Zalewska_Anna_2016_Archaeological sites as the results of dynamic material – discursive practices and the phenomena of their becoming ‘places in memory’ and (something akin to)

�

Pułtusk Academy of Humanities

ACTA ARCHAEOLOGICA PULTUSKIENSIAVol. V

Institute of Anthropology and Archaeology

PUŁTUSK 2016

Meetings at the borders

Studies dedicated to Professor Władysław Duczko

Edited by Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska and Jadwiga Iwaszczukin co-operation with Bożena Józefów-Czerwińska

�

Scientific Editors: Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska & Jadwiga IwaszczukProof-reading in English by Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska & Jo B. Harper

Proof-reading in French by Mirosława Latoska-IwaszczukProof-reading in Polish by Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska

DTP by Jadwiga IwaszczukGraphics by Jadwiga IwaszczukCover design by Jakub Affelski

All rights reserved

© Copyright 2016by the Pułtusk Academy of Humanities, 2016

Publisher:Pułtusk Academy of Humanities

ul. Daszyńskiego 17, 06-100 Pułtusktel./fax (+48 23) 692 50 82e-mail: [email protected]

Internet: www.ah.edu.pl

ISBN 978-83-7549-300-9

Realised on behalf of the publisher:Przedsiębiorstwo Poligraficzno-Wydawnicze “Graf” – Janusz Janiszewski

04-663 Warszawaul. Błękitna 87Atel. 501 376 898

e-mail:[email protected]

5

Bibliography of Professor Władysław Duczko .............................................................................. 7Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska, In Place of an Introduction. Professor Władysław Duczko .................................................................... 17Peter Lindbom, Władysław, a Renaissance Man ...................................................................... 21

***

Lidia Ambroziak, Christiane Desroches Noblecourt and Her Relationships with Poland .... 25Paul Barford, Portable Antiquities Collectors and an Alter-Archaeology

of Viking England ..................................................................... 31 Piotr Boroń, Wczesnośredniowieczny Bytom w świetle nowych ustaleń ................................ 47 Andrzej Buko, Ziemie polskie przed Piastami: jednorodny czy zróżnicowany

obraz regionów? ........................................................................ 55 Magdalena Buś, Marie Allen, The Potential and Benefits of Interdisciplinary Studies ..... 63 Dorota Cyngot, Komory celne we wczesnym średniowieczu. Możliwość identyfikacji

archeologicznej na przykładzie szlaku bużańsko-wiślanego .... 67 Ásdís Egilsdóttir, Esja’s Cave. Giantesses, Sons and Mothers in Kjalnesinga Saga........... 79Adam Falis, Badania poszukiwawczo-ekshumacyjne przeprowadzone w piwnicach budynku

administracyjnego Aresztu Śledczego w Białymstokuw dniach 17-22.11.2014 r. ......................................................... 85

Leszek Gardeła, Amulety skandynawskie z Wolina i Truso ................................................... 99Waldemar Gniadek, Niemieckie loże wolnomularskie działające w XVIII i XIX wieku

na ziemiach polskich ................................................................. 107Göran Henriksson, Old Uppsala and Nicolaus Copernicus – Co-operation with Władysław Duczko ........................................................... 115Urszula Iwaszczuk, Zwierzęce szczątki kostne z wczesnośredniowiecznej osady w Ruskiej Wsi, stan. 13, gm. Mrągowo ..................................... 125Andrzej Janowski, Patryca z Wolina. Przyczynek do znajomości technik obróbki metali

na południowym wybrzeżu Morza Bałtyckiego we wczesnym średniowieczu ............................................................................ 131

Bożena Józefów-Czerwińska, Motyw „koła” – ornament czy symbol religijny? ............... 135Karol Kollinger, Ruskie małżeństwo Ryksy Bolesławówny i stosunki polsko-duńsko-

nowogrodzkie w latach 1134-1138 ............................................ 147Jacek Konik, „Ja, Babata, córka Szymona […] zapisuję to, co posiadam…” Grota Listów:

odkrycia, interpretacje, wątpliwości ......................................... 165Adam Koseski, Ślub króla Albańczyków – Ahmeda Zogu I ..................................................... 171Tomasz Kurasiński, Dwa interesujące kabłączki skroniowe z cmentarzyska w Glinnie,

pow. sieradzki. Przyczynek do badań nad wczesnośredniowiecznąbiżuterią z ziem polskich ........................................................... 175

Radosław Lolo, Matka w kazaniach księdza Piotra Skargi SJ ................................................. 181

Contents

6

Piotr Pranke, Magic, Faith, Economy – Far-reaching Trade on the Lands of Central,East-Central and Northern Europe betweenthe 10th-12th Century .................................................................. 185

Joanna Rosik, Stanisław Rosik, Jeż w rękawie. Osobliwa przygoda mniszki Racławyw pułapce świata symboli (w kręgu hagiografiijadwiżańskiej) ........................................................................... 197

Mariusz Rosik, Est-ce que dans les années 70/71 après Jésus-Christ Fiscus Iudaicus eut une influence sur la séparation des chemins du judaïsme et du christianisme ? Etude historique et théologique ...................... 201

Andrzej Rozwałka, Jacek Jeremicz, Rafał Niedźwiadek, Najstarsze umocnieniaLublina lokacyjnego .................................................................. 215

Leszek P. Słupecki, Mökkurkálfi i Golem. Dalekie echo żydowskiej magii w nordyckiej mitografii Snorriego Sturlusona? ............................................. 221

Janusz Szczepański, Dawna rezydencja biskupów płockich w Pułtusku – siedzibąDomu Polonii ............................................................................ 231

Marcin Wołoszyn, Iwona Florkiewicz, Marek Krąpiec, Elżbieta M. Nosek, Janusz Stępiński, Maria Lityńska-Zając, Czermno, Site No. 70. From the 2014 Rescue Excavation on the Huczwa

River Bank ................................................................................. 239Anna Wrzesińska, Ludzkie szczątki kostne z Gamla Uppsala w Szwecji ............................... 251Jacek Wrzesiński, The Ring from the Stronghold in Grzybowo ............................................ 255Anna Zalewska, Archaeological Sites as the Results of Material-Discursive Practices and the Phenomena of Their Becoming Causative Realms of Memory ................................................................... 259

7

1972

Slavic silver jewellery from the Viking Period. An analysis of material from Gotland, C-uppsats i arkeologi, Uppsala Universitet, 131 pp.

1973

Kring s.k. probermärkes problem. Undersökning av fyra gotländska depåer, D-uppsats i numismatik, Stockholm Universitet, 34 pp.

1980

Vikingatida silversmycken i Mora-skatten. Den icke-monetära delen av en nyupptäckt silverskatt från Dalarna, Tor 18 (1978-79), pp. 311-357

1982

Ett vikingatida filigransmycke kommer till. Om trådar, granulation och lödning, Fjölninr 1/3, pp. 53-65

1983

Slaviskt och gotländskt smide i ädla metaller, [in:] Gutar och vikingar, Stockholm, pp. 329-356

En slavisk pärla från Uppland. Några problem kring den vikingatida granulationskonsten, Tor 19 (1980-82), pp. 189-233

1984

Die Kugelnadel aus Bj 832, [in:] G. Arwidsson (ed.), Systematische Analysen der Gräberfunde, Birka II:1, Stockholm, pp. 1-4

Bibliography of ProfessorWładysław Duczko

8

1985

The filigree and granulation work of the Viking Period. An analysis of the material from Björkö, Birka V, Stockholm, 118 pp. (PhD thesis)

1986

Vikingatidens filigran- och granulationsarbeten. En analys av materialet från Björkö, [in:] Annales Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum Regiae Upsalien-sis, Uppsala, pp. 107-110

1987

Valboskatten – ett senvikingatida silverfynd, Från Gästrikland 1986, pp. 7-40

En guldpärla från Bjärges, Gotland. En kort inledning till den gotländska senvikingatida filigrankonsten, Tor 21 (1986-87), pp. 211-240

Slavianskije juvilirnyje isdelija s zernju i filigranju v Skandinavii epochi vikingov, [in:] Trudy Mezdunarodnogo Kongressa Slavijanskoj Archeologii 3:1a, Moskva, pp. 77-86

1989

Østlig kontak, Skalk 4, pp. 11-15

Runde Silberblechanhänger mit punziertem Muster, [in:] G. Arwidsson (ed.), Systematische Analysen der Gräberfunde, Birka II:3, Stockholm, Stockholm, pp. 9-18

Vikingatida bysantinska metallsmycken i arkeologiska fynd från Skandinavien, [in:] E. Piltz (ed.), Bysans och Norden: akta for nordiska forskarkursen i bysantinsk konstvetenskap 1986, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Figura Nova Series 23, Uppsala, pp. 125-143

Två vikingatida dekorplattor från Hässelby, Uppland, Tor 22 (1988-89), pp. 189-222

Benzelius-belöning 1989, historisk-arkeologiskaklassen, Kungal. Vetenskaps-societetens årsbok 1989, pp. 53-54

