirmation his excavations. He is the one who introduced in of the national identity. As an auxiliary science, Romanian archaeology the idea of co-joint work archaeology followed history in its aim to estab- with foreign archaeologists [Dumitrescu, 1993, lish the origins of the Romanian people; in the first p. 10; László, 2006, p. 59). He is also the author of decades of the 20th century, Romanian prehistoric a monumental work, Dacia оnainte de romani archaeology tried to reduce the distance that still

94 Enea S.-C. Romanian Prehistoric archaeology, between tradition and innovation

First romanian archaeologists

95 Enea S.-C. Romanian Prehistoric archaeology, between tradition and innovation separated it from the norms of European prehis- V. Pârvan founded modern Romanian archae- toric research. ology. He continued his research in Classical An- After the excavations from Cucuteni in 1909— tiquity, but he did not neglect the study of prehis- 1910, there followed an interruption in the inves- tory, and allotted a significant portion of his work tigation of prehistoric civilizations on Moldavian to the pre- and protohistory of the Carpathian- territory; the period came to an end after the Danubian area. The fruit of this research direc- conclusion of World War I, though the efforts of tion was his monumental Getica (1927), in which, the disciples of V. Pârvan (1882—1927). Using a on archaeological grounds, he reconstructs the systematic approach, they will investigate new Dacian world from the Late Bronze Age until the prehistoric sites, at the same time developing and Roman conquest [László, 2006, p. 62]. diversifying the prehistoric field, by approaching On his initiative, his colleagues investigated objectives other than Cucutenian ones. a large number of sites throughout Romania, In the field of Palaeolithic research, the person- such as the Neolithic settlements from Sultana, ality of N.N. Moroşan stands apart. A prominent Gumelniţa, Boian, and Vădastra, concurrently archaeologist, palaeontologist, and geologist, with the Bronze Age sites of Sărata Monteoru Moroşan investigated the sites of Ripiceni — Iz- and Lechinţa de Mureş. vor and Stвnca — Ripiceni, arguing, on scientific Through the large number of archaeologists grounds, for the existence of the Palaeolithic in trained by him, we can now speak of the «Pâr- . Through a laborious fieldwork which van School», whose members include Vl. Dumi- lead to the identification of new Palaeolithic trescu, I. Nestor, R. Vulpe, D. Popescu, V. Chris- sites, through the use of the stratigraphical-pa- tescu, Hortensia Dumitrescu, Ecaterina Vulpe, leontological method in the research of archaeo- Gh. Ştefan, M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, D. Berciu; logical sites, through his studies and syntheses nonetheless, Andrie escu also brought a decisive (Le Pleistocene et le Paleolithique de la Roumanie contribution to the formation of this generation of du Nord—Est, 1938), Moroşan is considered the prehistorians. She dominatedș the education and founder of the advanced, modern research of the the research in the interwar period, and consti- Romanian Palaeolithic, and the forerunner of in- tuted the scientific nucleus which kept the Ro- terdisciplinary studies in the field of Romanian manian school of archaeology free of total decay prehistory. during the communist era. Pârvan transformed the National Museum of Antiquities into a train- ing centre for young researchers, but also for the The Interwar period: development of a modern scientific conceptual the professionalization framework, as well as a centre of activity that at- of prehistoric archaeology tempted to polarize the whole archaeological re- in Romania search in Romania after 1918. Through the activity of Pârvan and Andrieşescu, After WWI, Romanian archaeology benefited the first decades of the 20th century