Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:57:36.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pots, Slavs and ‘imagined communities’: Slavic archaeologies and the history of the early Slavs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Florin Curta
Florin Curta*
Affiliation:
University of Florida, USA
*
[email: [email protected]; http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite recent emphasis on the impact of nationalism on archaeology, the discussion has centered more on the ideological framework of the culture-historical school of archaeology, particularly on the concept of archaeological culture. Comparatively little attention has been paid to how archaeologists contributed to the construction of the national past. This article examines Slavic archaeology, a discipline crisscrossing national divisions of archaeological schools, within the broader context of the ‘politics of culture’ which characterizes all nation-states, as ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson 1991). Indeed, the current academic discourse about the early Slavs in Ukraine, Russia, and Romania appears as strikingly tied to political, rather than intellectual, considerations. In eastern Europe, the concept of archaeological culture is still defined in monothetic terms on the basis of the presence or absence of a list of traits or types derived from typical sites or intuitively considered to be representative cultural attributes. Archaeologists thus regarded archaeological cultures as actors on the historical stage, playing the role individuals or groups have in documentary history. Archaeological cultures became ethnic groups, and were used to legitimize claims of modern nation-states to territory and influence.

En dépit de nombreuses études sur l'impact du nationalisme sur l'archéologie, le débat concerne pour l'instant seulement l'idéologie de l'école archéologique d'histoire culturelle et surtout la notion de ‘culture’ archéologique. Il n'y a que peu d'études sur l'apport des archéologues à l'envisagement du passé national. L'objet de cet article est de mettre en relief l'archéologie slave, en tant que discipline à travers les différentes écoles archéologiques nationales, par rapport à la ‘politique culturelle’ profondément liée aux manifestations des états nationaux, ces ‘communautés imaginées’ dont a parlé Benedict Anderson. On a souvent remarqué que les théories actuelles sur les anciens slaves, soit en Ukraïne ou en Russie, soit en Roumanie, sont le reflet d'attitudes politiques plutôt qu'intellectuelles. Dans les pays d'Europe orientale, la définition de la culture archéologique reste monothétique et dépend toujours de la présence ou de l'absence d'un nombre de qualités ou de types établis au cours de l'analyse de sites typiques ou considérés intuitivement comme des attributs culturels représentatifs. Beaucoup d'archéologues estimaient par conséquent que les cultures archéologiques étaient des acteurs sur la scène de l'histoire, jouant le rôle d'individus ou de groupes dans l'histoire documentaire. Les cultures archéologiques devenaient des ethnies, utilisées pour légitimer les revendications territoriales et politiques des états-nations modernes.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Trotz der kürzlichen Betonung des Einflusses von Nationalismus auf die Archäologie, konzentriert sich die Diskussion weiterhin auf den ideologischen Rahmen der kulturhistorischen Schule der Archäologie, besonders auf den Begriff der ‘archäologischen Kultur’. Vergleichsweise wenig Aufmerksamkeit ist jedoch darauf verwendet worden, wie Archäologen zur Konstruktion der nationalen Vergangenheit beitrugen. Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die slawische Archäologie, eine Disziplin, die kreuz und quer durch die nationalen Abteilungen archäologischer Schulen verläuft, im weiten Kontext der ‘Kultur-Politik’, die alle Nationalstaaten als ‘imaginäre Gemeinschaften’ (B. Anderson) charakterisiert. Tatsächlich scheint die aktuelle akademische Diskussion zu den frühen Slawen in der Ukraine, Rußland und Rumänien enger mit politischen, als mit intellektuellen Überlegungen verknüpft zu sein. In Osteuropa ist das Konzept ‘archäologischer Kulturen’ noch immer durch monothetische Begriffe definiert, die auf der Basis der An- oder Abwesenheit einer Anzahl von bestimmten Merkmalen oder Typen basieren, die entweder von typischen Fundplätzen gewonnen wurden oder denen man kurzerhand intuitiv kulturelle Repräsentativität zubilligte. Somit betrachteten Archäologen archäologische Kulturen als Schauspieler auf der historischen Bühne, die eine Rolle spielten, wie es von Individuen oder Gruppen in dokumentarischer Geschichte getan wird. Archäologische Kulturen wurden zu ethnischen Gruppen und damit zur Legitimierung von Ansprüchen auf Territorium und Einfluß moderner Nationalstaaten verwendet.