1991

Korset fra Kippinge, Skalk 2, pp. 3-8

Gullsmedyrket – för gudar og konger, SPOR – fortidsnytt fra midt-norge 1/6, H. 11, pp. 16-18

Bibliography of Professor Władysław Duczko

9

Gamla Uppsala. PM om den arkeologiska bakgrunden och den aktuella antikvariska situationen, [in:] D. Damell (ed.), Gamla Uppsala – Fornlämningar, utgrävningar, Stockholm, pp. 24-48

1992

Guld- och silversmide, [in:] Viking og Hvidekrist – Norden og Europa 800-1200. Utställningskatalog, København, pp. 200-201

Bysans i Sigtuna, Utställningsfolder, Sigtuna, pp. 1-2

1993

Scandinavian dies of the Viking Age, [in:] Outils et ateliers, Memoire 2, Societe des Amis du Musee Antiquites Nationales et du Chateau de Saint-Germain-Laye, Saint-Germain-Laye, pp. 185-190

Arkeologi och miljögeologi i Gamla Uppsala, Studier och rapporter 1, Occasional Papers in Archaeology (OPIA) 7, UppsalaEditor of the volume and author of:Inledning, pp. 5-8Introduktion till Gamla Uppsala: Gamla Uppsala som problem, pp. 9-12Fornlämningskomplexet, pp. 13-23Tidigare forskning, pp. 24-26Arkeologiska undersökningar, pp. 27-34Utgrävningsprogram, pp. 35-37Norra gärdet. Utgrävningen 1992, pp. 39-44Bibliografi över Gamla Uppsala, pp. 71-78

1994

Fornlämnigar och forskning, [in:] W. Duczko, S. Elgh, B. Gräslund, N. Price, (eds), Gamla Uppsala - ett förslag inför de arkeologiska undersökningarna på Ostkustbanan och intilliggande undersökningsområden, Tryckta Rapporter från Arkeologikonsult AB 9, Upplands Väsby, pp. 5-18

Gamla Uppsala i myt och forskning, [in:] Ch. Aronsson (ed.), Gamla Uppsala förr och nu. En skrift om hembygden, Gamla Uppsala, pp. 4-13

Filigran, [in:] Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 9, L.1/2, Berlin – New York, pp. 29-42

1995

Kungar, thegnar, Tegnebyar, juveler och silverskatter. Om danskt inflytande i Sverige under senvikingatid, Tor 27/2, pp. 625-662

Med volvo till vikingatid, Fjölnir 14/2, pp. 65-71


10

Contacts between Estonia and Scandinavia in the light of the 12th century hoard from Valbo, [in:] I. Jansson (ed.), Archaeology East and West of the Baltic. Papers from the Second Estonia-Swedish Archaeological Symposium Sigtuna May 1991, Stockholm, pp. 99-102

Ruriks tryzub och torshammare med svärdet. Vad ett vikingatida hänge har oss att säga, Fjölnir 14/3, pp. 9-16

1996

Viking Sweden and Byzantium. An Archaeologist’s Version, [in:] K. Fledelius (ed.), Byzantium – Identity, Image, Influence. XIX International Congress of Byzantine Studies, University of Copenhagen, 18-24 August 1996, Copenhagen, pp. 193-200

Arkeologi och miljögeologi i Gamla Uppsala, Studier och rapporter 2, OPIA 11, UppsalaEditor of the volume and author of:Inledning, pp. 5-6De litterära och arkeologiska kungarna, pp. 9-19Kungsgården, pp. 37-51Uppsalahögarna som symboler och arkeologiska källor, pp. 59-93Kring Östhögens utgrävningshistoria, pp. 95-96Norra gärdet. Utgrävningar 1993, 1994, pp. 115-127

Fullerö, [in:] Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 10, L. 3/4, Berlin – New York, pp. 242-243

1997

Review: Oksana Minaeva. From Paganism to Christianity: Formation of Medieval Bulgarian Art (681-972). Frankfurt am Main, Bysantinska Sällskapet Bulletin 15, pp. 45-46

Byzantine Presence in Viking Age Sweden – Archaeological Finds and their Interpretation, [in:] M. Müller-Wille (ed.), Rom und Byzanz im Norden: Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhun-derts; internationale Fachkonferenz der Deutschen Forschungsgemein-schaft in Verbindung mit der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Litera-tur, Mainz, Kiel, 18. - 25. September 1994, Stuttgart, pp. 291-311

Real and Imaginary Contributions of Poland and Rus to the Conversion of Sweden, [in:] P. Urbańczyk (ed.), Early Christianity in Central Europe, Warsaw, pp. 129-135

Gamla Uppsala, [in:] Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 10, L. 5/6, Berlin – New York, pp. 409-418


11

Scandinavians in the Southern Baltic between the 5th and the 10th centu-ries AD, [in:] P. Urbańczyk (ed.), Origins of Central Europe, Warsaw, pp. 191-211

Gamla Uppsala – svearnas maktcentrum i äldre och nyare forskning, [in:] J. Callmer, E. Rosengren (eds), “… Gick Grendel att söka det höga huset…” Arkeologiska källor till aristokratiska miljöer i Skandinavien under yngre järnålder, Hallands Länsmuseers Skriftserie 9/GOTARC C, Arkeologiska Skrifter 17, Halmstat, pp. 71-81

1998

Round Brooches of Tunby/Jägarbacken-Type. An Example of Danish Viking Age Jewellery and its Place in European Goldsmith’s Art, [in:] A. Wesse (ed.), Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift Michael Müller-Wille, Neumünster, pp. 529-536

Nytt om Gamla Uppsala, [in:] Gamla Uppsala – centralplats och omland, Arkeologisk Förundersökning på Ostkustbanan 1996-97. Riksantikvarieämbetet, UV Uppsala Rapport 1997:26, Uppsala, pp. 13-23

Stara Uppsala – centrum władzy wczesnośredniowiecznej Szwecji, [in:] A. Buko (ed.), Studia z dziejów cywilizacji: studia ofiarowane profesorowi Jerzemu Gąssowskiemu w pięćdziesiątą rocznicę pracy naukowej, Warszawa, pp. 73-79

Viking Sweden and Islam – An Archaeological view, [in:] E. Piltz (ed.), Byzantium and Islam in Scandinavia. Acts of a symposium at Uppsala University, June 15-16 1996, Göteborg, pp. 107-115

2000

Symbols of power in Early Rus’, [in:] A. Buko, P. Urbańczyk (eds), Archeologia w teorii i w praktyce, Warszawa, pp. 483-491

Continuity and Transformation: The Tenth century A.D. in Sweden, [in:] P. Urbańczyk (ed.), Neighbours of Poland in the tenth century, Warsaw, pp. 7-36

Wczesnośredniowieczne królestwo szwedzkie a pierwsze państwo piastowskie – głos w dyskusji, [in:] Papers of the conference “Poland in the 10th century and its importance in formation of new map of Europe” Kalisz, October 1999, Warszawa, pp. 21-23

Vikingarnas tid – konflikter och kompromisser i Gamla Uppsala, [in:] G. Friberg (ed.), Myt, makt och människa. Tio uppsatser om Gamla Uppsala, Stockholm, pp. 30-36


12

Obecność skandynawska na Pomorzu i słowiańska w Skandynawii we wczesnym średniowieczu, [in:] L. Leciejewicz, M. Rębkowski (eds), Salsa Cholbergensis. Kołobrzeg w średniowieczu, Kołobrzeg, pp. 23-44

Polska fynd ger nordisk järnålder ny belysning, Danmarks Hembygdsförening årsskrift 2000, pp. 25-30

2001

Year 1000 – Point of no return for the Early Medieval Swedish Kingdom, [in:] P. Urbańczyk (ed.), Europe Around the Year 1000, Warsaw, pp. 367-378

Stara Uppsala a szwedzkie origo gentis, [in:] S. Rosik, P. Wiszewski (eds), Origines mundi, gentium et civitatum, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 2339, Historia CLIII, Wroclaw, pp. 132-144

2002

Test or Magic? Pecks on Viking-Age Silver, [in:] R. Kiersnowski, S.K. Ku-czyński, M. Męclewska, M. Mielczarek, B, Paszkiewicz (eds), Moneta me-diaevalis: studia numizmatyczne i historyczne ofiarowane Profesorowi Sta-nisławowi Suchodolskiemu w 65. rocznicę urodzin, Warsaw, pp. 192-208

Tańczący wojownicy: ikonografia rytuałów kultowo-militarnych w skandy-nawskiej sztuce wczesnego średniowiecza, (Dancing warriors – iconography of cultic-military rituals in art of early medieval Scandinavia), [in:] S. Ro-sik, P. Wiszewski (eds), Imago narrat. Obraz jako komunikat w spoleczeń-stwach europejskich, Acta Universitatis Vratislaviensis 2478, Historia CLXI, Wrocław, pp. 169-191

2003

The ways things were moving: Staraja Ladoga-Birka-Staré Mesto-Gradešnica, [in:] M. Dulinicz (ed.), Słowianie i ich sąsiedzi we wczesnym średniowieczu, Warsaw, pp. 123-127

The fateful one hundred years – Sweden in the eleventh century AD, [in:] P. Urbańczyk (ed.), Neighbours of Poland in the eleventh century, Warsaw, pp. 11-27

Tunåsen och dess krön. Kring en glömd del av Gamla Uppsala fornlämning-skomplexet, Västmanlands läns Museum. Kulturmiljöavdelningen Rapport A 2003: A 22, Västerås

2004

Viking Rus. Studies on the presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, Leiden – Boston, 290 pp.


