Expansion and reaction: the concept of Polish archaeology
in the discourse with German archeologists

       Conceptions, myths, and stereotypes about the past, created by historians focusing on the differences between 'ours' and 'theirs', have influenced the feeling of separateness in the attitude towards neighbouring societies, peoples and nations. Archaeologists have also participated in the process of raising the national identity. It can be seen in the influence of ideology and politics on the way questions have been formed in archaeology, in the choice of research issues and also in the interpretation of prehistoric phenomena. Among the subjects taken up by Polish archaeology, the problems of the Slavs and their relationships with Germanic tribes, together with the origin and development of the Polish state under the reign of the Piast dynasty, have been of the utmost importance in the process of creating national identity. Depending on the changes in the political situation and on cultural and social demand, the function of the issues mentioned above has differed and phenomena from the remote past have been differently emphasised and interpreted. Complex relations (national, economic, social, religion) between Poles and Germans in the history give us examples of cultural expansionism and reactions on it. Therefore it is worth asking whose activity might be interpreted as expansion and whose as reaction?
       Expansion is usually understood as an act or process of expanding territory. We can distinguish at least two types of expansionism: international (according to the definition) and intra-cultural (between groups and people within the society).
       According to the commonly accepted stereotype, the state of Poland or the Polish people have always taken a defensive approach in the Polish-German conflict resulting from the German eastern policy. Analyzing the nation-creative processes in the territory of Poland, the political views connected with them and the contribution of archaeologists, one can also perceive a distinct anti-German tendency apart from the defensive aspects. Such approach resulted from the centuries-old Polish/German proximity and convictions shaped by history. Concepts, ideas, ways of interpretation were expressed by the all kind of means by different people or groups of people to expand them. The 'material' evidence of the approaches might be identified in archaeological texts - papers, books, ways of interpretation of archaeological record - as well as popular publications, school textbooks, posters etc.
       Archaeologists seldom expressed their patriotic intentions (in archaeological texts) and stressed the objectivity of their knowledge. Their attitude and standpoints were certainly determined by many factors. The cultural context from which they originated, in which they lived and worked, must have been of remarkable importance.

       The conclusion of the Great War led to the revival of Poland in 1918. The western Polish borders were approximately similar to those from before 1772. The eastern border, however, was approximately as it had been in 1793 after the second partition of Poland. Only in the north-eastern part of the borders was there a major difference. This border was affected by the creation of the independent state of Lithuania,  as  a  result  of  which  Poland  had  suffered

a considerable loss of her eastern provinces as compared to the situation before 1772. Moreover, the new Poland was not nationally homogeneous. Within the new Polish territory there were also Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Lithuanians, Germans and Jews. The eastern border divided provinces which were previously considered Ukrainian, Byelorussian and Lithuanian. The historical capital of Lithuania, Vilnius, as well as Lvov, a city of up most importance to Ukrainians, were also within the Polish borders. The fact that both Vilnius and Lvov played a substantial role in Polish tradition and culture only complicated the situation.
       The situation in the west of Poland was entirely different. The agreements of the Versailles Conference did not fulfill the ambition of many Polish politicians and journalists. They were also aware of the menace that could be caused by the frustration of the German politicians after a considerable loss of the former eastern German provinces. An article in 1921 by B. Jakimiak in the daily newspaper "Gazeta Warszawska" was just an example to show that from the very beginning of the independence of the Polish state the western border had not been accepted and a justification to move the border to the west should have been sought:

       "The border that we have been presented with in the west does not give us any security. Neither the River Piaśnia nor the River Obra should be our western border, but the Odra River and its left tributaries as the old Piast border. East Prussia ought to be taken from our back as a constant peril to our territories and included in Poland, and Lithuania should comprise the part with Lithuanian people."

       It was commonly accepted that it was not feasible to change the borders in the then political and international situation. However, it did not mean the abandonment from actions which, in the long run, could create better conditions for the eventual annexation of Silesia, East Prussia and Pomerania to Poland. Acting according to international law as far as the minorities were concerned, there were three options to tackle:

to keep in the minds of Poles living in Germany the conviction that the then existing Polish/German borders were only temporary and they must change for Poland's benefit,

to raise the national consciousness of Poles in Germany and make them impervious to many actions of Germanization,

to create the pattern of culture and demography which would consolidate the inter-relationship between the provinces in Germany and Poland regarded as Polish from historical and ethnic viewpoints.

