Evert Baudou Oscar Montelius – Om Tidens Återkomst Och Kulturens Vandringar Kungl
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Evert Baudou Oscar Montelius – om tidens återkomst och kulturens vandringar Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Svenske Lärde Stockholm: Atlantis 413 pages ISBN 978-91-7353-539-7 Review by Joakim Goldhahn Oscar Montelius – on the return of time and the drift of culture How do you capture a person’s life and his archaeological achievements in 413 pages? Professor emeritus Evert Baudou has recently answered this question through an interesting biography of Oscar Montelius (1843– 1921), Sweden’s most celebrated and internationally renowned archae- ologist. Baudou presents Montelius’s life through a familiar chronological framework that begins in the cradle and ends in the grave. After a short introduction Montelius’s life is presented in six periods, which comprise 25 chapters: Adolescence 1843–1861, where his upbringing and youth are in focus; The Uppsala period 1861–1869, which deals with his stud- ies and dissertation at Uppsala University; The cultural goals of archae- ology 1869–1875, where his international scholarly breakthrough is de- picted; The recovery of the Bronze Age 1876–1885, where Montelius’s groundbreaking research about the Scandinavian and European Bronze CURRENT SWEDISH ARCHAEOLOGY, VOL 20, 2012 205 Reviews & notices Age is in focus; Research and social issues 1886–1907, where the estab- lished researcher and his interest in social issues are highlighted; The state antiquarian, the politician and research 1907–1921, where Mon- telius’s political activities to do with the Great War are highlighted. This part also discusses his growing interest in the “Race Issue”. Within the archaeological field Montelius is best known as the founder of the typological method and his research on European Bronze Age. His chronological division of the Scandinavian Bronze Age into six periods is still valid and taught to students in the twenty-first century. During his life he was a well-known cultural personality who liked to debate current political issues and events. He was active in many associations and in demand as a lecturer. In his youth he was an open-minded liberal and throughout his life he argued and worked for the emancipation of women. During the twentieth century he became more culturally con- servative. In 1914, for example, Montelius was one of five speakers at the Farmers’ March (Sw. Bondetåget) in Stockholm, when he praised the Swedish farmers’ historic achievement as “the nation’s security guards” and called for a stronger Swedish Army. At the time Montelius was the President of the Swedish-German Association in Stockholm, and as such he spoke for a German revival and reimbursement after the Treaty of Versailles. Baudou devotes most of his biography to Montelius’s scholarly con- tributions, especially his formative years in the 1860s and 1870s when he established himself as one of Europe’s leading archaeologists. Baudou uses a “comparative biographical method”. This means that Montelius’s life to a large extent is viewed in relief against that of his contemporary friend and colleague Hans Hildebrand (1842–1913). They had known each other since childhood and their academic and scientific career ran largely in parallel. Hildebrand’s father, the state antiquarian Bror Emil Hildebrand (1806–1884), was Montelius’s most important mentor. Both young men studied and received their PhDs from Uppsala University with dissertations on the Iron Age, Hans in 1866, Oscar in 1869. Dur- ing their summer breaks they participated in archaeological excavations together with Bror Emil Hildebrand. They worked together at the Na- tional Historical Museum as guides, on the collections, and with the creation of a new exhibition that opened to the public in new premises at Blasieholmen in 1866. Through their own scholarly research, they independently invented the typological method, an achievement that they generously shared with each other. After their dissertations, both were employed at the same museum, where they stayed until they re- tired. Hans Hildebrand eventually became the state antiquarian after his father retired in 1879, and Montelius followed after Hans in 1907. 206 CURRENT SWEDISH ARCHAEOLOGY, VOL 20, 2012 Reviews & notices Baudou’s comparative biographical method develops into an inter- esting analysis about the cause and effect of heredity and environment, one of the most debated and protracted scientific enigmas in the mod- ern era. Hans Hildebrand faithfully followed his father’s footstep. By birth he inherited a symbolic and cultural capital that in many ways opened doors for him during his education and career. Hildebrand was a bright intellectual, always number one in his class, but he also was a reclusive, religious zealot who wrestled with life’s irresolvable existential questions. Early in life Hildebrand accompanied his father on research trips where he was introduced to pioneers in the archaeological field. In 1858, years before he went to university, he visited the