13

The missionary phase of Christianisation in Denmark and Sweden, [in:] J. Gąssowski (ed.), Christianization of the Baltic Region, Castri Dominae Nostrae Litterae Annales I, Pułtusk, pp. 121-150

Skandynawowie we Wschodniej Europie w okresie wikingów, [in:] M. Salamon, J. Strzelczyk (eds), Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności i średniowieczu, Kraków, pp. 237-243

Moc spirali. Historia motywów wolutowych we wczesnej sztuce europejskiej, [in:] S. Moździoch (ed.), Wędrówki rzeczy i idei w średniowieczu, Spotkania Bytomskie V, Wrocław, pp. 159-171

Król Anund, rebelia Sveów i kometa Halleya. Źródła pisane, archeologiczne i astronomiczne do jednego wydarzenia z lat 830, [in:] Ad fontes. O naturze źródła historycznego, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 2675, Historia CLXX, pp. 303-312

2005

Vid Högåsens södra utkant. Ett förstört gravfält med skeletten under högar i Gamla Uppsala, Kulturmiljöavdelningen rapport A 2004: A2, 22 pp.

Ödun z białym niedźwiedziem. Jak działał mechanizm daru w jedenasto-wiecznej Skandynawii, [in:] W. Dzieduszycki, J. Wrzesiński (eds), Do, ut des – dar, pochówek, tradycja, Funeralia Lednickie 7, Poznań, pp. 239-242

Zebrać, zdeprecjonować, schować i zostawiać. O skarbach srebrnych Skandynawii okresu wikingów, Wiadomości Numizmatyczne XLIXZ/2 (180), pp. 205-218

2006

Ruś Wikingów. Historia obecności skandynawskiej we Wschodniej Europie, Warszawa

2007

Ruś Wikingów. Historia obecności skandynawskiej we Wschodniej Europie, Warszawa (2nd ed.)

2008

Use of imaginary past in Sweden, [in:] A. Buko, W. Duczko, J. Popielska-Grzybowska, B. Jurkiewicz, A. Stawiska (eds), Przez granice czasu, Księga jubileuszowa poświęcona Profesorowi Jerzemu Gąssowskiemu, Pułtusk, pp. 481-487


14

Ett kungligt dop: Olof Skötkonung och Bruno av Querfurt, Fornvännen 4, pp. 283-287

Głos w dyskusji, [in:] S. Rosik (ed.), Słowiańszczyzna w tworzeniu Europy (X-XIII/XIV w.), Wrocław, pp. 81-82

2009

Danes and Swedes in written and archaeological sources in the end of the 9th

century, [in:] A. Englert (ed.), Wulfstan’s Voyage. The Baltic Sea region in the early Viking Age as seen from shipboard, Roskilde, pp. 58-71

Miejsce wikingów w gospodarce wczesnośredniowiecznej Europy, [in:] M. Bogacki, M. Franz, Z. Pilarczyk (eds), Gospodarka Ludów Morza Bałtyckiego. I. Starożytność i średniowiecze. Mare Integrans, Toruń, pp. 25-29

2010

Afterword, [in:] M.F. Jagodziński (ed.), Truso between Weonodland and Witland, Elbląg, pp. 199-204

Rusowie i Ruś Kijowska, Gazeta Biskupińska 131, pp. 2-3

Genom Mikołaja Kopernika i księgozbiór astronoma w Uppsali, [in:] A. Kopiczko, J. Jezierski, Z. Żywica (eds), Warmińska Kapituła Katedralna – Dzieje i wybitni przedstawiciele, Olsztyn, pp. 31-35

Review: Urbańczyk, P. 2008, Trudne początki Polski, Wrocław, Kwartalnik Historyczny CXVII/4, pp. 115-121

2011

Skandynawskie migracje w epoce wikingów, Studia Humanistyczne AGH 10, pp. 35-42

Religious mind of early Scandinavians according to archaeological finds, [in:] J. Popielska-Grzybowska, J. Iwaszczuk (eds), Studies on Religion: Seeking Origins and Manifestations of Religion, Acta Archaeologica Pultuskiensia III, Pułtusk, pp. 43-46

Skandynawowie i wczesnośredniowieczna Polska, [in:] M. Brzostowicz, M. Przybył, J. Wrzesiński (eds), Swoi i obcy w kulturze średniowiecza. Wykłady popularno-naukowe zorganizowane w ramach VII Festiwalu Kultury Słowiańskiej i Cysterskiej w Lądzie nad Wartą w dniach 18-19 czerwca 2011 roku, Poznań – Ląd, pp. 61-69


15

2012

Akulturacja, [in:] D. Cyngot, A. Marciniak, S. Tabaczyński, A. Zalewska (eds), Przeszłość społeczna w perspektywie długiego trwania. Badania nad przeszłością społeczną. Podstawy konceptualizacji z perspektywy archeolo-gicznej, Poznań, pp. 550-558

2013

Tworzenie królestwa Svitjod-Svearike w wizjach historiografii i archeologii szwedzkiej, [in:] J. Banaszkiewicz, M. Kara, H. Mamzer (eds), Instytucja “wczesnego państwa” i różnorodności kultur, Poznań, pp. 389-396

Reach consensus then make war. Politics of alliances in the 12th century Scandinavia, [in:] S. Moździoch, P. Wiszewski (eds), Consensus or Violence? Cohesive forces in early and high medieval societies (9th-14th c.), Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies I, Wrocław, pp. 39-47

With Vikings or without? Scandinavians in Early Medieval Poland. Approach-ing an old problem, [in:] S. Moździoch, B. Stanisławski, P. Wiszewski (eds), Scandinavian Culture in Medieval Poland, Interdisciplinary Medieval Stud-ies II, Wroclaw, pp. 19-31

(with A. Buko, M. Kara, I. Sobkowiak-Tabaka) Bodzia: a unique Viking-age cemetery with chamber-like graves from central Poland (a preliminary in-formation), [in:] S. Moździoch, B. Stanisławski, P. Wiszewski (eds), Scan-dinavian Culture in Medieval Poland, Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies II, Wrocław, pp. 353-371

(with A. Buko, M. Kara, T. Douglas-Price, K.M. Frei, I. Sobkowiak-Tabaka) A unique medieval cemetery from 10th/11th century with chamber-like grave from Bodzia (Central Poland), Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 43/3, pp. 423-442

2014

Disasters seen through the eyes of an archaeologist, [in:] J. Popielska-Grzybowska, J. Iwaszczuk (eds), Studies on Catastrophes, Disasters and the Ends of the World in Sources, Acta Archaeologica Pultuskiensia IV, Pułtusk, pp. 87-89

Chwytliwe pokurcze, smoki i inne demony w świecie Skandynawów epoki wikingów, [in:] K. Grążawski, J. Gancewski (eds), Zjawiska magiczno-demoniczne na terenie dawnych ziem pruskich na tle porównawczym, Olsztyn, pp. 203-208


16

„Zajęcie? Wiking” Strona ekonomiczna łupieżczej działalności Skandynawów we wczesnym średniowieczu, [in:] M. Brzostowicz, M. Przybyła, J. Wrze-siński (eds), Targi, jarmarki i odpusty, Poznań – Ląd 2014, ss. 43-51

Viking-Age Wolin (Wollin) in the Norse context of the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, Scripta Islandica 65, pp. 143-152

2015

Status and Magic. Ornaments of elites buried at Bodzia, [in:] A. Buko (ed.), Bodzia. A Late Viking-Age Elite Cemetery in Central Poland, Leiden – Boston, pp. 202-221

Ormr – Historia skandynawskiego smoka, [in:] B. Kwiatkowska-Kopka (ed.), Dwa oblicza smoka. Katalog wystawy na Wawelu II, Kraków, pp. 21-24

2016

Review: Recenzja książki Błażeja Stanisławskiego, Jomswikingowie, Wrocław, 2013, Kwartalnik Historyczny, in print

Moce wikingów. Świat wczesnośredniowiecznych Skandynawów, Warszawa, in print

Status i magia. Ozdoby elit pochowanych w Bodzi, [in:] A. Buko (ed.), Bodzia. Cmentarzysko wczesnośredniowiecznych elit w środkowej Polsce, Warsza-wa, in print

Od Sclavinii do Polanii. Powstanie i upadek pierwszego państwa Piastów, Warszawa, in print

Ruś Wikingów (new ed.), Warszawa, in print


259

Anna ZalewskaInstitute of Archaeology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska UniversityLublin, Poland

Introduction

Archaeological knowledge can be a perfect medium for modelling as well individual as collective experiences, especially those based on the direct contacts with the material traces of the past. It can shape collective and collected memory based on it. As such, archaeology theoretically is the discipline with growing importance, since now material things (including archaeological sites) do mnemonic work more intensively, than ever before.1 Justifying this opinion, Victor Buchli recalls the assumption of Pierre Nora that, in the past, oral traditions facilitated his milieux des mémoire rather than the materially sustained lieux de mémoire of the present.2 The shift from milieux de mémoire (sustained by doxic assumptions and close knit communal oral traditions) to lieux de mémoire (places of memory, which are essentially remains of where one might say milieux de mémoire took place and are therefore intentionally preserved for the practical needs of contemporaneity), underlined by P. Nora – is seen as a change of memory technologies from earlier predominantly discursive ones into something more material.� The fact of exposing the material specificity of mnemonic practices and its far-reaching consequences, seems to be provoked to a significant extent by the observations of various ‘biographies’ of archaeological sites..