Keywords

BulgariaCzechoslovakia‘imagined communities’nationalismPolandRomaniaSlavic archaeologySoviet UnionYugoslaviaarchéologie slaveBulgarie‘communauté imaginée’nationalismePologneRoumanieTchécoslovaquieUnion SoviétiqueYugoslavieBulgarien‘imaginäre Gemeinschaften’JugoslawienNationalismusPolenRumänienslawische ArchäologieSowjetunionTschechoslowakei
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , 2001 , pp. 367 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aksenova, E.P and Vasil' Ev, M.A., 1993. Problemy etnogonii slavianstva i ego vetvei v akademicheskikh diskussiakh rubezha 1930-1940-kh godov. Slavianovedenie 2:86–104.Google Scholar
Anderson, B., 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Angelova, S., 1980. Po văprosa za rannoslavianskata kultura na iug i na sever ot Dunav prez VI–VII v. Arkheologiia 12:1–12.Google Scholar
Anonymous, 1953. Şantierul Sărata-Monteoru. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 4:83–86.Google Scholar
Artamonov, M.I., 1971. Arkheologicheskaia kul'tura i etnos. In Shapiro, A. L. (ed.), Problemy istorii feodal'noi Rossii. Sbornik statei k 60-letiiu prof V. V. Mavrodina: 16–32. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Bálint, C., 1989. Some ethnospecific features in central and eastern European archaeology during the Middle Ages: the case of Avars and Hungarians. In Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity: 185–94. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Baran, V.D., Gorokhovskii, E.L. and Magomedov, B.V., 1990. Cherniakhovskaia kul'tura i gotskaia problema. In Tolochko, P.P. et al. (eds), Slaviane i Rus' (v zarubezhnoi istoriografii): 30–78. Kiev: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar
Barišić, F., 1956. Car Foka (602–610) i podunavski Avaro-Sloveni. Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta 4:73–86.Google Scholar
Barišić, F., 1969. Proces slovenske kolonizacije istočnog Balkana. In Benac, A. (ed.), Simpozijum ‘Predslavenski etnički elementi na Balkanu u etnogenezi južnih Slovena’, održan 24–26. oktobra 1968 u Mostaru: 11–27. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.Google Scholar
Bârzu, L., 1979. Continuitatea creaţiei materiale şi spirituale a poporului român pe teritoriul fostei Dacii. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR.Google Scholar
Bârzu, L. and Brezeanu, S., 1991. Originea şi continuitatea românnilor. Arheologie şi tradiţie istoricâ Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică.Google Scholar
Bialeková, D., 1968. Zur Datierung der oberen Grenze des Prager Typus in der Süldwestslowakei. Archeologické rozhledy 20:619–625.Google Scholar
Borkovský, I., 1940. Staroslovanská keramika ve střední Evrope. Studie k pocátküm slovansků kultury. Prague: Nákladem vlastním.Google Scholar
Brachmann, H., 1979. Archäologische Kultur und Ethnos. Zu einigen methodischen Voraussetzungen der ethnischen Interpretation archäologischer Funde. In Preuss, J. (ed.), Von der archäologischen Quelle zur historischen Aussage: 101–121. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Budinský-Krička, V. 1963. Sídlisko z doby římskey a zo začiatkov stahovania národov v Prešove. Slovenská Archeológia 11:5–58.Google Scholar
Chropovský, B., 1989. The Slavs. Their Significance. Political and Cultural History. Prague: Orbis.Google Scholar
Chropovský, B. and Ruttkay, A., 1988. Archäologische Forschung und Genese des slowakischen Ethnikums. Studia Historica Slovaca 16:15–63.Google Scholar
Čilinská, Z., 1989–1990. K otázke príchodu antov na Stredný Dunaj. Sborník prací filozofické Fakulty Brnenské Univerzity. Rada archeologicko-klasická 38–39:19–25.Google Scholar
Comşa, M., 1959. Slavii pe teritoriul RPR în sec. VI–X în lumina cercetărilor arheologice. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 10:65–80.Google Scholar