famous Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788–1965) in Copenhagen, the often celebrated creator of the Three-Age system. When Hildebrand began his studies, he was already clear on the subject of his thesis. He was single-minded, almost manic, did not take any active part in social life, chosen as he was to follow his father’s calling. He was already known among the profes- sors at Uppsala; his name opened doors to their homes and social net- works. Hildebrand left the university in record time with a lauded dis- sertation, which received the highest grade, and the book became very popular and was reprinted in several editions. Montelius was another child of his time. He had a bright open mind that embraced the modern age. He had a dedicated faith in progress, shaped by the time when steam power, electricity, railways, telegraph and dynamite were novelties. Montelius was talented but never number one in his class. His father was a lawyer, so when he became interested in the past and began his studies, he deliberately avoided his father’s life course. Montelius sought a way of his own. Montelius too visited Thomsen, the year after Hildebrand (1859), probably with an introductory letter from his mentor Bror Emil Hildebrand. His studies at Uppsala University were a time of searching and dragged out for years. At times Montelius seemed to get bored with his studies and was more occupied with the social life where he was known for his playful comic talent. He occasionally inter- rupted his studies to think about what he should do with his life. When he finally decided to take his degree, he was on his way to becoming a perpetual student. Once he made his mind up, he was dedicated, system- atic and focused. His thesis did not gain the highest grade and was only read by a few interested scholars, but he immediately went on with his research, exploring new grounds and new materials, and looking ahead to the challenges awaiting him. Montelius’s academic career was based on a clear and conscious choice, a choice that Hildebrand experienced as an opaque call. In short: Hans Hildebrand’s academic career and life choice were marked by heredity, Montelius’s by environment. CURRENT SWEDISH ARCHAEOLOGY, VOL 20, 2012 207 Reviews & notices The main difference in the career and the legacy of these gentlemen is grounded in their personalities. Hildebrand was without doubt more intellectual, but also withdrawn and ruminant, while Montelius had an open, social and playful mind. The difference became clear during the 1870s. Hildebrand took advantage of his profound cultural capital. He spent equal amounts of time doing research on the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages, but he also covered the medieval period. His research career was manifested in his pivotal synthesis, “The prehistoric peoples of Europe: A handbook of comparative archaeology” (De förhistoriska folken i Eu- ropa: En handbok i jämförande fornkunskap), published between 1873 and 1880. Montelius was more concentrated, focused and systematic in his research. Hildebrand made the most of the talents inherited from his father, while Montelius formulated new scholarly questions that pointed forward. He came to devote most of his time developing a chronologi- cal framework for the Bronze Age, first for the Scandinavian countries, and then for the rest of the European continent. The broader picture that Hildebrand embodied through his cultural capital got lost in details and depth; conversely, what Montelius initially lacked was compensated for in the long run when he was able to present an innovative groundbreak- ing chronology and interpretation of the whole European Bronze Age. A significant difference between Montelius’s and Hildebrand’s re- search, which Baudou could have highlighted more clearly in his biog- raphy, was their explanation of cultural changes in the past. Here too, Hildebrand was restrained by his father-ridden legacy. Both he and his father maintained the hypothesis formulated by Sven Nilsson (1787– 1883) that changes in the archaeological record should be explained by dramatic invasions by “new races” or ethnic groups. Montelius thought differently. Where others saw a cultural hiatus between the different ages in the past, he sought for continuity. As early as 1869, he argued that changes in the archaeological record should be explained in other ways, primarily through contacts between different areas and cultures in terms of trade, the spread of technological innovations and ideas – diffusion. When Montelius presented his thoughts about this in his study “The Swedish people during pagan times” from 1873 (Svenska folket under hednatiden), it was carefully formulated as an alternative hypothesis to Nilsson’s and Hildebrand’s explanation of cultural change, but when he republished his study again between 1875 and 1877, now under the title “Sweden’s pagan times and the Middle Ages” (Sveriges hednatid, samt medeltid, förra skedet), it was formulated as a sharp antithesis. Montelius went his own way. According to Baudou, one of the reasons behind Montelius’s success can be found in his social competence.