       At first the Germans did not accept their eastern borders agreed in Paris either. They demanded that the borders be revised and the German minority in Poland protected. They also put great emphasis on the national consciousness of their countrymen living in the Polish territories. This led to irrevocable conflicts and disagreements. The temperature of the discussions was increasing or decreasing in tune with current political relations between Poland and Germany. Archaeologists did not miss the opportunity to take part in the discussions, bringing in relevant and substantial evidence.

       After the Great War, Polish archaeologists, for the first time, could work in the fully-fledged, entirely Polish scientific institutions. Important archaeological centers were established in Warsaw, Cracow, Lvov and Poznań. Besides, the fact that the latter center played a significant role in the archaeological sphere, it was also the main center of the Polish 'western studies'. This was a simple result of experience from the partition period and a general anti-German attitude of Polish society in the Wielkopolska region.
       The Polish-German discussion on ethnic issues in prehistory was the continuation of the discussion from before the Great War. Shortly after the discussion had been commenced, it acquired an emotive and nationalistic character. Professor Józef Kostrzewski, the Polish archaeologist from Poznań University was deeply involved in the discussion as a Polish representative.

       Józef Kostrzewski lived in the years 1885 - 1969. He earned his reputation and esteem thanks to his huge scientific output which has had permanent influence on the form of Polish archaeology. His ideas affected the consciousness of Polish archaeologists in the field of research problems as well as in methods of solving them. Kostrzewski did not formulate any expressis verbis of methodological assumptions which could have

been found dominating in his studies. However, an analysis of his work lets us assume that he used positivistic ideas in his research. Acquisition of excavated materials, which are "pure" facts, their description and arrangement, is the basis for scientific research. Material which has been scientifically analyzed in this way is the source of objective knowledge about the past. The purpose of archaeology, in this aspect, is to reconstruct history of humanity in all aspects of human life, that is first and foremost, ethnic and political as well as economic, social and spiritual aspect. With reference to Polish territories Kostrzewski recognized the role of archaeology in the cognition of

"(...) the remotest political past and the record (...) of immemorial settlement (...) of our ancestors (e.i. Slavs) in the tributaries of the Odra and the Vistula rivers (...)".

       He studied archaeology with Gustaf Kossinna as his tutor. We may assume therefore, that he knew Kossinna's method and with certain modifications he applied it in his attempts to prove the autochthony of the Slavs. His thesis of the autochthony of the Slavs in the tributaries of the Odra and the Vistula was the leading idea tackled in all his scientific, didactic and popularizing activity. He was emotionally committed to the problems of the Polish western borders and the situation of the Poles in Germany. He often published articles in newspapers defending the Polish character of Silesia and Pomerania. An excerpt from Kostrzewski' s diary concerning the situation in 1928 clearly shows his political attitude:

"Thus(...) facing the fact that in a short time we will have to fight the decisive battle with the Germans for Pomerania, it is essential to draw attention to the fact that Poland not only does not have to give anything back to the Germans but also has some genuinely Polish provinces to take back. In addition, it was not Germany that lost in the Treaty of Versailles but Poland which regained only a part of provinces plundered from Poland in the partition period, while the rest was given to Germany, seemingly as a bonus for effective Germanization in these provinces ."

       These controversial views provoked a great number of polemics among the German archaeologists. The scientific polemics were stirred up mainly by Józef Kostrzewski on the Polish part and Bolko von Richthofen on the German part. Violent polemics between Kostrzewski and von Richthofen would not have had any greater significance in creating national identity of the Poles (Slavs) on the Polish/German border if they had taken place exclusively on a scientific level and in scientific literature. However the major part of the discussion was led by articles which were published in newspapers and popular scientific magazines and brochures. It was this kind of discussion that influenced the creation of conceptual stereotypes of the Germanic people and the Slavs. Several titles of articles by Bolko von Richthofen and Józef Kostrzewski will let us visualize the "tone and temperature" of the discussion.