Comşa, M., 1974. Unele consideraţii privind situaţia de la Dunărea de Jos în secolele VI–VII. Apulum 12:300–318.Google Scholar
Corović-Ljubinković, M. 1972. Les Slaves du centre balkanique du VI–e au XI-e siècle. Balcanoslavica 1:43–54.Google Scholar
Čremšnik, I. 1970–1971. Prvi nalazi najstarijih slavenskih nastambi u Bosni i Hercegovini. Arheološki vestnik 21–22:221–224.Google Scholar
Čremšnik, I., 1980. Tipovi slavenskih nastambi nadenih u sjevero-istočnoj Bosni. Arheološki vestnik 31:132–158.Google Scholar
Curta, F., 1994. The changing image of the early Slavs in the Rumanian historiography and archaeological literature. A critical survey. Südost-Forschungen 53:225–310.Google Scholar
Curta, F., in press. From Kossinna to Bromley: ethnogenesis in Slavic archaeology. In Gillett, A. (ed.), Ethnogenesis Theory: Critical Approaches. Turnhout: Brill.Google Scholar
Daicoviciu, C., 1968. Originea poporului român după cele mai noi cercetări. In Berciu, D. (ed.), Unitate şi continuitate în istoricâ poporului român: 38–91. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR.Google Scholar
Derzhavin, N.A., 1939. Ob etnogeneze drevneishikh narodov Dneprovsko-Dunais-kogo basseina. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1:279–289.Google Scholar
Diaconu, G., 1978. Elemente timpurii ale culturii romanice. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 29:517–527.Google Scholar
Diaconu, P., 1979. Autour de la pénetration des Slaves au sud du Danube. In Chropovský, B. (ed.), Rapports du III-e Congrès international d'archéologie slave. Bratislava 7–14 septembre 1975 1:165–169. Bratislava: VEDA.Google Scholar
Dolinescu-Ferche, S., 1974. Aşezări din secolele III şi VI en. în sud-vestul Munteniei. Cercetările de la Dulceanca. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR.Google Scholar
Dolinescu-Ferche, S., 1979. Ciurel, habitat des VI–VII-e siècles d.n.è. Dacia 23:179–230.Google Scholar
Dolinescu-Ferche, S., 1986. Contributions archéologiques sur la continuité dacoromaine. Dulceanca, deuxième habitat du VI-e siècle d.n.è. Dacia 30:121–154.Google Scholar
Dolinescu-Ferche, S., 1992. Habitats du VI-e et VII-e siècles de notre ère à Dulceanca IV. Dacia 36:125–177.Google Scholar
Dolinescu-Ferche, S. and Constantiniu, M., 1981. Un établissement du VI-e siècle à Bucarest. Dacia 25:289–329.Google Scholar
Ganzha, A.I., 1987. Etnicheskie rekonstrukcii v sovetskoi arkheologii 40–60 gg. kak istoriko-nauchnaia problema. In Smirnov, S.V. and Gening, V.F. (eds), Issle-dovanie social'no-istoricheskikh problem v arkheologii. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov: 137–158. Kiev: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar
Garašanin, M.V., 1950. Ka najstarijim slovenskim kulturama naše zemlje i problemu porekla izvesnih njihovih oblika. Starinar 1:27–37.Google Scholar
Georgescu, V., 1991. Politică şi istorie. Cazul comuniştilor români (1944–1977). Bucharest: Humanitas.Google Scholar
Godłowski, K., 1970. The Chronology of the Late Roman and Early Migration Periods in Central Europe. Cracow: Nakladem Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego.Google Scholar
Godłowski, K, 1979. Die Frage der slawischen Einwanderung in östliche Mitteleuropa. Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 28:416–447.Google Scholar
Godłowski, K., 1983. Zur Frage der Slawensitze vor der grossen Slawenwanderung im 6. Jahrhundert. Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali nell'alto Medioevo 1:257–302. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro.Google Scholar
Goriainov, A.N., 1990. Slavianovedy – zhertvy repressii 1920-1940-kh godov. Nekotorye neizvestnye stranicy iz istorii sovetskoi nauki. Sovetskoe slavianovedenie 2:78–89.Google Scholar
Habovštlak, A., 1992–1993. The ethnogenesis of the Slovaks from the linguistic aspect. Ethnologia Slovaca et Slavica 24–25:13–29.Google Scholar