In this article I aim to demonstrate the specificity and role of archaeologists’ input in creating support of some places in memory with materialisation as well as with verbal messages.� The object of this text is to investigate the material-discursive practices which shape the roles and meanings of archaeological sites in a specific time and place, namely 21st century Poland. It is the very process of becoming and sustaining a place in memory (as I suggest calling the results of any archaeologists’ interactions with places) that seems particularly intriguing. Through reference to individual cases I aim to approach the answer to the question in what way do archaeologists contribute, be it directly or indirectly, proactively or reactively, to the constitution of places in memory.

The first part of the article indicates those elements of the concept of realm of memory (including concept of lieu de mémoire as it was understood by Pierre Nora) that can be potentially helpful in understanding its relation to archaeology, or more precisely to the participation of archaeologists in constituting places in memory. Than it is sketched the concept of dynamic material-discursive practices connected to the posthumanist understanding of the reality around us. The next part of the article presents the significance of archaeology in transforming a non-places into firstly an archaeological sites and secondly into the lieu de memoire (on the example of Biskupin); of maintaining the lieu de memoire (on the example of Grunwald Battlefield) and endurance of the milieu de mémoire (on the example of Katyń cemetery). The first two cases were also shown as the results of proactive and reactive power of archaeological activities. While Katyń was shown as the phenomenon which on the one hand rocked the foundations of archaeology of “contemporary past” in Poland that on the other hand constituted the founding myth of the contemporaneity of Poland..

Archaeological Sites as the Results of Material- -Discursive Practices and the Phenomena of Their

Becoming Causative Realms of Memory

1 V. Buchli, Memory, Melancholy and materiality, [in:] D. Borić (ed.), Archaeology and Memory, Oxford 2010 (hereinafter referred to as: Memory), pp. 204-210.

2 “Materiality was configured and worked differently in our recent past as in other ethnographic contexts and as surely as it was in the most remote past of traditional archaeology”, Buchli, Memory, p. 208.

� Buchli, Memory, p. 204. In general that assumption itself is compelling, however the separable treatment of discoursive and material is questionable. I will try to justify that judgment in one of the sections below.

� Aleida Assmann aptly stresses, that the significance of sites of remembrance “must be supported by further verbal messages”, cf. A. Assmann, Orte, [in:] C.H. Beck (ed.), Kulturwissenschaft, München 2003 (hereinafter referred to as: Orte), pp. 308-314.

260

Anna Zalewska

Finaly, after scetching some aspects of the processes of becoming the archaeological site, the site in memory – the entanglement of places in memory with material – discursive practices of archaeologists and with the memory of places was exposed.

The capacity of the categories realm of memoryand place in memory

The capacity of the category realm of memory seems to favour its application in archaeology, where especially the examples of its metaphorical understanding can be easily found. That can be richly illustrated by the book Material Mnemonics. Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe edited by Katina T. Lillios, Vasileios Tsamis,5 where the authors propose a “fresh approach to the archaeological study on memory” in answer to the question of “how ancient Europeans materialised the past”. By referring to material spanning from the Neolithic to the Iron Age in England, Scandinavia, Central Europe, Greece, Italy and the Iberian Peninsula, the authors of particular texts presented the consequences of different attitudes to the past by showing how “remembrance practices” engage “material mnemonics” and why it should be placed in the center of cultural analysis. Many of the authors use the category of lieu de mémoire while analysing the objects of the research such as monumental buildings, jewellery, funeral practices and rituals, households and the ways household space was maintained and treated over a long period of time.6 It seems valuable at this point to recall one of the more successful definitions of lieu de mémoire. It was proposed by Etienne François and Hagen Schultz who stressed that a realm of memory/ site of memory is not a philosophical or analytical concept, but a metaphor:

“Sites of memory can be both material and immaterial phenomena. [... They are] long-term, generations-old points of crystallization of collective memory and identity which, while constituting a part of social, cultural and political customs, change to adopt to the way they are perceived, internalised, utilised, and transposed.”7

Pierre Nora, the originator and initiator of the project that attributes a key role to the concept of lieu de mémoire was himself somewhat vague in explaining his assumptions. To date, all attempts to particularise the definiens of the term have always been rife with digressions. What is important for the rather enigmatic, not to say problematic, nature of the concept of lieu de mémoire is that each of the definitions articulated by P. Nora ought to be weighed up in the context of the long and dynamic process in which the project was developed. However, what is crucial, that concept found the recognition in different linguistic contexts, so today along with French lieu de mémoire; we are dealing with English realms of memory (or sites of remembrance, sites of memory, places of memory; Polish miejsca pamięci; Italian luogo della memoria; German Erinnerungsorte or Gedächtnisorte etc).

Lieu de mémoire project originated in an experiment as part of a seminar held in 1978-1981 by P. Nora at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS). As the starting point for the project, ever vigilant observers of memory studies point out Nora’s diagnosis pertaining to the loss of the national memory. In the researcher’s opinion, this particular form of amnesia is a product of, among other elements, the deep social changes that have been taking place in France since the 1950s. According to P. Nora’s original idea (which included an analysis of symbols related to the history of the 3rd Republic), the particularised definition of the French Les Lieux de mémoire was aimed at rescuing the things that had until that point constituted the French national identity from the danger of obscurity. The subsequent phases of the project were accompanied by a significant extension of the concept and the resulting 7-volume publication is an attempt to provide a comprehensive view of France as a symbolic reality.8 At the same time, scholars focused on memory studies note that while

5 K.T. Lillios, V. Tsamis, Material Mnemonics. Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe, Oxford 2010 (hereinafter referred to as: Material Mnemonics).

6 See ibidem, pp. 1-2.7 É. François, H. Schulze, Einleitung, [in:] É. François, H. Schulze, Deutsche Erinnerungsorte, Münich

2001, pp. 17-18.8 Cf. K. Kończal, Les Lieux de Mémoire/ Realms of Memory: The unparalleled Carter of a research koncept,

Acta Poloniae Historica 106 (2013), pp. 5-30; M. Górny, K. Kończal, Miejsca pamięci w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej, czyli o regionalnej (anty)recepcji wędrującego pojęcia lieu de memoire, in print (hereinafter referred to as: Miejsca pamięci).

261

Archaeological Sites as the Results of Material-Discursive Practices...

the first volumes (1984) were indeed published in the context of “decaying national memory”, the last, published nearly 10 years afterwards (1992) – was written against the background of “fetishised memory”, a phenomenon strongly criticised by Nora, which is manifested, e.g. by the memory claims of various minorities.

At this point, as a warning of sorts, one might evoke the views of Étienne’a François concerning the disparity between, on the one hand, the significant popularity of Pierre Nora and his concept of lieux de mémoire, and on the other, the actual in-depth perception of his works. François diagnosed that phenomena in 2005 and as the “Nora imagined” (le Nora imaginaire).9 Given the above, it is hardly surprising that both the multi-volume publication under the auspices of Pierre Nora and the category of a realms of memory itself have been clouded with considerable misrepresentation and misunderstanding. The key issue seems to be the “topographic narrowing of the category” resulting from its literal, rather than metaphorical understanding. Another problem is the perception of lieux de mémoire as a “static concept”, something that must not be allowed as the already quoted arguments clearly indicate. However, there is one benefit of the vagueness of the category of lieu de mémoire that must be appreciated: it is its ability to direct our thinking towards a deconstruction of the constituent “practices of memory” of different types and toward the “objects of memory” of different specificity. In the opinion of Pierre Nora, the most adequate method of studying the history, functions and causative force of realms of memory is that of “deconstruction”. To quote the idea’s originator:

“The process of decoding is the soul of the whole enterprise. It comprises two separate, even antithetic actions: on the one hand, we experience the constitution of an object as a symbol, on the other, its de-constitution. The former means that a silent object is granted a voice, a life, and a meaning which it did not posses before. The latter, quite contrarily, means that the familiarity of an overly apparent obviousness is torn apart and a certain strangeness attributed to whatever legacy time has passed on to us.”10