       It is worth noticing that both sides of the discussion did not use only scientific arguments to prove their points. Emotions and personal attacks were also in common use. At the harshest moment of the heated discussion a diplomatic intervention became indispensable in order to lower the temperature.
       It seems that Kostrzewski was entirely aware of the role that historical tradition played in cultural and national identification as a base for expansion. Bearing this in mind we can pinpoint at least two aspects of the discussion between Kostrzewski and von Richthofen. The first one was undermining the scientific value of the works of some German archaeologists and the second was the popularization of the knowledge about the common Slavic past amongst the inhabitants of the frontier provinces (Wielkopolska, Silesia and Pomerania). Moreover, the popular scientific lectures given outside Poznań and courses for teachers in Poznań was yet other method of spreading Kostrzewski's views and reaching the whole range of social groups.

       The discovery of a settlement from the Late Bronze Age/the Early Iron Age in Biskupin (north-western part of the Wielkopolska region) in 1933 was of immense scientific and propaganda importance. This very well preserved fortified settlement of the Lausitz Culture made great impression on archaeologists, politicians and ordinary people. The visits of Polish government and church dignitaries, scientists and artists brought the

excavations to the attention of the public. They demonstrated to Polish and foreign public opinion the right of Poland to that territory. Thus they questioned the German claims to their revindication. Lectures on the inhabitants of Biskupin stirred up listeners' imagination. The high level of civilization of Biskupin's settlers was expressed by a very fine arrangement of the settlements' buildings and the quality of craftsmanship. Where could one find a better argument to show everyone that the level of civilization of the Slavic people inhabiting the tributaries of the Odra and Vistula rivers was no lower than the general level of development in central and northern Europe? Owing to Kostrzewski and his colleagues' popularized scientific activity, this interpretation of Biskupin became a well known symbol of the prehistoric culture of Poland's ancestors.

       It is hard to indicate who can be described as 'expansionist' and who only reacted on the outer expansion. The complicated Polish-German history as well as verity of aims of different politicians in the history. Both historians and archaeologists of both sides were involved in the process of creating national identity and it was the base to formulate the aims for political expansion. I can not agree with the thesis that Polish people have always taken

a defensive approach in the Polish-German conflict resulting from the German eastern policy. Both Polish and German politicians (and archaeologists) represented expansionism (there were exceptions of course) and both reacted on it. Any attempt to answer the question: who does formulate the first program of expansion and who does react on it is like a searching for an answer the question: what was the first, the hen or the egg?

       One can ask a question: Why was German approach not accepted by the majority of Polish archaeologists and by Polish public opinion? To answer the question we have to understand theoretical background of archaeology, its place in the system of sciences and the role of an authority within the subject. On the other hand the system of education and school curricula were part of the system creating concepts, stereotypes and myths on the historical relations between Poles and German.

       Kostrzewski's conception of methodology of archaeology can be defined as rational pseudotheoretical historism. Acquisition of excavated materials, which are "pure" facts, their description and arrangement, is the basis for scientific research. Material which has been scientifically analyzed in this way is the source of objective knowledge about the past.
       Kostrzewski accepted the basic assumptions of Kossinna's method, however, he introduced some modifications. Kostrzewski's considerations concerning relations taking place between an archaeological culture (that is, material culture) and ethnos were, to a large extent, influenced by inspirations which had originated from linguistics, physical anthropology and ethnology. Kostrzewski's enormous factographic knowledge enabled him to notice that numerous archaeological cultures show striking homogeneity in the whole area of their existence. It concerns such cultures as the Corded Ware Culture, the Lausitz Culture or the culture of the Slavs in the Middle Ages. Kostrzewski explained this homogeneity with the fact that peoples which had created these cultures were interconnected and stayed in close contact. Such close relations amongst peoples of the same or similar material culture were possible providing they spoke the same language. Thus, Kostrzewski assumed that

"(...) a precisely defined archaeological group of compact range, corresponds with a certain ethnic unit speaking one language".

