Archaeology of the Communist Era: A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century

369 Pages·2017·5.26 MB·English

by  Ludomir R Lozny (eds.)

Ludomir R. Lozny
Editor
Archaeology of
the Communist Era
A Political History of Archaeology of
the 20th Century
Archaeology of the Communist Era
Ludomir R. Lozny
Editor
Archaeology of the
Communist Era
A Political History of Archaeology
of the 20th Century
Editor
Ludomir R. Lozny
Hunter College
New York, NY, USA
ISBN 978-3-319-45106-0 ISBN 978-3-319-45108-4 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45108-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016954646
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
In the 1980s, almost one third of the global population lived in Communist-ruled
countries, but in 1991 the socioeconomic system fueled by communist ideology has
failed. This collapse is epitomized by the fall of the Soviet Union. Currently, a hand-
ful of governments are run by communists (China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam,
and Laos), and some, China and to some extent Cuba, modified their ideological
base. Thus, with the exception of North Korea, the case studies presented in this
book refer to the times before 1991.
Two groups of issues are discussed here: first—Marxist-inspired archaeological
theory and methodology, which contributed to an original approach to interpret the
social past, and second—government-imposed policies and pressures to control
archaeological practice and interpretations of the past. Therefore, the book is not
just another evaluation of “Marxist archaeology” (cf. Spriggs 1984; McGuire 1992;
Trigger 1993), but reports on a political history of archaeology during the commu-
nist era in selected countries. It is a synchronic, predominantly qualitative and
inductive account of what I call “political ecology of archaeology under commu-
nism,” in which a clear focus on causal relations between access to power and the
status of research agendas, methodology, and theory is essential.
The objective is to analyze archaeological thoughts and practice under specific
intellectual, political, and economic conditions in order to identify and explain a
spectrum of constrains and pressures that affected archaeologists in their pursuit to
investigate the social past. The analysis of theoretical and methodological aspects is
guided by questions such as: What research objectives about the social past were
pursued and why? What methodology was used to collect and analyze data? What
theories guided research or were proposed to explain the gathered data?
Because of political and economic confines, questions related to the practice of
archaeology also become critical. Among them are such as: How was archaeology
administered? How was archaeology sponsored? How did centralized (state) spon-
soring impact research agendas? If research topics were designed outside of the
professional circles, what were the consequences of such practice for the scientific
and public spheres?
v
vi Preface
A keen reader will notice, however, that, as the authors report, the authoritarian
top-down political system was not as rigid in controlling of the social sciences and
humanities as it might have appeared to an accidental observer. Local archaeolo-
gists invented a variety of vernacular approaches to investigate and interpret the past
as well as clever tactics to diminish ideological pressures.
The contributors to this book are masters in their resected fields. They represent
three cohorts of scholars. The first includes the grand masters, those who were edu-
cated and mostly practiced archaeology at the inception and during the communist
era. They were taught by professors who did not always subscribe to the communist-
inspired research agenda. They have significantly shaped archaeologies in their
respected countries. They come from the former Eastern European Soviet Bloc.
Their contribution to European archaeological legacy is unquestionable and testifies
of the fact that, in case of Eastern Europe, the otherwise strict Communist policies
were permeable and creative minds found a way to question the ideologized
approach to the social sciences. Jerzy Gąssowski (Poland), Evžen Neustupný
(Czech Republic), Eike Gringmuth-Dallmer (Germany), and Leo Klejn (Russia)
represent the Eastern European group.
The second set is composed of those who were educated during the communist
era by the professors who belong to the first cohort.1 They practiced archaeology
during the communist times and after the fall of Communism in Europe. Their edu-
cation and early careers relate to the times of political openness in the Soviet Bloc
and introduction of new methodologies and theories from the West in the late 1960s
and in the 1970s. Although educated within the political context of communist ide-
ology, they approached theoretical Marxism selectively and were eager to apply
alternative ideas coming from the West. These are Ludomir Lozny (Poland), Lolita
Novikowa and Diana Gergova (Bulgaria), Michael Lyubychev (Ukraine), and
László Bartosiewicz (Hungary).
Especially interesting are contributions of the third group of authors represented
by foreign scholars who visited and/or worked in the Communist-ruled countries.
These are Sarunas Milisauskas from the USA who worked in Poland for several
decades, and Yongwook Yoo from South Korea who presently gained access to
North Korean archaeology. Their emic observations reveal details that may have
been unnoticed, or considered insignificant, by local scholars. This group also
includes two younger colleagues who study the impact of Marxist-inspired thoughts
in modern archaeology. Iza Romanowska and Jonas Danckers both contributed
valuable insights as fairly objective (emic) observers of the communist era. Although
not all who contributed to this book apply Marxist thoughts to explain past phenom-
ena, we all have considerable experience working as archaeologists in communist-
ruled countries or researching Marxist thoughts to interpret the social past.
The authors attempt to present factual evaluations of political impact on archaeo-
logical theory and practice during the period from about 1946–1947 to 1989–1990 in
Eastern Europe; for the Soviet Union the timeframe is different—it starts in the
1920s and ends in 1991. In the regions outside of Europe, the relationship between
1 Jerzy Gąssowski was Lozny’s professor at Warsaw University in the 1970s.
Preface vii
political context and the practice of archaeology is still ongoing (North Korea,