brought a from a series of specialists trained in French detachment of Romanian archaeology from ro- and German universities, who laid the founda- mantic and antiquarian ideals, and ensured the tions of archaeology as a science by adopting the conditions for the crystallization of the Romanian principles of stratigraphy. The excavation cam- school of prehistory. paigns coordinated by Ion Nestor (especially in After 1918, they mounted a sustained effort to the field of prehistory) and by Vasile Pârvan help local museums and to establish new units (Greek and Roman archaeology) became true of this kind all over Romania, and even indented «archaeological schools» for the new generations to transform the National Museum of Antiquities of archaeologists [Anghelinu, 2007, p. 4]. into the general coordinator of these units in Ro- Prehistoric archaeology will not detach itself mania. This concept formed the basis of the de- from antiquarianism gradually, but suddenly, velopment, on a various grounds, of the museums through the decisive initiatives coming from the after World War II. new critical historiography. Simultaneously, the institutional foundations After WWI, Vasile Pârvan, assisted by of prehistoric archaeology as a distinct discipline I. Andrieşescu (1888—1944) —appointed by taught in the institutes of higher education were him in 1915 as responsible for organizing the laid down. department of Prehistory from the National During this period, excavations were conducted Museum of Antiquities — and later by the dis- at Sultana (I. Andrieşescu), Boian and Vădastra ciples from the University of Bucharest, started (V. Christescu), Gumelniţa (Vl. Dumitrescu), the systematic organization of archaeological 1 Căscioarele (Gh. Ştefan), Glina (I. Nestor), activity throughout Romania. Sărata Monteoru (I. Andrieşescu and I. Nestor), Vidra and Jilava (Dinu V. Rosetti), and Lechinţa de Mureş (D. Popescu). 1. The archaeology of the Paleolithic is, during this period, the domain of a small number of enthusiasts, Through the excavations at Izvoarele (Neamţ particularly with geological tranining. county), R. Vulpe discovered and delimited 96 Enea S.-C. Romanian Prehistoric archaeology, between tradition and innovation a layer belonging to the Precucuteni culture, research of prehistory, purely instrumental in- while Vl. Dumitrescu, through the excavations novations were also considerable. Along with the at Traian — Dealul Fântânilor, collected many invention of absolute dating methods (physical, materials that allowed him to define the painting chemical, biological), the widespread integration styles of the Cucuteni A—B stage. of auxiliary naturist subjects played a fundamen- In 1932—1933 appeared the first synthesis tal role in shaping the current profile of prehis- work on Romanian prehistory, under the pen of toric research (archaeozoology, palynology, sedi- I. Nestor (Der Stand der Vorgeschichtsforschung mentology, etc.). in Rumänien), published in Berlin, only one year Marxism did not arouse much sympathy from after the publication of another famous synthesis, the intellectual environment of the interwar pe- the Cucuteni monograph of H. Schmidt (1932). riod, but after 1945 the new ideology launched We should mention here that the excavation tech- an aggressive cultural offensive that was propor- nique employed by the German archaeologist at tional to the demands of its historical theoretical Cucuteni, despite its serious shortcomings, be- schema. came the authoritative methodology for prehis- History and archaeology were considered by toric research in Romania, explained by the fact the new political system as «political-ideologi- that the German school of prehistory was held in cal sciences», being subjected to strict control by high-regard at that moment. the state and the Communist Party, few being During the war some museums