       However, it was not evident that every archaeological culture is a counterpart to a separate ethnic unit. But, what differentiates Kostrzewski from Kossinna most, is Kostrzewski's statement that it is possible that

"(...) successive archaeological cultures, which are interconnected by numerous common features, can represent various stages of development of the same ethnic unit. Different archaeological cultures can undergo more or less significant changes of their character under the influence of external factors such as economic and social transformations, but without changes of population. The changes, however, will never be so radical as to make it impossible to refer a new phase of development of the culture to the previous one or one culture to a later one which originated from it. Therefore, we can regard the continuity of culture as the proof of the continuity of habitation by the same population. Strong changes within a culture or even a replacement of one culture for another one in the same territory will not always prove changes of population if only there are relevant elements linking these cultures together and their ranges are consistent."

       Searching for connections among successive archaeological cultures we give evidence of the permanence of habitation in a given territory. In this way, Kostrzewski drew our attention to the phenomenon of duration of certain elements in cultures, as opposed to the then dominant tendency of concentrating research efforts on changes of cultures.

       Kostrzewski, in his studies on the continuity of Slav's presence in the tributaries of the Odra and the Vistula rivers used the retrogressive method. Since the first written sources confirming the presence of Slavs in the mentioned territories came from the early Middle Ages, Kostrzewski took this period as the basis in his studies.Comparison of data concerning products of a material culture from the  early Middle  Ages  (7th - 10th century)  with

a directly preceding it archaeological culture (that is from the period of Migrations and the Przeworsk Culture from the period of the Roman Iron Age) and display of their similarities would be the evidence for the presence of Slavs in the tributaries of the Odra and the Vistula rivers as early as in the Late Iron Age. Continuing such studies on earlier cultures, it is possible to prove the "age-long" presence of Slavs and pre-Slavs in the present Polish territories.
       In the process of realization of the research postulate, Kostrzewski accomplished a very profound comparative analysis of products of a material culture from the early Middle Ages, period of Migration and the Roman Iron Age. He compared forms of pieces of pottery, their ornamental features, metal objects (mainly iron), objects made of stone and bones, forms of dwelling places, caves and barrows. The conclusion which resulted from the research was as follows:

"The only correct conclusion resulting from the above mentioned conformability among various elements of material and spiritual culture of the Roman and early mediaeval periods, is the assumption, that in the Roman Iron Age in the Polish territories lived ancestors of the same people who lived there in the early Middle Ages, that is, pre-Slavs".

       Kostrzewski, then, took up studies which went further into the past. He, again, compared certain chosen elements of a material culture from different periods - this time from periods of the Roman Iron Age (the Przeworsk Culture), the La Tene and the Hallstatt periods as well as from the Bronze Age (the Lausitz Culture). He took forms of pieces of pottery, iron and bronze products as objects of the comparison. The conclusion Kostrzewski reached this time was the following: the fact that there are plenty of relations among successive archaeological cultures, is the proof of the continuity of habitation in the territories of the Odra and the Vistula rivers at least from the beginning of the Lausitz Culture, that is, from the beginnings of the 3rd period of the Bronze Age. Therefore, it was univocally proven by Kostrzewski that the Lausitz Culture is the archaeological counterpart of pre-Slavs.
       Kostrzewski was not looking solely for archaeological arguments to justify the continuity of habitation in the tributaries of the Odra and the Vistula rivers. He willingly made use of physical anthropology data which were to give the reasons for fundamental constancy of physical anthropology on the mentioned area from the Neolithic to the early Middle Ages. Linguistic data appeared to be of vital importance in Kostrzewski's research as they proved the survival of typical Slavic onomastics referring to geographical terms and names of plants used already by people of the Lausitz Culture. Moreover, Kostrzewski used studies on the kinship of Indoeuropean languages. He carried out comparative research on contemporary ethnographical borders of archaeological cultures. All arguments proved cultural continuity from the 3rd period of the Bronze Age to the early Middle Ages.
       Kostrzewski's views and research procedures provoked vivid discussions mainly among German archaeologists whereas they became a standard in Poland. There were a few attempts to undermine Kostrzewski's concept. The system in which position of almost all archaeologists in Poland depended on the Kostrzewski's opinion cramped Polish archaeologists in searching for other solutions and method of investigation. The only theoretical approach (cultural-historical archaeology) which was acceptable that time made impossible any other interpretation of archaeological record. The power of Kostrzewski's method of reasoning in archaeology have affected research activities in Poland for years.
       Kostrzewski and his role in Polish archaeology are a part of the social context in which archaeology developed. He had an impact on:

