99 The Slavs Yesterday and Today Different Perspectives on Slavic Ethnicity in German Archaeology ChriStoPh Kilger This article deals with the numerous images of the Slavic tribes between the Elbe and the Oder in archaeological interpretations. The position taken by East German archaeologists was to integrate the Slavs explicitly into the theoretical constructions of historical-materialism; in the ideo- logical struggle between East and West the Slavs, as victims of medieval feudal developments politically supported the picture of a common socialist identity and history. In contrast West German archaeologists on the basis of rigid source criticism placed the Slavs behind the scenes of the historical stage. Christoph Kilger, Stockholm Numismatic lnstitute, Bollhusgränd 1 B, SE-lll 31 Stockholm, Sweden. After the collapse of the Berlin wall and the THE IMAGE OF THE SLAVS IN fall of the government in East Germany, MEDIEVAL TIMES almost the entire structure of the former, The Sachsenspiegel, written by the Saxon centrally organized, archaeological authori- nobleman Eike von Repgow in the 13th centu- ties was replaced by the federal West German ry, constituted an important compilation of model. By this time even the old archaeological different law texts and procedures for the establishment had retired due to its political administration of justice. In its popular form involvement, and West German colleagues the Sachsenspiegel was a vernacular manu- took over. It is not my intention to comment on script with depictions of different scenes of these changes, to criticize or to justify the new crimes, judgments and punishments. Because order in German archaeology in the perspec- of the lack of a general law in the German tive of those people directly involved. What is countries, the Sachsenspiegel influenced the essential is not to choose sides but to look at jurisdiction up till modern times, for instance what both archaeologies have accomplished in Thuringia until the beginning of the 20th in their interpretation of the Slavs. An important century (Run8berg 1930ff:11).The vernacu- question concerns the role of the Slavic people lar shows clearly how the connection to differ- in the historical records and archaeological ent groups in medieval society was significant narratives. Which part did they play while for procedures of judgment. The different forming national, ideological or regional iden- groups were depicted stereotyped by their tities? A proper starting point would be by clothing, their hairstyle or by their posture. examining how the Slavs were interpreted in The bearded Jew was clearly marked by his German medieval records. hat, the Frank by his fur collar, the Saxon by Current Srvedish Archaeotogy, Vol. 6, 1998 100 Christoph Kilger his knife, and the Slav by his haircut (short at basic principles of archaeological research the neck) and striped socks. In the judgment were defi ned. scene all the different ethnic groups are repre- sented with the count as judge and as judicial HOW TO CONDUCT ARCHAEOLOGY- authority sitting on a chair. The Slav is clearly THE POST-WAR DEBATE IN GERMAN marked by his peripheral position and the ARCHAEOLOGY gesture interpreted in the medieval text as an Both in post-war East and West Germany, expression of incompetence (fig. I). In judi- archaeologists were developing research cial court the Saxon and the Slav were not strategies but with clear attitudes of how to allowed to pass judgement on each other pursue archaeology in a proper way. The posi- (ibid:19). tion taken by some East German archaeolo- gists to rely on Marxist models and historical- materialism, could not be sustained without a response and a clear repudiation of these ideas by the West Germans. In this debate the initia- ti ve was clearly taken by East German scholars like Karl-Heinz Otto. When Otto started a discussion on how archaeology should be conducted with his West German colleague Joachim Werner (Otto 1953, 1954; Werner 1954), there was still no clear-cut division Fig. l. Cozzn scenei n the vernacular Sachsezzspi egel between a West German and the genuine East in the Heiclelbergerznanuscri pt. 14th century. Erozn German Marxist archaeology at least on an Runf3berg 1930ff, fig. 13. academic level as there seemed to be later (Coblenz 1992). According to Manfred Gläser, being a Slav Otto proclaimed that archaeology is his- in the high Middle Ages implied several dis- torical science. The two sciences do not differ advantages. An integration of the Slavs into methodologically, and they have to apply the German society was not desired by the same kind of source criticism. According to German authorities. The Slavs were judged the historical-materialistic concept outlined according to the Vendish law and were