continued their those who dared to disobey the arbitrary author- work despite the material and financial difficul- ity. During the ’50s, many historical personali- ties. Thus, the Museum in made a se- ties who had not fled Romania experienced the ries of excavations at Limba — Vărar, Petreşti — communist prison hell. On the other hand, we Groapa Galbenă, and Alba Iulia — Lumea Nouă. must acknowledge the fact that the official policy In 1945 a new synthesis on the Neolithic of Munte- of the Communist Party emphasized, especially nia appeared, signed by M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. in the ’60s, the nationalist component, which fa- During this period the myths of Romanian voured — in terms of the research resources al- historiography were born and developed, which lotted to it — Romanian archaeology. By the ear- entered into the collective mind through history ly ’70s there was a sustained period of extensive textbooks since the 19th century. At the Univer- field research, but the situation gradually began sal Exhibition in Paris (1867, 1889, 1900, 1937) to change and socialist ideology began to be re- or Vienna (1873), the Romanian pavilions af- flected in archaeological writing. In was especial- firmed the national identity also through the ly during the years that proceeded 1989 when the exhibition of archaeological artefacts. The buzz- situation deteriorated to a great extent. words of the national discourse were the terms The national discourse was apparently sus- «Romanization», «ethnogenesis», «continuity», pended in the period between 1945 and 1964, «unity», the dichotomies «native — allogeneic», when archaeology based on the «Marxist- «sedentary — nomad», «farmers — shepherds», Leninist concept based on the principles of or the phrase «of national importance» [Drago- dialectical and historical materialism» was man, Oanţă-Marghitu, 2003]. being promoted. The echoes of this peculiar epi- sode were felt increasingly weaker until the early ’70s, and extremely sporadically thereafter; histo- Romanian archaeology during ry, as part of the «new culture», should have been communism: national ideology, «national in form, socialist in content». The main dialectical and historical achievements of archaeology in the «years of pop- materialism, positivism ular democracy» are considered to be, together with the new archaeological finds (the research The communist regime inherited a coagulated also having been galvanised by the founding of structure: Romanian archaeology already had a the Bucharest Institute of Archaeology in 1956 capital city (Bucharest), a research activity with and the Commission of Historical Monuments in scientific standards imposed by the NationalM u- 1959), the development of the archaeology of the seum of Antiquities (the future Institute of Ar- migrations period and of the medieval age, the chaeology), and the former students of Pârvan organization of a national network of museums, were now specialists who possessed a significant and the documentation of the favourite topics of symbolic capital that they will transfer to the new the national discourse: the continuity of the Da- ideological context [Anghelinu, 200p. 153]. cians in the Roman age, their Romanization, the Overall, the post-war decades brought major relationships of the «natives» with «allogenous» innovations (radiocarbon dating), which affected populations, the «free ». The Romanian all theoretical and methodological framework school of archaeology withstand the vicissitudes of European prehistoric archaeology. If, from a of the Stalinist and then of the national commu- theoretical point of view, the bibliographic siege nism periods, becoming one of the most acclaimed of New Archaeology represented the major event schools of European archaeology [Anghelinu, of the era, with important consequences on the 2007, p. 1—36].