Hensel, W., 1988. The cultural unity of the Slavs in the early Middle Ages. Archaeologia Polona 27:201–208.Google Scholar
Hides, S., 1996. The genealogy of material culture and cultural identity. In Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. and Gamble, C. (eds), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities: 25–47. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Horedt, K., 1951. Ceramica slavă din Transilvania. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 2:182–204.Google Scholar
Janković, D., 1998. Srpske gromile. Belgrade: Knijževna reč.Google Scholar
Jelínková, D., 1990. K chronologii sídlistních nálezu s keramikou pražského typu na Morave. In Praveké a slovanské osídlení Moravy. Sborník k 80. narozeninám Josefa Poulíka: 251–81. Brno: Muzejní a vlastivedná společnost v Brne-Archeologicky ústav Československé Akademie Ved v Brne.Google Scholar
Kaiser, T., 1995. Archaeology and ideology in southeast Europe. In Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C. (eds), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology: 99–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karman, L., 1956. Glossen zu einigen Fragen der slawischen Archäologie. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 2:101–110.Google Scholar
Khvoika, V.V., 1901. Polia pogrebenii v Srednem Pridneprov'e (raskopki V. V. Khvoiki v 1899–1900 godakh). Zapiski Russkago Arkheologicheskago Obshchestva 12:176–186.Google Scholar
Khvoika, V.V., 1913. Drevnie obitateli Srednego Pridneprov'ia i ikh kul'tura v doistoricheskie vremena. Kiev: E. A. Sin'kevich.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S., 1955. Voprosy proiskhozhdeniia slavian v sbornike dokladov VI nauchnoi konferencii Instituta Arkheologii Akademii Nauk USSR. Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 22:257–272.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S., 1974. Kossinna im Abstand von vierzig Jahren. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 58:7–55.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S., 1977. A panorama of theoretical archaeology. Current Anthropology 18:1–42.Google Scholar
Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C., 1995. Archaeology in the service of the state: theoretical considerations. In Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C. (eds), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology: 3–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koleva, R., 1992. Za datiraneto na slavianskata grupa ‘Popina-Garvan’ v severoiztochna Bălgariia i severna Dobrudzha. Godishnik na Sofiiskiia Universitet ‘Kliment Ohridski’. Istoricheski Fakultet 84–85:163–182.Google Scholar
Korošec, J., 1958. Istraživanja slovenskie keramike ranog srednieg veka v Jugoslaviji. Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja 7:5–12.Google Scholar
Korošec, J., 1958–1959. Pravilnost opredljevanja posamežnih predmetov in kultur zgodnjega srednjega veka do 7. stolječa kot slovanskih. Zgodovinski Casopis 12–13:75–109.Google Scholar
Korošec, J., 1967. K problematiki slovanske keramike v Jugoslaviji. Arheološki Vestnik 18:349–355.Google Scholar
Korzukhina, G.F., 1955. K istorii srednego Podneprov'ia v seredine I tysiacheletiia n.e. Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 22:61–82.Google Scholar
Kostrzewski, J., 1969. Über den gegenwärtigen Stand der Erforschung der Ethnogenese der Slaven in archäologischer Sicht. In Zagiba, F. (ed.), Das heidnische und christliche Slaventum. Acta II Congressus internationalis historicâe Slavicae Salisburgo-Ratisbonensis anno 1967 celebrati 1:11–25. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kukharenko, I.V., 1955. Slavianskie drevnosti V–IX vekov na territorii Pripiatskogo Poles'ia. Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 57:33–38.Google Scholar