It is mainly the (I) practical aspect of realms of memory – their “drive toward the future”, that should be treated as one of the three criteria valorising an archaeological site, record or information pertaining to a given phenomenon as Nora’s lieu de mémoire. The remaining two criteria include the (II) obligation to serve identity-shaping purposes and (III) the perception of a given phenomenon as prone to deconstruction, falling with the “purely historiographic movement”, treated by Nora as “history’s turn towards itself” with a simultaneous movement delimiting the limits of tradition related to memory.11

However, especially in the context of deconstructive approach to the category of lieu de mémoire (which is gaining different meanings also in translating it into English: realm of memory) – it is difficult to neglect some semantic obstacles which appear while using it in different linguistic contexts. One of them is related to the ambiguity which is clear while translating it into Polish language, if the term lieu de mémoire is literally translated as miejsce pamięci. In Polish language the phrase miejsce pamięci in its original (traditional) sense is generally the place which commemorates (and in which is commemorated) a tragic event such as the place of the battle, the place of execution, burial place etc. It is worth stressing the fact that the ambiguity of that phrase is not exclusively related to Polish language specifics. Also in French or German that term is burdened with some ambiguities. However, unlike in French or German, which offer a possibility of distinguishing between symbolically understood lieux de mémoire and Erinnerungs- or Gedächtnisorte, and the geographically understood sites of remembrance (Fr. sites de mémoire; Ger. Gedenk- or Erinnerungsstätten), Polish does not offer such a fixed distinction.12 This predominantly linguistic issue with the literal translation of lieux de mémoire into the Polish language is, on the one hand, indicative of certain aspects of memory practices perceivable only in certain particular cultural contexts and in the perspective of prolonged

9 É. François, Pierre Nora und die « Lieux de mémoire », [in:] P. Nora (ed.), Erinnerungsorte Frankreichs, München 2005, p. 8; K. Kończal, Les Lieux de Mémoire/ Realms of Memory: The unparalleled Carter of a research concept, Acta Poloniae Historica 106 (2013), p. 11.

10 P. Nora, Présentation, [in:] P. Nora, Les lieux de mémoire 3, Paris 1992, p. 3874.11 P. Nora, Między pamięcią a historią: Les Lieux de Mémoire, Tytuł roboczy: Archiwum (Muzeum Sztuki

Współczesnej w Łodzi) 2 (2009), pp. 4-12 (English version: P. Nora, Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire, Representations 26 (Special Issue: Memory and Counter-Memory) (1989), pp. 7-24.

12 Cf. Górny, Kończal, Miejsca pamięci.

262

duration, while on the other, provokes certain conformist solutions concerning the way that the term is translated and accepting the accuracy of its generalising definiens.

Therefore, it seems justified in my opinion, at least at the context of the archaeological sites analysed within memory landscape and cultural practices – to translate term lieu de mémoire as miejsce (w) pamięci [a place (in) memory].13 The same relates in particular to using the term when referring to archaeological sites where we are not dealing with a living communicative (biographical) memory. The literal translation of lieu de mémoire as miejsce pamięci [place of memory] would then remain only available with reference to places of trauma which require rituals to evoke respect towards the sacrifices of our ancestors. This explanation was necessary to go one step further, since in this article I aim to demonstrate the ways in which the verbal messages entangled with materiality of archaeological sites and with archaeologist reflections on it create places in memory.

The concepts of dynamic material-discursive practicesas the useful tool for archaeology

seen as a “form of memory”

Treating as legitimate the assumption, that discourse is not a synonym for language and does not refer solely to the linguistic or signifying systems, grammars, speech acts or conversations I am refering to the Foucauldian notion of discourse (discursive practices) following the indication that discourse is not what is said; it is that which constrains and enables what can be said:

“Discursive practices define what counts as meaningful statements. Statements are not the mere utterances of the originating consciousness of a unified subject; rather, statements and subjects emerge from a field of possibilities. This field of possibilities is not static or singular but rather is a dynamic and contingent multiplicity. Discursive practices produce, rather than merely describe, the “subjects” and “objects” of knowledge practices.”14

While using the concept of dynamic material-discursive practices I am referring to the elements of theoretical proposal of specific performativity. What seems to be crucial for archaeology (of second degree15) from that challenging way of thinking about the discursive practices, is the element of “agential realist” of material-discursive practices. It is driven by the assumption that discursive practices and meanings are not phenomena, which should be prescribed solely to the humans. On an “agential realist account”, discursive practices are specific material (re)configurings of the world through which local determinations of boundaries, properties and meanings are differentially enacted.

Such proposal brings us closer to the better understanding of intriguing idea that “archaeology should be treated not as a form of history, but as a form of memory.”16 For L. Olivier archaeological memory is a material memory, when memory is seen as a property of everything that is born, grows and disappears that is archaeology, which can provide the arguments to better understanding the agential realist dimension of the current and past(?) reality. The concept of material-discursive practices seen as ongoing agential intra-actions of the world through which local determinacy is enacted within the phenomena produced, seems to be helpful in re-presentation of material memory.

Summing up, the concept of material-discursive practices seen after Barad17 as the results of causal intra-actions which enact local causal structures through which one “component” (the effect) of the phenomenon is marked by another “component” (the cause) in their differential articulation seems to be helpful in understanding the ways in which specific places become places in memory (including lieux des mémoires). Some of them are or could be established in connection with archaeology.13 Using the term places in memory in archaeological narrations might help to avoid a certain problematic

semantic surplus. Another way out of this semantic conundrum may be found in defining lieux de mémoire as broadly as possible, as e.g. places that serve as “points of reference and mechanisms triggering the formation of memories in the present” (Lillios, Tsamis, Material Mnemonics, p. 2).

14 K. Barad, Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter, Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28/3 (2003), p. 819.

15 For details see: A. Zalewska, Archaeology (of Second Degree) as the Element of the World of Cultural Representations, Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia 4 (2009 (2011)), pp. 119-138.

16 L. Olivier, Le sombre abime du temps: mémoire et archeology, Paris 2008 (hereinafter referred to as: Le sombre abime du temps).

17 Barad, Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28/3 (2003), pp. 820-821.

Anna Zalewska

263

As the case studies I have selected three archaeological sites, which appear to be sites of key importance for the Polish community of remembrance: A) Biskupin, B) Grunwald and C) Katyń.

From archaeological siteto the place in memory or vice versa

In this section, while trying to answer the question in what way archaeologists contribute, be it directly or indirectly, to the creation/constitution of places in memory (and if they are alone in doing that), I am presenting places, which – beyond any doubt – have been shaped by archaeological activities. Also those places can be positively valorised in terms of fullfiling three Nora’s criteria prescribed to lieu de memoire. They are practical in present functioning as “driven toward the future” (I), they serve identity-shaping purposes (II) and they are valuable in delimiting the limits of tradition related to memory (III).18 Therefore, the choice of particular sites to be characterised here was not based on their indisputable cognitive value, but rather on the particular social agenda which can be affiliated to them. That agenda is perceived not so much in the context of extending our knowledge on: a) primeval history or more precisely the history of marshland settlements and the lives of people

from 7th-8th century BC and associated with Lusatian culture which manifested itself across much of central Europe from the end of the 2nd millennium BC to c. 400 BC, as it would be possible in the case of Biskupin;

b) medieval period, precisely organisation, weaponry, tactics and death toll of the Great War against the Teutonic Order of 1409-1411, like in case of Grunwald);

c) recent history, specifically the circumstances of the atrocities and genocide technologies employed by the Soviets against Polish war prisoners in the 1940s, like in case of Katyń. Directly and indirectly archaeologists took part in undermining the Katyń Lie – the centrepiece of a relentless Soviet campaign of falsification and disinformation that spanned nearly half a century and gained the opinion of the longest and most extensive cover-ups of a mass murder in history.Instead, those archaeological sites additionally to the cognitive agendas have also the other

agendas, which can be explored via deconstruction of the specificity of their becoming the places in memory. All those archaeological sites are implicated in the complex dynamic material and verbal discursive practices which are in my opinion worth highest attention of archaeologists, since it is also archaeological knowledge which results in prescribing to those sites practical dimension.

As the “drive toward the future” (I) can be diagnosed:a) maintaining and constant improvement and development of wooden material reconstructions

conceptualy related to the prahistoric primary processes, being a heart of vivid touristic and educational attraction and the link with the remote past for many Poles – in Biskupin;

b) constant care for the mythical and in a large range non-obvious “area of the battlefield” dating back more than 600 years, still helpful in maintaining curiosity in the past and pride of the distance national glory – as in Grunwald;

c) providing the evidence in the investigation in the case related to the Katyń massacre and making present the material witnesses of it within the public sphere till today.