97 Enea S.-C. Romanian Prehistoric archaeology, between tradition and innovation

Exhibitions held annually during 1949—1952 the «affirmation of the new man, builder ofso- sought to illustrate the achievements of Roma- cialism», the latter having to realize, for instance, nian archaeology by exposing the materials found that «the defining feature, the righteousness, in- in chronological order, from the «wilderness pe- herited from the Getae-Dacian ancestors and kept riod» and «barbarism» to the «formation of feudal as such, is found profusely in the Romanian Com- relations of production» (e.g., the 1949 Exhibition) munist Party’s policy, in the domestic and foreign [Dragoman, Oanţă-Marghitu, 2003]. policy of our country» [Crişan, 1977, p. 81]. The post-war period did not bring an immedi- In fact, at least in the formal intention, the ar- ate and general replacement of the archaeology chaeologist merges two statutes: the scholar and specialists, although the academic restructuring the ideologist. «Along with its research work, the was important and there have been several waves archaeology collective (of the Institute of Archae- of political persecution. As such, despite their po- ology in Bucharest, subordinated to the Academy litical past, the Communist system was forced to of Social and Political Sciences, then to the Min- inherit fully-professionalised practitioners before istry of Education) is fully committed to its propa- preparing its own; however, throughout the com- ganda, the spreading of scientific knowledge and munist period, post-war archaeology profession- education in the patriotic spirit of the young gen- als still held important academic and administra- eration [...]. Thus, archaeology answers a second tive positions [Anghelinu, 2003, p. 177]. major goal of scientific inquiry, that of contribut- The increase in research promoted by the state ing on multiple levels to the building of the social- was accompanied by its centralization; the orga- ist society in our country» [Preda, 1984, p. 233]. nizational initiative, especially beneficial in terms Museums take part and faithfully comply with of funding, will have the disadvantage of a radical the official doctrine, as reflected by some maga- homogenisation of the archaeological discourse. zine articles in Revista muzeelor («the Journal of The theses of July 1971 put an end to this pe- the Museums») across the ’70s and the ’. The riod of ideological laxity. The theses stated that museum, considered to be a political institution, history is «not a specialized profession», but a was required to contribute to the «transformation pure ideological activity practiced «only by people of the consciousness of the masses», the «form- recruited by the Party, only by people who will be- ing of socialist consciousness», and «the shaping come party activists». «No other mindset can exist of the new man», through «museum propaganda» in history teaching» [Georgescu, 1991, p. 69—70]. (action taken on directives from the party): or- Archaeology, as an «auxiliary science» of history, ganization of symposiums, presentations of pro- is also affected. The 1974 Romanian Communist paganda films, patriotic poetry and music, com- Party’s programme of building the multilaterally petitions [Dragoman, Oanţă-Marghitu, 2003; developed socialist society and Romania’s advanc- Anghelinu, 2003, p. 179]. ing toward communism opens with a history of Prehistoric archaeology departments are es- the starting from the , con- tablished at the Universities of Bucharest, Cluj, tinues with references to the old national themes and Iaşi. The method of full (exhaustive) inves- of Romanization, continuity, unity, with a lot of tigation of sites (the first one was Hăbăşeşti) is xenophobic accents (migratory peoples, the Otto- mans, foreign empires responsible for the histori- implemented. cal lag of the Romanian nation). Controversial After 1950, at the National Museum of Antiq- issues related to past events are solved through uities there are issued a number of publications: official decrees: the Central Committee of the Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie Communist Party sets ’s enthronement (SCIVA), Materiale şi cercetări arheologice, Dacia year, adjusting it so that they can celebrate 2050 (1957), Studii şi cercetări de numismatică (1957), years from the event in 1980, at the International the Biblioteca de arheologie series (40 volumes — Congress of Historical Sciences held in Bucha- excavation monographs of different sites). rest [Georgescu, 1991, p. 99]; history becomes the In Iaşi, archaeology developed tremendously main element of official propaganda, « it invades under the leadership of academician M. Petres- the press, radio and TV programs, theatres, stu- cu-Dîmboviţa. In Cluj, the Institute of Archaeol- dios, libraries, popular music, art galleries […]. ogy and Art History was founded. In Sibiu and Every moment of the present relates to the past, Tg. Mureş, institutes of socio-human sciences it is rooted deep in the ages, each achievement is were established under the auspices of the Ro- presented as the conclusion of a long historical manian Academy. In Bucharest, the National development» [Georgescu, 1991, p. 117]. Military Museum was likewise founded during Archaeological finds taken out of context are this period. also manipulated (sometimes even by archaeolo- County-level museums of history, based on the gists) for developing this type of discourse. Ar- concept of Pârvan, managed to convert themselves chaeology continues to discuss, but on an exalted into institutions of scientific research and preser- tone, the themes of the national ideology. vation of heritage. The research of the museum in History plays an important role for the devel- Cluj-Napoca follows the same line, becoming the opment «of the revolutionary consciousness» and Museum of .