       Popularization of the special type knowledge about the common Slavic past amongst the inhabitants of the frontier provinces (Wielkopolska, Silesia and Pomerania) was one of the form of expansion across the society. Kostrzewski actively participated in the process. He used to give popular scientific lectures outside Poznań and taught at the courses for teachers in Poznań.
       The idea of courses for teachers was introduced in order to propagate knowledge about the preservation of archaeological finds. In addition, the program of the courses covered rudimentary knowledge of Polish prehistory. Kostrzewski took part in such courses as a lecturer and presented his views and opinions on

the issue of the autochthony of the Slavs. The popularization of the knowledge of the prehistory of the Slavs was of outstanding importance since school manuals did not contain any information about Polish prehistory. But in school textbooks Germanic people were described as warriors whereas the Slavs were said to be of rather peaceful nature. A few excerpts from high school manuals clearly show it:

"The Germanics were most of all warriors. Wars provided them with the majority of their daily needs; their tribes lived in permanent conflict and fighting; the notion of violent vengeance was the ruling principle to everybody, that is, the whole clan was obliged to take revenge on the killer of a member of their community or on the whole clan of the killer; thus war was the everyday reality for the Germanics. (...) Agriculture, the cultivation of soils was reluctantly dealt with by the Germans; the young usually left farming to women and the old while they took advantages of the toil and booty of wars."

"The Slavs' nature was straightforward, sincere; when in peace they did not know neither dirty tricks, larceny nor cheating; they were characterized by wholehearted hospitality which was experienced by all travelers and writers."

       Once more I can say that the discovery of a settlement in Biskupin was of immense importance. Lectures on the inhabitants of Biskupin stirred up listeners' imagination. The high level of civilization of Biskupin's settlers was expressed by a very fine arrangement of the settlements' buildings and the quality of craftsmanship. Where could one find a better argument to show everyone that the level of civilization of the Slavic people inhabitating the tributaries of the Odra and Vistula rivers was no lower than the general level of development in central and northern Europe. This interpretation of Biskupin became a well known symbol of the prehistoric culture of Poland's ancestors.

       The visits of Polish government and church dignitaries, scientists and artists brought Biskupin to the attention of the public. Biskupin was depicted in art works and in novels which recreated the aspect and everyday life of this pre-Slav' settlement. In one of the novel we can find words as follow:

"We can proudly state that even in so distant a past our ancestors had a fine material culture. If, later on, its normal development was checked, it was the outcome of attacks by foreign plunderers who for many centuries wronged the naturally peace-loving Slavic farmer."

The propaganda as well as stereotypes present in school textbooks influenced the way of understanding the past by the public. Still it is hard to discuss the Slavic status of Biskupin.

       Expansion is closely linked with power. Power is relevant to complicated relations in society and it cannot be reduced to individuals or social groups within specific fields of activity, such as economics or politics. Power and expansionism may take different forms and shapes. The relationships of power and expansionism are interrelated and entangled depending on differentiated social practice. They may be related to the interests of individuals and social groups involved at both ends of the processes of exploitation, domination or submission. They are present in all social relations because all members of a given community are, more or less, involved in relations with material (technology, raw materials) and immaterial (knowledge, information, skills) cultural resources. Both power and expansionism are in dialectical relation to these cultural resources.
       One of the most important aspects of power discussed by Foucault is the power - knowledge relationship. From the point of view of archaeology this relationship is of paramount importance since it is related to the 'archaeologist context' and the influence on the created narratives about the past and their social consequences. Knowledge is constructed within a specific social system and it is dependant on the conceptual patterns prevalent in the system. On the other hand knowledge contributes to the strengthening of these patterns and to the change of relations and contexts. In this way knowledge is present within the system of relations which encompasses social experience of power.
       Studying the forms of expansionism both in international relations and domestic affairs we can and should explore variety of sources of information which are available in archives, e.g. minutes of scientific and political meetings (to understand the process of undertaking decisions), unpublished papers, letters, diaries, posters, leaflets etc.