With reference to particular archaeological sites and through their perspective, It is also possible to diagnose the plausible manifestations of Pierre Nora-inspired view of V. Buchli concerning the growing need for the “materialisation of the past” and I ask how archaeology finds itself in this reality of increased demand for material points of reference for memory or carriers of memory in Polish “nośniki pamięci” – as it was apptly characterised by Marcin Kula..19 Importantly, the materiality of the place itself increasingly seems to be insufficient. Hence the need for encasing the fragile and fragmentary genuine remnants of the past by various types of “implants”. Marian Golka, Polish sociologist, points out that such “implanting” leads to a “complementing defects of memory”, taking “the form of a faithful copy, styling, and even far-reaching hoax, which, moreover, after a certain time is sometimes considered to be a faithful and true memory.”20

From the adopted research perspective (reflecting my research experience so far) I find it difficult to argue with the view that nowadays, for an archaeological site to become a place in memory requires

18 M. Kula, Nośniki pamięci historycznej, Warszawa 2002.19 Nora, Tytuł roboczy Archiwum (Muzeum Sztuki Współczesnej w Łodzi) 2 (2009), pp. 4-12.20 M. Golka, Pamięć społeczna i jej implanty, Warszawa 2009, p. 31.


264

it to be imbued with materiality, to be noticeable and perceivable. However, worth stressing is also the fact, that together with this increased need for implementing through matter, the strengthening weakened condition of the archaeological sites through (specific!) words ans social actions is also taking place. In result, by recalling three names of the places which became the archaeological sites I am simultaneously referring to specific (types of) processes: a) the process of an archaeological site becoming lieux de mémoire – as in the Biskupin case; b) the process of lieux de mémoire becoming archaeological site – as in the Grunwald case;c) the process of milieu de mémoire (place of living memory) becoming an archaeological site – as in

Katyń.

Proactive and reactive power(lessness) of archaeology

I have also aimed to select the sites perceived as significant, be it due to their social practicality, long history of memory or to their active role in shaping myths of origin or identity (II), both in the proactive and reactive senses.

The proactive sense of archaeological knowledge can be illustrated via Biskupin where the remains of fortified lakeside settlement of the Early Iron Age were discovered in 1933 on peninsula in Lake as water – logged well-preserved site. Archaeological knowledge about that site led to the development of long-term social attitudes to archaeology and archaeologists as such and to the places like Biskupin. It also had significant repercussions within the archaeological community (interpretive community). Till today the site, despite essential reinterpretations is treated by majority of Poles as the “cradle of the Proto-Slavs” which means, in a simplified and somewhat distorted version “the cradle of Poles”.21 Biskupin, where – in the early 1930s – a discovery was made that provided the Polish society, which longed to re-establish a lasting sense of national identity, with material “proof” of the ancient rights that Slavic communities held for the recently regained territories. The discovery proved to be of great value for those arguing in support of autochthonous ethno-genesis of the Slavs. Even in the radically changed geopolitical reality in which the contemporary memory of Polish people ‘works’ – nearly 80 years after Biskupin’s discovery – it is still difficult to disregard the fact that the place, located about 70 km from the Polish-German border, owes much of its splendour and status of a “site of memory” to the “midwives of history” of the 1930s, 50s and 60s. An interesting diagnosis of the problematic nature of ethno-genetic disputes is offered by Stanisław Tabaczyński who treated the “emotionally overloaded ethnic over-interpretations – so characteristic of European archaeology in the 20th c.” as “particular instances of mixing up ontological and epistemological levels, and both of them with the scientific approach (...) of naively striving to find objective rules of translating the past into contemporary narrations.”22 Despite later scientific revision of the thesis claiming Biskupin to be the cradle of the Slavs and the Lusatian Culture to be synonymous with the Proto-Slavs – the scientifically falsified notion proves astoundingly persistent in the general collective awareness of the Polish people. As it is, Biskupin remains a key element of our memory of our ancient history. At the same time, one must not forget that despite any dilemmas of “ethnic provenience”, also in international literature Biskupin is invariably placed among the most significant discoveries. In my opinion, the current, absolutely unparalleled status of this place (this small village seemingly lost in the region of Pałuki is visited by 200 thousand(!) people every year) does not depend (solely, or even predominantly for that matter) on the undoubtedly unique character of the wooden relics dated back to the 8th century BC. As such Biskupin is also treated as the “brand” name for other initiatives of re-activating issues somehow(?!) connected to the past events not necessarily to the cognitive values of archaeological site.

While, the reactive sense of archaeological knowledge can be illustrated by the Grunwald battlefield. Since 15th century that site was for Poles the symbol of the unique victory over Teutonic power and as such had naturally always been within the scope of social interest and admiration. However, it needed the festive sentiment and awakening of public interest stimulated by the 20th century anniversaries to ensure the activation of scientific circles and facilitate the mobilisation of sufficient funding for

21 D. Piotrowska, Biskupin 1933–1996: archaeology, politics and nationalism, Archaeologia Polona 35-36 (1997-1998), pp. 255-285; A. Zalewska, Archäologie und soziales Gedächtnis: Zwischen der Wahl der Vergangenheit und der Last der Vergangenheit (there: Biskupin als Erinnerungsfigur), [in:] H. Henning Hahn, R. Traba (eds), Deutsch-Polnische Erinnerungsorte, Reflexionen, München – Wien – Zürich 2013, pp. 232-237.

22 S. Tabaczyński, Procesy etnogenetyczne jako problem badawczy archeologii, [in:] P. Kaczanowski, M. Parczewski (eds), Archeologia o początkach Słowian, Kraków 2005, p. 43.

Anna Zalewska

265

regular archaeological survey. It happened only in the 60s of the 20th century when the archaeological research on the fields of Grunwald was inspired and de facto initiated by Zdzisław Rajewski (1907-1974) – extremely resourceful, enterprising, and fully aware of the social and ideological potential of archeology, who from 1934 to 1939, together with Joseph Kostrzewski led the study on Biskupin, who served the most noble functions in archaeology in the Polish People’s Republic and who received the highest Award of the Minister of Culture and Art for lifetime achievement in the field of archeology (in 1965). In the 50s of the 20th century Z. Rajewski wrote letters addressed to the highest communist party officials, in which he offered that archaeology would provide irrefutable proof of the past Polish military prowess and indisputable victory before 550 years. Grunwald became the archaeological site. Excavations began in 1958, but were put on hold in 1960 due to “the necessity to regulate the area for the upcoming 550th anniversary of the battle and the planned celebrations.”23 Among other things because of the little persuasive power of the research results (literally, the material dimension of discursive practices) it took almost 20 years, for the unquestionably valuable research to be taken up again (excavations in 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990 were done on a rather selective and micro scale24). The irregular pace of archaeological research in Grunwald fields, which tends to peak around notable anniversaries and slow down when they pass, resulted in a situation where for long decades researchers were unable to comprehensively compile and critically process the entire source base in question.25 However the situation is dynamic and I believe the new archaeological survey’s outcomes soon will play important role in strenghtening Grunwald as place in memory.

Verbal and material supportsin process of archaeological sites

becoming the sites in memory

By expanding mentioned above topic of “branding” new sites with reference to those canonical name of previously recognised and legitimised as crucial I refer to the question of the ways in which archaeologists and material remains become involved in creating the conditions / factors / arguments facilitating the process of an archaeological site becoming a place in memory (also: lieu de mémoire)? The specific phenomena such as the use of names of key archaeological site as handy in relation to other archaeological site and supplementing of material “deficiencies” of the archaeological sites by the “memory prosthesis” often modeled on the discoveries of other localities (sites) can be easily observed in many communities of remembrance. Wherein, I do not mean a situation in which the name of the archaeological site, is invoked to point the analogous character of some phenomenon in any other context – what is natural and common situation in scientific discourse. I am referring to such appeals, in which the name “x” of the archaeological site is used for some other reasons to describe archaeological sites physically separate but semantically related. This occurs predominating for non-scientific reasons and exists in the statements of both archaeologists and non-archaeologists. Let me start with specific examples:

For instance, the historical park in Żoliborz (the district in Poland’s capital, Warsaw) is called the “Second Biskupin of Żoliborz”. It is treated as a “time vehicle that transports its visitors a thousand years into the past, to the days when our statehood was born and Christianity begun to slowly supplant pagan belief”. The site’s main attraction is the stronghold of Jomsborg Vikings who served as hired swords to Mieszko I and Bolesław Chrobry (the first rulers of Poland).26 Similarly, in the article entitled Zapomniane grodzisko, czy żywy Biskupin? [Forgotten hill fort or a living Biskupin?], we read that: “the relics of the Leliwitas and the hill fort are history’s gift to Tarnów. They are currently located in privately owned lands, but that can easily be changed to ensure that our city is visited by coach-loads of tourists. Just as in Biskupin (A.Z.: sic!). Because listening in to the rhythm of the past is an opportunity. The gift for the region’s multidirectional development.”27 Analogous reasoning is found in the article entitled Niebywała atrakcja turystyczna. Będziemy mieli “drugi Biskupin”

23 A. Nadolski, Grunwald. Problemy wybrane, Łódź 2010 (hereinafter referred to as: Grunwald), pp. 9-19.24 Vide H. Leśniowski, R. Odoj, Tajemnice grunwaldzkiego pobojowiska, Olsztyn 2010, pp. 104-123.25 Nadolski, Grunwald, p. 11.26 Cf. K. Jóźwiak, Drugi Biskupin na Żoliborzu, Polska The Times 2008, http://www.polskatimes.pl/artykul/

3233,drugi-biskupin-na-zoliborzu,id,t.html?cookie=1 (accessed 17 December, 2014).27 W. Marszalik, Zapomniane grodzisko, czy żywy Biskupin?, Tarnowski Kurier Kulturalny 2011, http://

tarnowskikurierkulturalny.blox.pl/2011/06/Zapomniane-grodzisko-czy-zywy-Biskupin.html (accessed 17 December, 2014).