Kukharenko, I.V., 1960. Pamiatniki prazhskogo tipa na territorii Pridneprov'ia. Slavia Antigua 7:111–124.Google Scholar
Kurnatowska, Z., 1974. Die Sclaveni im Lichte der archäologischen Quellen. Archaeologia Polona 15:51–66.Google Scholar
Lebedev, G.S., 1992. Istoriia otechestvennoi arkheologii, 1700–1917 gg. St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo Sankt-Petersburskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Lehr-Spławiński, T., 1946. O pochodzeniu i praojczyznie Słowian. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Institutu Zachodniego.Google Scholar
Ljubinković, M., 1973. Les Slaves des régions centrales des Balkans et Byzance. In Herrmann, J. and Otto, K.-H. (eds), Berichte über den II. internationalen Kongreß für slawische Archäologie. Berlin, 24–28 August 1970 2:173–194. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Mastny, V., 1971. The Czechs Under Nazi Rule. The Failure of National Resistance, 1939–1942. New York and London: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Matei, M.D., 1959. Le troisième colloque mixte roumano-soviétique d'archéologie et d'ethnographie. Dacia 3:571–586.Google Scholar
Miiatev, K., 1948. Slavianskata keramika v Bălgariia i neinoto znachenie za slavianskata arkheologiia na Balkana. Sofia: Pechatnica na Bălgarskata akademiia na naukite.Google Scholar
Mikov, V., 1945–1947. Starite Slaviani na iug ot Dunava. Istoricheski pregled 3:142–161.Google Scholar
Milchev, A., 1970. Zur Frage der materiellen Kultur und Kunst der Slawen und Protobulgaren in den bulgarischen Ländern während des frühen Mittelalters (VI–X. Jh.). In Hensel, W. (ed.), I. Miȩdzynarodowy Kongres archeologii słowiańskiej. Warszawa 14–18 September 1965 3:20–61. Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Milchev, A., 1975. Slaviane, protobolgary i Vizantiia v bolgarskikh zemliakh v VI–IX vv. In Berza, M. and Stănescu, E. (eds), Actes du XIV-e Congrès international des études byzantines, Bucarest, 6–12 septembre 1971 2:387–395. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR.Google Scholar
Milchev, A., 1976. Der Einfluß der Slawen auf die Feudalisierung von Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert. In Köpstein, H. and Winckelmann, F. (eds), Studien zum 7. Jahrhundert in Byzanz. Probleme der Herausbildung des Feudalismus: 53–58. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Milchev, A., 1987. Materialna i dukhovna kultura v bălgarskite zemi prez rannoto srednovekovieto – VI–X v. In Khristov, K. et al. (eds), Vtori mezhdunaroden kongres po bălgaristika, Sofiia, 23 mai–3 iuni 1986 g. Dokladi 6: Bălgarskite zemi v drevnosata Bălgariia prez srednovekovieto: 448–493. Sofia: BAN.Google Scholar
Milchev, A. and Angelova, S., 1970. Razkopki i prouchvaniia v m. Kaleto krai s. Nova Cherna. Arkheologiia 12:26–38.Google Scholar
Mitrea, I., 1968. Descoperiri prefeudale din regiunea central-estică a Carpaţilor orientali şi din regiunea de contact cu Podişul Moldovei. Carpica 1:249–259.Google Scholar
Mitrea, I., 1974–1976. Principalele rezultate ale cercetărilor arheologice din aşezarea de la Davideni (sec. V–VII e.n.). Memoria Antiquitatis 6–8:65–92.Google Scholar
Mitrea, I., 1992. Noi descoperiri arheologice în aşezarea din secolele V–VII de la Davideni-Neamţ. Memoria Antiquitatis 18:203–232.Google Scholar
Mitrea, I., 1994. Aşezarea din secolele V–VII de la Davideni, jud. Neamţ. Cercetările arheologice din anii 1988–1991. Memoria Antiquitatis 19:279–332.Google Scholar
Nelson, S.M., 1995. The politics of ethnicity in prehistoric Korea. In Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C. (eds), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology: 218–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nestor, I., 1959. Slavii pe teritoriul RPR în lumina documentelor arheologice. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 10:49–64.Google Scholar
