Paper short abstract:

I discuss the process of manipulation by the Polish communist authorities to attract followers by recruiting young people to become heralds of the ideology. Many Polish archaeologists chose not to compromise their integrity.

Paper long abstract:

When I think of the years when I have worked as an archaeologist in Poland (from 1974 to 1988), I recall how easy it was to engage in research and get funds for fieldwork. In the Polish People's Republic (PRL), seven academic centres produced about 50-60 graduates a year and because employment was obligatory, most of them found jobs as professional archaeologists. I could not understand the reasons of such policy. Why was the Polish Communist Party (PZPR) so enthusiastic about archaeology? It becomes even more disconcerting if we keep in mind that the main "showcases" of Polish archaeology in the 1960s and 1970s were: excavations of the Egyptian temple of Abu Simbel, discovery of the frescos at the early Christian (Coptic) church in Farras, and the nation-wide archaeological operation related to "1000 years of Christening of Poland." All these projects were the pride of the nation and have inspired youngsters to become archaeologists. How was it possible for the communist regime to uphold such research? All the three mentioned cases concerned religious sites, including two projects on early Christian sites, and digging and reconstruction of the first Christian chapels and churches in Poland. Why did the communist government approve and finance research on Christianity? I suppose it was a part of premeditated strategy to seduce and recruit young, intelligent and interested about the past people to become heralds of the ideology, to win their hearts and minds. If not controlled and manipulated, the past is always one of the biggest enemies of any totalitarian ideology. The plot was divided into three phases: 1) seduction, 2) temptation, and 3) "we've got you!" phase. The hook was to publish enthusiastic news about the successes of Polish archaeologists and subsequently to identify the most gifted among those who took the bait, as the competitive exam to enter the faculty of archaeology was extremely demanding. Quickly arrived the second phase of the plot: the temptation. Graduates were offered a perspective to achieve their dreams, to plan professional careers and to reach a relatively prestigious social status. Initially it seemed great but finally it turned out not be free of charge. The more one progressed in research, the more difficult was to secure funds. The first "glass ceiling" appeared. To get through it seemed simple - a member of the Communist Party (often a faculty member) would suggest: "Why won't you join the Communist Party? It is not a big deal really and, after all, you owed it to our Party, which already helped you so much." This is when the third "we've got you!" phase materialized. It was the crucial moment that the regime counted on a lot. Sometimes the plot was successful, but in majority of situations it didn't produce the wished effects. Why did such elaborate plan for massive corruption fail? I think that it was due to the merit of our professors, our friendships, and the common sense of decency. But it was not easy as life under communism demanded compromises. Other temptations, other "glass ceilings," blackmails and corruption proposals were overwhelming. Why then so many Polish archaeologists chose not to compromise their integrity and despite that advanced their research? In this paper I will propose my personal opinion.

Paper short abstract:

This paper discusses the influence that national borders within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia made on archaeological research and interpretation, with special regard to the Neolithization processes.

Paper long abstract:

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consisted of six republics and two autonomous provinces. Although it existed for 45 years, Yugoslavian (Federal) archaeology never materialized. This fact at first glance seems positive, but in reality several archaeologies existed within the republics (national) borders, and their presence is clearly visible in research agendas. Cooperation among the republics was present, but not nearly adequate. It was not equally intense in all archaeological periods, but its reflections were present in interpretations of the material culture and social processes in almost every archaeological period. The Communist's regime policy to create Yugoslavian unity never actually affected archaeology. Regional, national archaeologies greatly impacted interpretations of past cultural processes. Self-perception of the republics in regards to "East" and "Balkans", and especially the growing pursuit by Croatia and Slovenia (western republics) to be recognized as part of "Mitteleuropa" and not the Balkans also reflected on archaeology. This paper explains how the perception of the Balkans and its borders influenced to some extent interpretations and understanding of the Neolithization of the region in general, and other aspects of the Early Neolithic material culture and way of life.

Paper short abstract:

Archaeology in Central Europe thrived under the Communist rule. Generous funding coupled with limited ideological pressure allowed archaeologists to conduct high quality field and academic research, and the introduction of the Marxist philosophy challenged the cultural-historical approach.

Paper long abstract:

The rarity of Palaeolithic sites in Central Europe has for a long time been explained away as the result of a poor history of research in the region. Archaeological research in Germany, Poland and Hungary has been regarded as delayed, less intensive and methodologically inferior compared with Western Europe. I shall challenge this notion showing that there is no substantial gap in either the quantity or the quality of research that has taken place on both sides of the Iron Curtain and that prolonged communist rule actually boosted development of field and academic archaeology in Central Europe.