266

[A remarkable tourist attraction. We will have the “second Biskupin”]: “it will be built on a stone embankment. It will be surrounded by a wooden wall and a moat. Three walkways will lead inside. The hill fort in the village of Milweszczyzna near Korycin will have a chance of becoming one of our region’s greatest tourist attractions. It will be the “Biskupin of Podlasie” (A.Z.: sic!).28 Interestingly, the entire text describing the “second Biskupin” seems to utterly lack any reference to the site’s actual historical value, aside from a single reference to the primary stage of the socio-cultural process made in the last but one sentence: sentence missing (it reads “Historical sources inform us that a medieval stronghold existed in Milewszczyzna. The settlement was inhabited between the 11th and 13th c.”). The last sentence of the article provides a telling conclusion, rather aptly illustrating a fairly common phenomenon, which I tentatively term the “second Biskupin syndrome”: “The future site is to benefit tourists, canoeists and local residents.”29

A symptomatic iteration of the same drift in thinking about archaeological sites may be found in a 2005 article published by the Polish Press Agency (PAP – Nauka w Polsce) under the title Archeologię można dobrze sprzedać [Archaeology can be sold well], that provides an initial analysis of the phenomenon. At the time, nearly ten open-air museum promoting archaeology operated in Poland, mainly in Wiekopolska. Another ten were to be opened in the near future. Local communities were glad to support the idea hoping the sites to become tourist attractions and revitalise their regions. In the author’s opinion, “one of the qualities shared by all the originators of such ideas is that they are not idle, they make considerable efforts to secure the necessary funding, sponsors. What they also share is the conviction that theirs will be the “second Biskupin” (A.Z.: sic!). Locating the open-air museum in the vicinity of large cities as well as near newly constructed motorways is “a good business opportunity as, after all, such a project is not limited merely to reconstructing houses of people living centuries ago, making clay pots, re-enacting battles and shooting bows. It requires developing a certain infrastructure: parking lots, campsites, eateries, souvenir shops. This idea, seemingly flawless, is now being implemented in Poland under private funding as well as with support from the taxpayer.”30 Post factum, we can now indeed confirm that the project was a success (e.g. in Bródno in Warsaw, Janów, Jadowników, Łęczna, Łomża, Tarczyn, Trzcinica, Pruszcz Gdański, Wola Radziszewska, Wolin and many other places).

However, one should also note symptoms of a certain surfeit with the historical substance and indirectly archaeological knowledge. Interestingly, it is also articulated through reference to Biskupin: in one online Internet forum, in the context of information about halting the construction of a very long-awaited the second underground line in Warsaw (one that has admittedly been under construction for ... years), the following comment was posted: “Now, that’s just insane! Every single construction is turned into another Biskupin nowadays (A.Z.: sic!), for Pete’s sake, that’s crazy!” (after: freejazzy accessed 30 September, 2010).

In all these places, archaeology has provided a pre-text to revitalise, stimulate and enrich the local cognitive, mnemonic, tourist infrastructure. What is crucial here, the connotation with Biskupin (and the power of Biskupin as a brand) is exploited rather in terms of its touristic potential and attractiveness within the field of “heritage industry” than in terms of its scientific uniqueness and/ or chronological, chorological specificity. The case of Biskupin can be seen as one of the faces of “archaeology of reactivated matter” as I name the phenomena focused on the instances of secondary exploitation of archaeological knowledge, material traces of the past, as well as the “memory of matter” and its “agency”.31

Archaeology seen from such perspective, does not concern itself with absolute truths. It investigates the temporary and transitory attempts to come in contact with the “matter of the past” made by people striving to add meaning and colour to their life.

28 D. Biziuk, Niebywała atrakcja turystyczna. Będziemy mieli „drugi Biskupin”, Gazeta Współczesna 2010, http://www.wspolczesna.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101230/REG04/503580161 (accessed 17 De-cember, 2014)..

29 After: Biziuk, Gazeta Współczesna 2010; cf. also: I. Okoj, Powstanie drugi „Biskupin”, Wici 2004, http://www.wici.info/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3424 (accessed 17 December, 2014); P. Dudała, Drugi Biskupin powstanie w Będzinie?, Gazeta Wyborcza 2007, http://www.sosnowiecfakty.pl/news.php?readmore=1958 (accessed 17 December, 2014) and many others.

30 A. Lisiecki, Archeologię można dobrze sprzedać, PAP – Nauka w Polsce, Historia i kultura 2005, http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/en/news/news,15941,archeologie-mozna-dobrze-sprzedac.html (accessed 17 De-cember, 2014)..

31 A. Zalewska, Społeczne wytwarzanie przeszłości. Archeologia materii reaktywowanej, Sensus Historiae 2 (2011), pp. 63-80.

Anna Zalewska

267

Archaeology in accordance or in oppositionto the community of remembrance

By excavations, archaeologists discursively generate information about a given site in parallel with the material, causative “actions” of this place itself, which potentially allows it to become a realm of memory. If those material-discursive practices appears to be noticeable and persuasive enough – the given phenomena, already as the hub of interrelations between the material features of the site itself, and the outputs of archaeological thoughts, can stimulate/influence the establishment of another place in memory, and so on. Such phenomena have already been discussed above on the example of Biskupin and those archaeological sites (constituting the product of archaeological work combined with contemporary local social needs comprising the current context of the discovery) which by evoking a relation to Biskupin add to their “causative mettle” (the verbal support such as “the second Biskupin”, “almost like Biskupin”, “x like Biskupin” and the material support such as reconstructions stylised to resemble a still wooden impressive Biskupin).

At the same time, however, even if only in isolated cases, archaeologists themselves oppose this trend, which can be explained with a deep sense of injustice in the fact that a slogan, pattern and stereotype may potentially help to preserve the genuine value of source data in a more meaningful way than the authentic matter of specific place. Let me illustrate the above with the rather extraordinary example of the archaeological site in Grodno near Chełmża. In the late 1970s, two researchers uncovered remnants of an Iron Age stronghold. First excavations begun 25 years ago to contribute to the scientific and didactic base at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. Traces of ancient everyday life were uncovered in the form of various bronze items, cracked pottery, bone and horn objects. A 70 meter bridge used to connect the settlement with the mainland. The site was dendrologically dated to 733-646 BC, i.e. roughly the same historical period as the Biskupin stronghold. Many years of intensive studies yielded spectacular results.32 On this basis, an idea was brought forward to reconstruct the ancient settlement which by that time was referred to in the public domain as a “mini Biskupin” (sic!).�� Due to the reluctance of the land plot’s owner (Polish State Forests), despite significant efforts and determination of the archaeological community in Toruń, the project remains unrealised. When asked “Why can’t we visit the ancient settlement in Grodno?”, the modus vivendi of the memory about this place (Jacek Gackowski, PhD, one of the originators of the concept of establishing a cultural park) answers with a mixture of determination, bitterness and disappointment that although the place is absolutely unique and would certainly have already been reconstructed were it located in Western Europe, we will not be able to see the ancient settlement in Grodno for quite a while still. Simultaneously, Gackowski stresses that “what we are dealing with in here is not a second Biskupin (A.Z.: sic!), as the buildings in Grodno were located along the inner wall, with an empty square in the centre. Four meters below the current level of the water lie the preserved remnants of the defensive structures (...).”�� I take my hat off to such nonconformism. On the other hand, I wonder how such “turning away” from the memory patterns specific to a given community of remembrance (and being even if only in symbolic way in opposition to it) would help or interfere in making that specific archaeological site – the place in memory. Time will tell.

The history of a given place, which has been discontinued and is only graspable in fragmentary material traces of the same, may prove to be significant at a later time; when its basis located in the past is perceived as valuable in the present. As observed by Aleida Assmann,35 sites of remembrance, which preserve a part of something that no longer exists but can be reactivated by memory, accentuate the lack of continuity. In there, the “something” is still present but “it” reveals mainly absence; something still remains present but it signals first and foremost that it is already of the past. Awareness of the past, attached to the primary stability of that place has radically different character from the awareness of the past associated with a site of remembrance. The second one is based on the

32 J. Gackowski, Badania archeologiczne osiedla obronnego ludności kultury łużyckiej w Grodnie koło Chełmży w latach 1997-2001, Archaeologia Historica Polona 12, Toruń 2002, pp. 196-200.

�� After: M. Oberlan, A dziedzictwo leży w szafach, Nowości 2006, http://www.express.bydgoski.pl/look/nowosci/article_druk.tpl?IdLanguage=17&IdPublication=6&NrIssue=1132&NrSection=1&NrArticle=40295&IdTag=38 (accessed 17 December, 2014).