Nestor, I., 1961. L'établissement des Slaves en Roumanie à la lumière de quelques découvertes archéologiques récentes. Dacia 5:429–448.Google Scholar
Nestor, I., 1962. Arheologia perioadei de trecere la feudalism de pe teritoriul RPR. Studii 15:1425–1438.Google Scholar
Nestor, I., 1965. Cîteva consideraţii cu privire la cea mai veche locuire a slavilor pe teritoriul RPR. In Omagiu lui P. Constantinescu-Iaşi cu prilejul împlinirii a 70 ani: 147–151. Bucharest: Editura Acadmiei RPR.Google Scholar
Nestor, I., 1969. Les éléments les plus anciens de la culture slave dans les Balkans. In Benac, A. (ed.), Simpozijum ‘Predslavenski etnički elementi na Balkanu u etnogenezi južnih Slovená održan 24–26. oktobra 1968 u Mostaru: 141–147. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.Google Scholar
Nestor, I., 1970. Formarea poporului român. In Oţetea, A. (ed.), Istoria poporului român: 98–114. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR.Google Scholar
Nestor, I., 1973. Autochtones et Slaves en Roumanie. In Mikhailov, S., Georgieva, S. and Gakeva, P. (eds), Slavianite i sredizemnomorskiiat sviat VI–XI vek. Mezhdunaroden simpozium po slavianska arkheologiia. Sofiia, 23–29 April 1970: 29–33. Sofia: BAN.Google Scholar
Niederle, L., 1923. Manuel de l'antiquité slave. L'histoire. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Niederle, L., 1925. Slovanské starožitnosti. Prague: Nákladem Bursíka and Kohouta. Google Scholar
Niederle, L., 1926. Manuel de l'antiquité slave. La civilisation. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Parczewski, M., 1988. Pocza̧tki kultury wczesnosłowiańskiej w Polsce. Krytyka i datowanie zrodeł archeologicznych. Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Parczewski, M., 1991. Origins of early Slav culture in Poland. Antiquity 65:676–683.Google Scholar
Parczewski, M., 1993. Die Anfänge der frühslawischen Kultur in Polen. Vienna: Österreichische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte.Google Scholar
Petrov, V.P., 1963. Pamiatniki Korchaskogo tipa (po materialam raskopok S. S. Gamchenko). In Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Slaviane nakanune obrazovaniia Kievskoi Rusi: 16–38. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Plumet, P., 1984. Les ‘biens archéologiques’, ces faux témoins politiques. Archéologie, nationalisme et ethnicisme. In Gaucher, G. and Schnapp, A. (eds), Archéologie, pouvoirs et sociétés. Actes de la table ronde: 41–47. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Popović, I., 1959. Die Einwanderung der Slaven in das Oströmische Reich im Lichte der Sprachforschung. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 4:707–721.Google Scholar
Poulík, J., 1948. Staroslovanská Morava. Prague: Nákladem Statního archeologického ustavu.Google Scholar
Preidel, H., 1954. Die Anfänge der slawischen Bevölkerung Böhmens und Mährens. Gräfelfing: Edmund Gaus.Google Scholar
Rusanova, I.P., 1976. Slavianskie drevnosti VI–VII vv. Kultura prazhskogo tipa. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Rusanova, I.P., 1978. O rannei date pamiatnikov prazhskogo tipa. In Nikolaeva, T. V. (ed.), Drevniaia Rus' i slaviane: 138–143. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Rusanova, I.P., 1984–1987. Klassifikaciia keramiki tipa Korchak. Slavia Antigua 30:93–100.Google Scholar
Rybakov, B.A., 1943. Ranniaia kul'tura vostochnykh slavian. Istoricheskii Zhurnal 11–12:73–80.Google Scholar
Sedov, V.V., 1970. Slaviane verkhnego Podneprov'ia i Podvin'ia. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Sedov, V.V., 1979. Proiskhozhdenie i ranniaia istoriia slavian. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Sedov, V.V., 1987. Anty. In Litavrin, G. G. (ed.), Etnosocial'naia i politicheskaia struktura rannefeodal'nykh slavianskikh gosudarstv i narodnostei: 16–22. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Sedov, V.V., 1988. Problema proiskhozhdeniia i nachal'noi istorii slavian. Slavianorusskie drevnosti 1:7–21.Google Scholar