paying by Marx, archaeological source criticism has different taxes compared with the German to verify and denote the level of development population. In the Middle Ages belonging to a of the prehistoric group under investigation. different ethnic group like the Slavs implied As a historical science archaeology can recon- also social and economical disadvantages. struct the economical structure and process of Ethnical representation and identity had slowly production and exchange. Material culture changed to an identity ofclass. A Slavic identity reflects ancient societies and their level of became synonymous with the rural peasantry development; it signifies the forces of produc- of the Middle Ages until modern times. As the tion that determine people's conditions in life people of the hinterland, they were separated and their relationships in the process of pro- from those living in the towns (Gläser 1982). duction. The economical embraces the social. Their position in medieval society was clearly Thus society's genetical development can be determined, but how did their image change studied retrospectively with the aid of material and how were they interpreted in modern re- culture, even in times before the appearance of search? To understand how German archaeo- written sources (Otto 1953:1—4). Otto's theo- logists were trying to interpret the Slavs and retical constructions were later refined by integrate them into wider interpretations, we Joachim Herrmann, who applied them directly have to take a closer look at how the aims and to Slavic archaeology. Current Szuedish Archaeotogq; Vot. 6, 1998 The Slavs Yesterday and Today 101 Otto's Werner rej ected concept of archaeo- metal artefacts and other objects of high logy as a historical science and the importance cultural and social value. They could remain of socio-economic studies, and pointed out in circulation for several hundreds of years the renewed interest in archaeological cultural and distort distribution maps. Religious ideas groups and cultural hi story in Marxist archaeo- or traditional patterns of behaviour among logy —a breakthrough which was possible in different tribes could influence and finally the Soviet Union only after the denial of determine whether certain objects became Nikolay Marr's theories of ethnogenesis as a dead or living culture. This becomes especially false dogma by Stalin in the beginning of the obvious when analysing different find cate- 1950s (Trigger 1989:230).Thus Werner com- gories such as grave, hoard and settlement mented on the obvious dependence of Marxist finds showing different patterns of behaviour archaeologists like Otto on ideological dog- (Eggers 1986:255—297).Thus, criticism against mas and political decisions. He refuted the Kossinna's ideas was mainly directed against influence of overall ideas like Marxism in the flaws in his methodology. The West archaeology and proposed common sense and Germans were following the conception of the proper archaeological documentation as basic cartographical and source-critical method principles (Werner 1954). outlined by Eggers and Wahle. But West As an example of the West German point German archaeologists did not continue in of view supported by Werner, Hans-Jurgen theoretical matters from the 1960s onwards, Eggers' thoughts on material culture can be when processuell approaches were being mentioned here. Eggers influenced West Ger- formed and theoretical and methodological man archaeology profoundly. His book Ein- questions were explicitly debated in the United fiihntng in die Vorgeschichte (Eggers 1986) States, Great Britain and Scandinavia (Härke was compulsory reading for the student of 1991: 191). The source-critical method out- prehistoric archaeology at all West German lined by Eggers seemed to be sufficient in universities. Here he developed methods of West German archaeology, meeting the basic archaeological source criticism, and continued requirements of archaeological interpretation. the criticism that was already put forward by In some way these discussions fore- Ernst Wahle in 1941 against Kossinna's settle- shadowed later developments in German ment-archaeological method (sieähtngs- archaeology. The 1950s were in some way the archäologische Methode) (ibid:237). Eggers' heyday of a theoretical debate in post-war work resulted in the so-called archaeological- German archaeology. The shadow of Kossinna geographical method based on a source- was haunting German archaeologists after the critical concept of material culture, thereby war and forcing them to emancipate and separating "living culture" from "dead culture". reconstitute archaeology. But the stress, Knowledge of ancient societies is severely strongly proposed by West German archaeolo- biased depending