�� After: Ł. Piecyk, Czemu nie odwiedzimy pradziejowej osady w Grodnie?, http://pozatorun.pl/archiwa/czemu-nie-odwiedzimy-pradziejowej-osady-w-grodnie (accessed 17 December, 2014).

35 Assmann, Orte; Eadem, Erinnerungsorte und Gedächtnislandschaften, [in:] H. Loewy, B. Moltmann (eds), Erlebnis – Gedächtnis – Sinn. Authentische und konstruierte Erinnerung, Frankfurt am Main 1996, pp. 13-29.


268

experience of discontinuity (A.Z.: as in case of Biskupin and many “second Biskupins”) while the first one on the experience of continuity.36 It happens, that archaeology becomes engaged in supporting such understood “continuity” especially when it provides communities and individuals with depth, and justice resulting from being in accordance with the needs of the community of remembrance and with the experience of the unique, traumatic places in memory.

Such exceptional experience of Polish nation (including Polish archaeology) was initiated in 1943 – that is 3 years after the murder of captive Polish officers – evidence of the genocide was uncovered. At that time, however, the existing geopolitical situation necessitated the memory of matter and place to be “gagged”. The Katyń massacre committed by the USSR in April and May 1940 was in many ways unparalleled – its scale was unmatched by any other crime committed against prisoners of war during World War II. The unique significance of these events in Polish history derives not only from the great loss of lives, though the number of military officers murdered was greater than that of all officers killed during the defensive campaign of September 1939; but also from the fact that the crime had been blamed on the Germans for exactly 50 years, until April 1990, for which responsibility lies both with the governments of USSR and Communist Poland. The “Katyń Lie” continued to constitute the founding myth of the Polish People’s Republic.37 On-site archaeological research located the main burial places and helped determine the organisation and techniques of murder – mainly the so-called ‘Katyń method’ of shooting the victim in the back of the head. However, evidence of other methods of execution was also found, including strangulation, torture, crushing the skull or shooting the victim in the forehead.

It was not until the public prosecutor’s investigation of 1991, started by the Chief Military Prosecutor Office of USSR in co-operation with Polish prosecutors and forensic specialists and the related archaeological and exhumation works organised in 1994 and 1995 by the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites and conducted by Polish researchers (mainly archaeologists, pathomorphologists and forensic experts) – that the long hidden truth about the fate of Polish police and army officers murdered by the NKVD could finally be uncovered.

The action was predominantly aimed at locating the resting places of Polish army and police officers so that Polish military cemeteries could be established, in the case of Russia – in Katyń and Mednoye. In this respect, the research was a success, although unfortunately not all questions related to the burials were answered in Russia.38 The process of turning milieu into lieu de mémoire(?) via archaeology started. Till today archaeological and exhumation works were conducted, apart from Katyń also in Mednoye and Starobielsk in Russia, in Kharkiv and Bykivnia in Ukraine as well as in Belarus.39 All those sites were granted a collective name the “Katyń Death Pits” or “Graves of Katyń”. Dealing with them scientifically simultaneously rocked the foundations of “archaeology of crime” in Poland.40 However, the specificity of the dynamic material discursive practices in general as well as in connection with the specific sites such as widely understood “Katyń” has not been analysed systematically yet, at least in Poland. Despite the fact that there are many reasons to do so.

Archaeological entanglementwith material-discursive practices

The material-discursive facts are expressed, often in a meaningful way and with significant

consequences – both in the materiality and the semiotics of archaeological sites and records so via dynamic material-discursive practices. This complex interrelation can – for instance – be found in

36 Assmann, Orte, pp. 308-309.37 A.K. Kunert, Katyń. Ocalona pamięć, Warszawa 2010, p. 11.38 A. Kola, Archeologia w badaniach Zbrodni Katyńskiej – próba bilansu oraz perspektywy, [in:] M. Tarczyński

(ed.), Zbrodnia Katyńska. Próba bilansu, Warszawa 2001 (hereinafter referred to as: Archeologia w badaniach Zbrodni Katyńskiej), pp. 69-88; M. Głosek (ed.), Katyń w świetle badań terenowych 1994-1995, Toruń 2004 (hereinafter referred to as: Katyń); Idem, Z problematyki badań cmentarzy polskich oficerów zamordowanych przez NKWD na terenie Rosji (hereinafter referred to as: Z problematyki badań cmentarzy polskich oficerów), [in:] A. Kola, J. Sziling (eds), Charków – Katyń – Twer – Bykownia. W 70. Rocznicę zbrodni katyńskiej. Zbiór studiów, Toruń 2011 (hereinafter referred to as: Charków – Katyń – Twer – Bykownia), pp. 130, 134.

39 A. Kola, Archeologia Zbrodni. Oficerowie polscy na cmentarzu ofiar NKWD w Charkowie, Toruń 2005 (hereinafter referred to as: Archeologia Zbrodni); Kola, Sziling (eds), Charków – Katyń – Twer – Bykownia.

40 Kola, Archeologia Zbrodni; Kola, Sziling (eds), Charków – Katyń – Twer – Bykownia; Głosek, Katyń; Idem, Z problematyki badań cmentarzy polskich oficerów.

Anna Zalewska

269

the answer to the question: to what extent is archaeological knowledge important (vital) to the process of establishing sites in memory and the whole network of reference related to, e.g. their names, roles, material constitutions etc. It seems that in the analysed cases, it is the reference to places treated as significant for the collective and collected memory of the community, rather than the actual character and the material specificity of the sites as such, that determined their status in the space of memory (excluding Katyń). In the search for fleeting meaning, in the present overwhelmed by traces of the past (at times in the form of debatable evidence of the inherent bond with the territories currently occupied by a given community – as is the case of Biskupin; they can also be constituted by harrowing graves of the unjustly murdered, which “were not supposed to be remembered” and in that their memory grew ever stronger – as is the case of Katyń) a community rather rarely “discovers” the value of particular records or archaeological sites within “memory practices”.

However, thanks to the “deconstructive” aspect of the concept of lieux de mémoire, some phenomena which at first glance does not seem to be manifestations of “memory practices” after closer examination might be treated as “symptoms of memory” which is constantly reworked in the present. Simultaneously, as observed by Laurent Olivier,41 this identification necessitates renouncing one’s hope for the memory of the past, which we can now grasp for what it was: oscillating around the question of whose actual signs are those archaeological traces and what/whose heritage sustains their accumulation in time – will not only lead to endless cognitive failures but will also upset the very foundations of archaeology as a discipline striving to represent the past. Archaeology may pertain, despite the loss or possibly because of it, to matters notoriously difficult to grasp – the issues of the agency of matter, including the memory of place.

Luckily, archaeologists are not the only agents engaged in extended horizons of meaning-production, and archaeological ratio is not the only, even not the dominant one in effective engagement in enriching culture in external symbols. In the process of “recalling, iterating, reading, commenting, criticising, discussing what was deposited in the remote or recent past” not only humans but also non-humans are engaged. Material phenomena such as archaeological sites are active agents required to perform meaning production, including the “memory practices”.

I hope I have demonstrtaed how important are or can be archaeologists’ activities which strengthen both the “verbal messages” and the exposure of material dimension of places. They are in many cases crucial for “memory practices”. However, especially in the context of revived archaeological sites, in parallel with results of all actions of humans (both, those of the past and present), also the efficacy of matter itself as mutually related, mutually supportive and mutually indispensable with the humane actions – should be seriously taken into consideration while describing the phenomena of their becoming places in memory. The reflection on phenomena of archaeological sites seen as the elements of mnemonic (material- discursive) practice as presented here is also aimed at illustrating the thesis that conclusions derived from memory studies permeate the thinking of archaeologists and thinking about archaeology,42 which significantly enriches the same.

My belief in this assumption has been frequently and effectively reinforced during vivacious discussions I was lucky to have with Professor Władysław Duczko. To the significant extent, to Him I owe the courage to go beyond the standard forms of reflection on archaeology and on the social uses and abuses of archaeological knowledge and material remains from the past – including discussed above phenomena of archaeological sites. That is Him who told me: be brave and show to archaeologists how intensively archaeology is becoming embroiled in the discourse of memory, and vice versa. I am at your service dearest Professor. The sites – presented above as the results of dynamic material-discursive practices and as the phenomena that are becoming Places in Memory and (something akin to) causative Realms of Memory – are worth attention at each level of their duration.

41 Olivier, Le sombre abime du temps, p. 14.42 A. Zalewska, Archeologia jako forma kreowania, pielęgnowania i odzyskiwania pamięci, [in:] S. Tabaczyński,

D. Cyngot, A. Marciniak, A. Zalewska (eds), Przeszłość społeczna. Próba konceptualizacji, Poznań 2012, pp. 1178-1189.


Documents

Zalewska_Anna_2016_Archaeological sites as the results of dynamic material – discursive practices and the phenomena of their becoming ‘places in memory’ and (something akin to)