Shennan, S., 1989. Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity. In Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity: 1–32. London, Boston and Sidney: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Shnirel'Man, V.A., 1993. Zlokliucheniia odnoi nauki: etnogeneticheskie issledovaniia is stalinskaia nacional'naia politika. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 3:52–68.Google Scholar
Shnirel'Man, V.A., 1995a. From internationalism to nationalism: forgotten pages of Soviet archaeology in the 1930s and 1940s. In Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C. (eds), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology: 120–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shnirel'Man, V.A., 1995b. Nacionalisticheskii mif: osnovnye kharakteristiki (na primere etnogeneticheskikh versii vostochnoslaviansldkh narodov). Slavianovedenie 6:3–13.Google Scholar
Shnirel'Man, V.A., 1996. The faces of nationalist archaeology in Russia. In Díaz-Andreu, M. and Champion, T. (eds), Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe: 218–242. Boulder-San Francisco: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sklenář, K., 1983. Archaeology in Central Europe: the First 500 Years. Leicester/New York: Leicester University Press/St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Spicyn, A.A., 1928. Drevnosti antov. In Peretca, V. N. (ed.), Sbornik statei v chest' akademika Alekseia Ivanovicha Sobolevskogo: 492–495. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Ştefan, G., 1965. Découvertes slaves en Dobroudja septentrionale. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17:101–105.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1958. Review of ‘Mesto Romensko-Borshevsko pamiatnikov sredi slavianskikh drevnostei’ by I.I. Liapushkin. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 9:524–528.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1969. Regiunile răsăritene ale României în sec. VI–VII. Memoria Antiquitatis 1:181–206.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1971. La population autochtone dans les régions est-karpathiques de la Roumanie, pendant les V-e-X-e s.d.n.è. In Filip, J. (ed.), Actes du VII-e Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Prague 21–27 août 1966 2:1117–1120. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1972a. Contribuţii privind pătrunderea i stabilirea slavilor în teritoriile extracarpatice ale României. Carpica 5:105–114.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1972b. La pénétration des Slaves dans les régions du sud-est de l'Europe d'après les données archéologiques des régions orientales de la Roumanie. Balcanoslavica 1:29–42.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1978. Teritoriul est-carpatic în veacurile V–XI e.n. Contribuţii arheologice şi istorice la problema formării poporului român. Iaşi: Junimea.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1980. Unele consideraţii privind încheierea perioadei de formare a poporului român. Arheologia Moldovei 9:75–84.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1982. La Moldavie pendant la deuxième moitié du I-er millénaire. Roumanie. Pages d'histoire 7:35–45.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1983. Conceptul de cultură Costişa-Botoşana. Consideraţii privind continuitatea populaţiei autohtone la est de Carpaţi în sec. V–VII. Studia antiqua et archaeologica 1:215–227.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1984a. Civilizaţia romanică la est de Carpaţi în secolele V–VII (aşezarea de la Botoşana-Suceava). Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1984b. Continuitatea populaţiei autohtone la est de Carpaţi. Aşezările dinsecolele VI–XI en. de la Dodeşti-Vaslui. Iaşi: Junimea.Google Scholar