Large research projects such as the millennium celebrations and the dominance of universities and academies of science has meant that field research was conducted to the highest academic standards and organized on a scale unseen within Western Europe. The generosity of communistic governments towards archaeology was largely driven by nationalistic agendas but this had little or no impact on the actual research. At the same time, the ideological pressure to introduce Marxist philosophy, although strong during the so-called Stalinist period, was in fact quite beneficial. It challenged the traditional cultural-historical (rooted in empirical - positivist approach) school of thought and enabled researchers to look at the data from a new perspective. Together, the extensive funds made available to archaeology and limited impact of the dominating ideology means that the there is no reason to overlook the vast potential that the data coming from this part of the continent can contribute to Palaeolithic studies.

Paper short abstract:

Although Italy was never fully dominated by a communist regime, the Marxist-inspired intellectual milieu around the Istituto Gramsci left its mark on the research on Protostoria Italiana.

Paper long abstract:

After WWII, the Italian political scene was largely dominated by Christian-Democrats and the Italian Communist Party. Although Italy was never fully controlled by a communist regime, the Partito Communista Italiano (until 1984 financed by Moscow) was, during the 1970s, the biggest communist party in Western Europe. In 1950 the party founded the Istituto Gramsci, a study centre with aims to influence Italy's intellectual and scientific life. Within its democratic and western context, the Institute was not a propaganda tool of the Party but promoted Marxist theory indirectly by providing an intellectual platform for discussion. In 1988, Wickham argued that the group around Carandini (classical archaeologist) was influenced by this intellectual and political context.

Starting from the idea that understanding the historiography behind current interpretations is the precondition for creating fresh viewpoints, I argue that the aforementioned intellectual context left its mark on the Protostoria Italiana research, especially visible in the achievements by the late Renato Peroni. His maestri (e.g., Bandinelli) were affiliated at the Institute and Peroni's works (1989,1996,2004) show a clear Marxist imprint. I suggest that the specificity of the Italian academia, Peroni's intellectual strength, and the fact that he occupied the first Italian chair in Protostoria Europea, allowed his Marxist ideas (along with the cultural-historical approach he became acquainted with in Germany) to significantly influence studies on Late Italian Prehistory. The different ways his pupils reworked his conceptual framework reverberated all over the Peninsula.

Paper short abstract:

This paper briefly outlines the relationships between intellectual tradition, statutory regulations, and financing in Hungarian archaeology between 1945 and 1990.The co-existence of political/legal/economic developments and ideological trends in the archaeological literature are reviewed.

Paper long abstract:

Three aspects of any historical situation shape trends in archaeology: 1) intellectual tradition, 2) statutory regulations, and 3) financing. These vectors are mutually interconnected and their relations being governed by general economic and ideological conditions, sometimes in the form of political pressure. This was the case under "communism", a catch all term used in describing the years between 1945 and 1990 in Eastern Europe. The origin of these vectors, however, not only varied from country to country, but also underwent perpetual change during this less than two generations time interval. Following radical centralization, responsibilities shifted between institutions. While financing was stable due to an ideological emphasis on culture and planned state investment, ideas of heritage management developed slowly. Beyond phraseology, there is relatively little reflection of in-depth ideological influence in the archaeological literature, especially after 1956. While dramatic political pressures are known to have been exerted to play out (often personal) animosities, their evidence often remains anecdotal and its effect can be appraised rather in the governing bodies of archaeology than in the professional literature. Officially advocated dialectical materialism challenged but did not fundamentally contradict the strong tradition of historicism in Hungarian archaeology; this discipline has in general been slow to absorb external influences as is shown by the protracted acceptance of interdisciplinary studies in a different, non-political dimension.

Paper short abstract:

The point discussed is that the Communist ruling did not inflict strict rules on archaeological thinking and archaeologists generally followed the positivist culture-history mixed with elements of Marxist-inspired traditions introduced before the post-1945 systemic transition.

Paper long abstract:

The point of this presentation is to show that the Eastern European Communist regimes did not inflict strict rules on archaeological thinking. Archaeology in the former East European Bloc cannot be viewed as deeply rooted in the Marxian paradigm but as a blend of the functional perspective mixed with elements of the positivist and Marxian approaches. Marxist social and historical theories became popular in the social sciences and humanities of the 20th century but a full acceptance of Marxist theories by Eastern European archaeologists happened rarely. Unlike the positivist currents so overwhelmingly present in European archaeological tradition to this day, simplified Marxism was used as an analytical tool rather than theory. The methodology to use material evidence to explain past social interactions was common to a broader European archaeological tradition and did not contradict the functional in essence positivist tradition. Marxist-inspired ideas, especially historical materialism, have been introduced from the West (Childe, the Annales School) and the political context established in Eastern Europe after 1945 reinforced those approaches. Interestingly, Marxist-based social archaeology present in the USSR and South America was not common in Eastern Europe. I conclude that as the post-1945 systemic change has not impacted archaeological theories dramatically, also the new political and economic settings introduced in Eastern Europe after 1990 have not distorted local archaeologies which largely remain within the essentially positivist and functionalist culture-history paradigm mixed with the material culture approach common to the Marxist and the Annales School of thought. A larger point discussed is to see how archaeology relates to socioeconomic and political settings in general.