China, regions of Latin America). There are certain historic events that contributors
considered as seminal for the timeframe of their presentations such as the Stalinist
era and the times of political liberalization in the aftermath of Stalin’s death, social
upheavals and their impact on tightening/freeing of local political rigors (for
instance, East Germany 1953, Poland and Hungary 1956, Poland and Czechoslovakia
1968, Poland 1980–1981, the fall of the Eastern European Communist governments
1989–1990, etc.). Such event history approach, which uses factual data as well as
personal accounts, counters confirmation bias and is critical in understanding causal
relations between certain political events and the status quo of archaeology.
The book is also a story of powerful archaeological leaders such as Hensel,
Rybakov, Do, Han, and Herrmann who led local archaeologies for decades and
profoundly crafted the image of the discipline in their respected countries. They
acted as keepers of the ideology although not always with a keen eye. Nevertheless,
they replicated the top-down hierarchal political structure of the government in the
institutes of local Academies of Sciences they governed and thus impacted research
agendas, methodology, theory, and general interest about the past.
The authors followed the methodology of ethnographic and historical studies to
present idiographic accounts focused on specific event, project, or approach to illus-
trate the relationship between local politics and archaeology. The presented data
range from problems such as politically charged selective criteria used in warrant-
ing research permits, to more systemic obstacles evidenced by prohibitions in com-
municating ideas due to personal political outlooks, problems with publications due
to ideological disagreements, discursive status of local methodologies and theories
that have been crafted to fit political agendas and not scientific goals, direct pres-
sures from local authorities, etc. They also examined the evidence of politically
inspired research agendas, the role of ideology (Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-
Maoism) in local research, the heuristic value of historical and dialectical material-
ism, and overall the impact of the organization of Soviet archaeology and its
intellectual potential by contrasting it with influential western archaeologists such
as V. Gordon Childe, Graham Clark, David Clarke, Lewis Binford, Francois Bordes,
and Herbert Jankuhn whose published works were available in Eastern Europe and
Latin America under communism. Because certain facts were not recorded in any
other way but memories, some contributors also share anecdotal information that
flavor their personal accounts. Understandably, it was difficult, especially for the
grand masters, not to get emotional or sometimes even biased. In this ethnography
of archaeology under communism we all share our firsthand experience as practitio-
ners and/or active observers.
The book is divided into two sections: the first part documents the theory and
practice of archaeology in countries governed by communists, while the second col-
lects information regarding Marxist-inspired thought applied to archaeological
studies in countries outside of the Soviet Bloc.
Overall, the book contributes to better recognition and comprehension of the
interconnection between archaeology and political pressure imposed by govern-
ments in the Communist-ruled countries, but also the relationship between science
viii Preface
and politics in general. It offers valuable hints regarding the use and misuse of
archaeological data to manipulate local histories by revealing how historical myths
are filled with the substance of archaeological facts to legitimate the imaginary and
frequently politically inspired past.
The book stems from a very successful TAG session held at the University of
Bristol in 2011. It is not a typical post-conference publication, but it actually offers
diverse views and discussions with the commonly held opinions regarding archaeol-
ogy under communism. It presents a comparative, global in perspective approach to
the subject, which thus far has been discussed in relation to either specific country
or region (Russia, Poland, Central Europe, Latin America, etc.).
New York, Unadilla, NY Ludomir R. Lozny
October 2016
Contents
1 Introduction to Archaeology of the Communist Era ........................... 1
Jerzy Gąssowski
2 Sickle, Hammer, and Trowel: Theory and Practice
of Archaeology Under Communism ...................................................... 9
Ludomir R. Lozny
3 Archaeology in Soviet Russia ................................................................. 59
Leo Klejn
4 Archaeology and Marxism in Poland: A Personal Account ................ 101
Jerzy Gąssowski
5 Historical Observations on Archaeology in the Polish
People’s Republic, 1945–1989 ................................................................ 123
Sarunas Milisauskas
6 Czech Archaeology Under Communism ............................................... 151
Evžen Neustupný
7 “A Number of Valuable Guidance Received by Researchers
who Studied Long Periods of History of Our Country ...”:
On the Ideological Conditions of Archaeology
in Ukraine 1945–1991 ............................................................................. 167
Michael Lyubychev
8 Contemporary Bulgarian Archaeology as a Social Practice
in the Later Twentieth to Early Twenty-first Century ........................ 177
Lolita Nikolova and Diana Gergova
9 Archaeology in Hungary 1948–1989 ..................................................... 195
László Bartosiewicz
ix
x Contents
10 Between Science and Ideology: Aspects of Archaeological
Research in the Former GDR Between the End of World War II
and the Reunification .............................................................................. 235
Eike Gringmuth-Dallmer
11 A Story of Their Own: What Happened and What is Going
on with North Korean Archaeology? .................................................... 275
Yongwook Yoo
12 Marx, Sherlock Holmes, and Late Italian Prehistory.......................... 295
Jonas Danckers
13 Looking for the Palaeolithic in Central Europe: Research, Impact,
and Geopolitics ........................................................................................ 323
Iza Romanowska
Index ................................................................................................................. 349