98 Enea S.-C. Romanian Prehistoric archaeology, between tradition and innovation

Romanian archaeologists

99 Enea S.-C. Romanian Prehistoric archaeology, between tradition and innovation

Archaeological research is placed under the and methods of research of the interwar period; aegis of the National Commission of Archaeology Marxism, as well as all the innovations that af- of the , and a very intense fect the theoretical, methodological and cultural- research activity is performed, which contracts historical essence, failed to impose themselves in with the intention of the political fora to subordi- the minds of the prehistorians [Anghelinu, 2003, nate archaeological research. p. 245]. Several new cultures were identified and de- fined: Starčevo-Criş, , Ha- mangia, Dudeşti, Cîrcea, Gura Baciului — Ocna Romanian archaeology in Sibiului. In and Crişana, settlements of the the post-totalitarian age Tisa, Ciumeşti, Tiszapolgar, and Bodrogkeresz- The collapse of the Eastern political bloc re- tur cultures were discovered. The periodization of leased from the tutelage of ideological Marxism most of the Neolithic cultures was achieved, to- several national archaeologies, each with its own gether with the indication of the specific elements ambitions and limited resources, willing to align, for each stage. Co-joint work with experts from but uncertain about the direction of this align- related fields of study (geology, anthropology, pe- ment, while the competition did not stimulate an dology, paleo-fauna) was commenced. uniformity [Anghelinu, 2003, p. 11]. Substantial monographs of the settlements Prehistoric archaeology witnessed after 1990 a of Stoiceni, Hăbăşeşti, Izvoare, Cârna, Sălcuţa, relatively large administrative and academic re- Tangiru, Petru Rareş, Gornea, Rast, and Tîrpeşti structuring, ranging from the establishment of a are published. specialized service in the Ministry of Culture and The Dacia (new series) and SCIV (Studii şi the establishment of a National Register of Ar- comunicări de Istorie Veche — which became chaeologistsi to the onset of regional universities, SCIVA in the ’70s) magazines focused largely on including some with degrees of specialization in publishing materials and studies of prehistoric ar- chaeology. At the same time, the magazines and archaeology; however, Romanian prehistoric ar- journals edited by the Institutes of Archaeology chaeology of Romania does not seem very keen and the museums from other parts of the country on re-evaluating its past or present theoretical include works that largely deal with problems of canon. prehistory. Following 1989, the «Marxist-Leninist» dis- Two significant synthesis works are pub- course, adopted in its entirety by the Romanian lished: Istoria României (vol. I, 1960) in which archaeology only during the Stalinist period, is the prehistoric cultures are presented briefly by now present only vaguely, as an emphasis on eco- D. Berciu and Vl. Dumitrescu, and Contribuţii nomic determinism. Furthermore, the discourse la problemele neoliticului în România în lumina of the political power structures, which gradu- noilor cercetări (1961) by D. Berciu. Likewise, ally shifts towards a full European integration, monographs of the cultures and extensive studies marginalizes the nationalist facet, at least in its appeared: Hamangia (D. Berciu — 1966), Boian dialogue with the rest of Europe. The reliance (E. Comşa — 1974), Precucuteni (Silvia Marines- of national ideology on archaeology is minimal; cu-Bоlcu — 1974), Dudeşti (E. Comşa — 1971), this state of facts is reflected by the financial is- Petreşti (I. Paul — 1970—1992), as well as syn- sues facing archaeological research, by the pub- thesis papers focused on certain geographical re- lishing difficulties encountered even by «pres- gions: N. Vlassa, Neoliticul Transilvaniei (1976) tigious» journals (e.g., SCIVA, Dacia, Materiale and Gh. Lazarovici Neoliticul Banatului (1979). şi Cercetări Arheologice) [Babeş, 1999, p. 9], by Vl. Dumitrescu published Arta neolitică în Româ- the isolation felt by researched unable to consult nia (1968), Arta preistorică în România (1974), foreign literature, and last but not least, by the Arta culturii Cucuteni (1979). Harta arheologică wages received by the archaeologists and muse- a României («the Archaeological map of Roma- um curators. nia») appears in 1972, edited by Emil Condura- The national discourse, which prevailed in chi, Vl. Dumitrescu and M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa. the last decades of the old regime, episodically In 1982, Eugen Comşa publishes a populariza- used in certain contexts after 1989, is now em- tion work on the Neolithic, Neoliticul din Româ- ployed by those who now promote a far-right na- nia, and in 1987 Neoliticul pe teritoriul României. tionalism but before 1989 were closely linked to Consideraţii [Niculescu, 2002]. the communist structures, namely by those who To conclude, the communist decades, although promote an exaggerated and embellished histo- responsible for a tremendous advance of prehis- riography of the Romanians’ Thracian heritage toric archaeology through the direct financial (e.g., I.C. Dragan and N. Săvescu). Similarly, investment made and the extensive research the national discourse is sometimes used when performed, are also characterized by limita- organizing exhibitions «at order», during signifi- tions, internal and external, in the assimilation cant political events, when Romania must dis- of these advances into the theoretical corpus of play its «glorious past». Even after 1989, some the discipline, which keeps the mission, concepts, works, particularly those concerning the period