Teodor, D.G., 1985. Autohtoni şi migratori la est de Carpaţi în secolele VI–X e.n. Arheologia Moldovei 10:50–73.Google Scholar
Teodorescu, V., 1964. Despre cultura Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti în lumina cercetărilor arheologice din nordul-estul Munteniei (regiunea Ploieşti). Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 15:485–503.Google Scholar
Teodorescu, V., 1971. La civilisation Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti (V–VII-e s.). In Filip, J. (ed.), Actes du VII-e Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Prague 21–27 août 1966 2: Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Vána, Z., 1983. The World of the Ancient Slavs. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1954. Slaviano-bălgarskoto selishte krai selo Popina, Silistrensko. Sofia: Izdanie na Bălgarskata akademiia na naukite.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1956. Ranneslavianskaia keramika iz sela Popina. Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material'noi kul'tury AN SSSR 63:142–149.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1964. Slavianite na iug ot Dunava (po arkheologicheski danni). Arkheologiia 6:23–33.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1966. Rannoslaviansko i slavianobălgarsko selishte v m. Stareca krai s. Garvăn, Silistrensko. Arkheologiia 8:21–31.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1968. Pamiatniki Bolgarii konca VI–XI v. i ikh etnicheskaia prinadlezhnosti. Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 3:148–59.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1971a. Slaviani i prabălgari (tiurko-bălgari) v svetlinata na arkheologicheskite danni. Arkheologiia 13:1–23.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1971b. Slawen und Protobulgaren auf Grund archäologischer Quellen. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 5:266–288.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1973. Slaviane i prabolgary v sviazi s voprosom sredizemnomorskoi kul'tury. In Mikhailov, S., Georgieva, S. and Gakeva, P. (eds), Slavianite i sredizemnomorskiiat sviat VI–XI vek. Mezhdunaroden simpozium po slavianska arkheologiia. Sofiia, 23–29 April 1970: 239–266. Sofia: BAN.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1974. Selishta i nekropoli (kraia na VI–XI v.). Arkheologiia 16:9–27.Google Scholar
Văzharova, Z., 1986. Srednovekovnoto selishte s. Garvăn, Silistrenski okrăg (VI—XI v.). Sofia: BAN.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 1989. Ethnic concepts of German prehistory: a case study on the relationship between cultural identity and archaeological objectivity. In Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity: 35–56. London, Boston and Sidney: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Verdery, K., 1991. National Ideology Under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in Ceausescu's Romania. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vinski, Z., 1954. Gibt es frühslawische Keramik aus der Zeit der südslawischen Land-nahme? Archaeologia Iugoslavica 1:71–82.Google Scholar
Zábojník, J., 1988. On the problems of settlements of the Avar Khaganate period in Slovakia. Archeologické rozhledy 40:401–437.Google Scholar
Zeman, J., 1968. Zu den Fragen der Interpretation der ältesten slawischen Denkmäler in Böhmen. Archeologické rozhledy 20:667–673.Google Scholar
Zeman, J., 1976. Nejstarší slovanské osídleni Čech. Památky Archeologické 67:115–235. Google Scholar
Zeman, J., 1979. K problematice časne slovanské kultury ye středni Evrope. Památky Archeologické 70:113–130.Google Scholar
Zeman, J., 1984–1987. Počátky slovanského osídlení Čech (Sídelní oblasti, materiální kultura, otázky chronologie a geneze). Slavia Antigua 30:43–50.Google Scholar