100 Enea S.-C. Romanian Prehistoric archaeology, between tradition and innovation of migrations, promote the national discourse which «will be in charge of drafting the national with its favourite trope: the «uninterrupted plan of research, excavation control, tracking its continuity of the local population, its rela- capitalisation, and granting scientific degrees» tionships with various migrating peoples that (paragraph 14). In short, the plan proposed the only temporarily penetrated the Carpathian- reform of the archaeological field of Romania only Danubian-Pontic area» [Teodor, 1996, p. 5]. through administrative measures which do not Romania’s history begins in some «specialized» affect the centralized academic system, but which works [Ursulescu, 1992] with the appearance of ensure the dominance of the «scientific» speech the Australopithecus at Bugiuleşti. over other speeches. In 2001 a great number of experts participated As a consequence, archaeologists who before actively in the implementation of an older project 1989 predominantly emitted along the lines of of the Romanian Academy, namely the publica- another types of discourses, now took refuge in tion of a new Treaty on the history of the Roma- this category, in other words they now become nians. These experts were presented as «the best exclusively «professional», forgetting their ideo- specialists of the eras approached» in the study logical activity. These professionals were among [Berindei, 2001, p. XVIII]. Contrary to the highly the main suppliers of useful symbolic goods to the professional image of those involved, as the Ro- communist regime and we can call them ideolo- manian Academy wants us to believe, a recent gist archaeologists. After 1989, in front of the de- critical study concerning the archaeology of the centralization policy (whether formal or assumed nation’s origin in the treaty on the history of the by the political power), necessary for the integra- Romanians reveals the sordid underlining of this tion into the European Union, some of them still project: political order, nationalist discourse, and, feel a strong sense of nostalgia over the age dur- last but not least, intellectual theft (plagiarism) ing which they controlled the central institutions [Babeş, 2002]. to which they were affiliated (e.g., the Academy of After 1989, the most important feature of Ro- Social and Political Sciences). This is one of the ex- manian archaeology is the entrenching of the cuses most often invoked when asked about their positivist discourse, whose keywords are «funda- Communist past: «I had no choice. Such were the mental research», «research stage», «scientific», times». Such statements, however, imply that any «objective», «empirical». Despite some critical at- change must be done administratively, through tempts and the emergence of new styles of inter- an act of will of those who govern. To think that pretation [Bolomey,1973; Niculescu, 1997; 2000; things can change merely under the conditions of Anghelinu, 2001—2002, 2003], this is still the freedom «is to justify inaction, passivity, coward- dominant discourse. ice and compromise» [Barbu, 1999, p. 95]. The spectacular entry in the foreground of Others have reacted in a different manner to this type of discourse is reflected by the Plan of the changes following 1989, becoming what we measures of the Committee of the Institute of Ar- might call archaeologists-cultural managers. The chaeology in Bucharest of the National Salvation main feature of the cultural managers is that they Front, published in SCIVA 41.1, 1990, pages 3— look to the past from a so-called capitalist per- 6. In the preamble of this document, the authors spective, based on the idea of efficiency and profit. deplore the deficiencies of the old regime caused Archaeological practice is given importance only by «ideological interference and pressures», the to the extent that it is financially profitable, but promotion of «a primitive and anti-scientific the generated profits are not used to reform the nationalism», and by isolation. «In these condi- archaeological field, but for the survival of the or- tions, which worsened from year to year, most of ganization and operation scheme of the old insti- our specialists managed to maintain their profes- tutions. sional dignity, which should be underlined now, In another category we include the archaeolo- at this beginning of a new era». «The staff of gists whose reaction to the present context is the the Institute of Archaeology in Bucharest, the refuge into «their own profession». This attitude is country’s leading professional institution» nothing but the refuge in what Barbu calls «state affirms «enthusiastically, its total adherence to of moral exile», without realizing that the invoked the principles of the program of the Council of the resistance «through culture» or resistance within National Salvation Front». The plan, in addition «one’s own mind» is equivalent, ultimately, to a to measures that targeted the reorganization of near-pathological form of ethical autism [Barbu, the institution, proposed measures that on the 1999, p. 55; Dragoman, Oanţă-Marghitu, 2003]. one hand perpetuated the centralization typical In recent years there has been an intense activ- to the totalitarian period, and, on the other hand, ity in the field of pluridisciplinary research, and established the monopoly of this type of discourse in the correlation of the conclusions of these stud- in the «scientific» interpretation of the past. The ies with those of traditional archaeology. New Institute of Archaeology wants to be subordi- syntheses integrate the results of related disci- nated to a «central forum» (Romanian Academy), plines into a complex archaeological approach; it but also to subordinate tertiary education and is the case of the carpological, palynological, and the Archaeological Commission, an institution archaeozoological investigations.

101 Enea S.-C. Romanian Prehistoric archaeology, between tradition and innovation

It is also the era of international projects, in which Niculescu A. Interpretarea fenomenelor etnice de către there are recruited foreign researchers, prehistoric istorici şi arheologi. Pericolele argumentaţiei mixte / sites are investigated by methods and models al- A.Niculescu // In honorem emeritae Ligiae Bârzu. Tim- ready tested abroad, scholarships are granted in pul istoriei I, Memorie şi patrimoniu. — Bucureşti, 1997. — p. 63—69. the West to young Romanian archaeologists, more Niculescu A. The material dimension of ethnicity / and more acquisitions of the New Archaeology are A. Niculescu // New Europe College Yearbook (1997- introduced; the echoes of Marxism and positivism, 1998). — Bucureşti, 2000, p. 203—262. however, are still being heard. Niculescu A. Nationalism and the representation of so- ciety in Romanian archaeology / A. Niculescu // Nation and national ideology. Past, present and prospects. — Anghelinu Mircea. De ce nu există teorie în arheologia Bucharest, 2002. — p. 209—234. preistorică din România? / Mircea Anghelinu // Sargeţia Preda C. De la Muzeul Naţional de Antichităţi la In- 30. — 2001—2002. — p. 39—49. stitutul de Arheologie / C. Preda // SCIVA. — 1984. — Anghelinu Mircea. Evoluţia gвndirii teoretice оn ar- 35. — 3. — p. 222—233. heologia din Romвnia / Mircea Anghelinu // Concepte Teodor D.Gh. Meşteşugurile la nordul Dunării de Jos şi modele aplicate оn Preistorie / Ed. Cetatea de în secolele IV—XI d.Hr. / D.Gh. Teodor. — Iaşi, 1996. Scaun. — Tвrgovişte, 2003. Ursulescu Nicolae. Dacia оn cadrul lumii antice / Nico- Anghelinu Mircea. Failed revolution: marxism and the lae Ursulescu. — Iaşi, 1992. romanian prehistoric archaeology between 1945 and Ursulescu Nicolae. Debutul culturii Cucuteni оn arheo- 1989 / Mircea Anghelinu // Archaeologica Bulgarica. — logia europeană / Nicolae Ursulescu, Mădălin-Cornel , 2007. — XI. — 1. — p. 1—36. Văleanu // Dimensiunea europeană a civilizaţiei en- Babeş Mircea. SCIVA — cinci decenii оn slujba arheo- eolitice est-carpatice. — Iaşi, 2006. — p. 21—64. logiei române / Babeş Mircea // SCIVA. — 1999. — 50. — 1—2. — p. 5—9. Babeş Mircea. Arheologia şi societatea. O privire retrospectivă, în «22», XIII, 2002, nr. 654, p. 10—11. С.-К. Е н я Barbu D. Republica absentă. Politică şi societate în România postcomunistă / D. Barbu. — Bucureşti, 1999. Румынская доисторическая Berindei D. Prefaţă / D. Berindei // Petrescu-Dîmboviţa археология между M., Vulpe A. Istoria Românilor. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate. — vol. 1. — Bucureşti, 2001. — p. XVII— традициями и инновациями XX. Bolomey A. Noi moduri de abordare a cercetării pre- Целью статьи было представить краткую исто- istoriei / Bolomey A. // SCIV. — 1973. — 24. — 4. — рию эволюции румынской доисторической архео- p. 621—631. логии, с момента своего становления в 19 веке и Crişan I.H. Origini / Crişan I.H. — Bucureşti, 1977. по сей день. Были вычленены несколько различ- Dragoman Al. Оntre monopol şi diversitate: arheologie, ных этапов этой эволюции зависящие как от об- conservare şi restaurare оn România / Al. Dragoman, щего уровня уровня развития археологии так и Sorin Oanţă-Marghitu. — 2003. Точка доступу: http:// от харизмы и деятельности отдельных личностей. www.archaeology.ro/rad_so_com.htm Очевидно, что научные основы дисциплины были Dumitrescu Vladimir. Oameni şi cioburi. Contribuţii la заложены после Второй мировой войны Васили- istoria contemporană a arheologiei romвneşti / Vladi- ем Парваном, основателем археологии Румынии, mir Dumitrescu. — Călăraşi, 1993. — XI. последователи которого доминируют в научном Georgescu Valentin. Politică şi istorie. Cazul дискурсе по сей день. Румынская доисторическая comuniştilor români, 1944—1977, Valentin Georgescu археология, как и другие области исторического Ed. Humanitas, — Bucureşti, 1991. исследования, отражалась в политическом дискур- László . Introducere оn arheologie / László At- се, и, к сожалению, находилась под его влиянием в tila. — Iaşi, 2006. течение определенного периода времени.

102