Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 42

1

ARCHAEOLOGY IN COMMUNIST AND POST-COMMUNIST ROMANIA by Alexandru Dragoman1 and Sorin Oan-Marghitu2
In this article we maintain that the stillness o !omanian archaeology comes rom the reluctance to embar" u#on critical debates re erring to its theoretical grounds rooted in the #ositi$ist #aradigm% &e inter#ret this situation as a strategy echoing the strongly hierarchical authoritarian centralised academic system rom the communist #eriod% 'nli"e some texts written during the #ost-communist #eriod( ours shi ts the core o the issue rom the re#ression in licted by the state to the res#onsibility o the archaeologists in rendering legitimacy to it% In other words( we are trying to gras# the length to which they went in de$elo#ing a sco#e o ideologically rele$ant discourses% &e regard !omanian archaeology as a sco#e that mingles three ty#es o discourses) 1% a national discourse* 2% a +Marxist-,eninistdiscourse and .% a +#ositi$ist- /+cultural-historical-0 discourse% As they built these ty#es o discourse( the archaeologists ha$e been some o the main #ro$iders o symbolic ca#ital or $arious #olitical regimes( including the communist one%

123-&O!DS) !omanian archaeology( communism( nationalism( #ositi$ism%

Prologue: archaeology in Romania ideology, politics and practice 4enerally( it is considered that there is a single5uni6ue tradition o the !omanian archaeology( with a continuous e$olution rom collectors and anti6uaries( then going in a continuous #rogress through se$eral stages% 7hese stages were mar"ed by di erent #ersonalities) Alexandru Odobescu /18.9-18:;0 /<abe= 1:>?* 1:81) .21.22* 1::2* @ondurachi 1:?9) 1.-1;* Aestor 1:?;) 929* Aestor 1::;* Bul#e 1:>?) 21290( Gr !ore Toc lescu /18;C-1:C:0 /A$ram 1::2* <abe= 1:81) .22* Bul#e 1:>?* 2.290( "as le P#r$an /1882-1:2>0 /<abe= 1:81) .29-.2;* @ondurachi 1:?9) 1?-18* Aestor 1:?;) 92;* Dub 2CC20( Ioan Andr e%escu /1888-1:990 /<abe= 1:81) .2;* Aestor 1:?;* Bul#e 1:>?) 2:0( Ion Nes&or /1:C;-1:>90 /<abe= 1:81) .2;0( Cons&an& n Da co$ c u /18:8-1:>.0 /@ondurachi 1:>90( "lad ' r Du' &rescu /1:C2-1::10 /Bul#e 1::10( Radu Po(a /1:..-1::.0 /MotEoi-@hicideanu 2CC.0 F GHr$anIs and Andrie=escuIs students( the students o Aestor( Daico$iciu( Dumitrescu( Go#a( the
1

Institute o Archaeology +Basile GHr$an-( <ucharest( Jenri @oand 11 Str%( Sector 1( C1C??>( <ucharest( !omania* e-mail address) alKdragomanLyahoo%com 2 Aational Museum o !omanian Jistory( @alea Bictoriei 12( <ucharest( !omania* e-mail address) sorinoantaLyahoo%com

students o the students o the abo$e cited scholars and o other scholars too% Jowe$er( we thin" that the statement +the !omanian archaeology went a long way( always ascending( to become what it is today- /<abe= 1:81) .1:0 re lects e$olutionist echoes( the archaeology being considered a closed system( detached rom the context in which it is #roduced% &hen they say that !omanian archaeology ollowed a continuously ascending way( they want to stress the #restige and im#ortance o the contem#orary archaeologists /or more exactly o those ha$ing high #ositions in the academic hierarchy0% 7heir #oint o honour is the act that they descend rom a long series o archaeologists who contributed to the +#rogress- o the !omanian archaeology( their merit being that they ha$e carried and con$eyed this +duty- to the next /younger0 generations% An o#inion seldom ex#ressed ex#licitly by these re#resentati$es o the !omanian archaeology( but mani ested #eriodically through gestures( words and attitudes( is that according which the #osition in the academic hierarchy could legitimate or not the right to criticiEe and to s#ea"% Mirst you ha$e to +#roducearchaeology( in the sense acce#ted by most o the members o our archaeological community and only a terwards you can criticiEe% 7o be in +the legitimate- #osition to criticiEe( the archaeologist has to #rocess and #ublish a +lot- o archaeological materials( to exca$ate on his own account( to obtain the title o doctor( to hold an administrati$e #osition /not always owing to +scienti ic- merits0 or to attain a certain age% @uriously( this o#inion coincides with that #ers#ecti$e on the archaeological research maintaining that the archaeological material must irst be gathered and arranged obNecti$ely and classi ied culturally and chronologically% 7hen the material can be inter#reted% 7here are +stages o research- as there are stages in the e$olution o an indi$idual as an archaeologist% 7he conclusions regarding the archaeological #roblems are reached as a result o a whole ritual o the research% At his turn( the archaeologist has to climb se$eral hierarchical ste#s( whose attainment is mar"ed by $arious rituals o initiation and #assage to another category( to reach the su#reme #osition that can legitimate him to criticiEe% According to his5her #osition on this chain o $alues( the archaeologist can only #ublish material( #resent boo"s or boo" re$iews% Only #eo#le with scienti ic #restige or im#ortant #osition can +legitimately- criticiEe%

Des#ite this o#inion or maybe owing to it( the criticism is almost absent in the archaeological #ractice in !omania on the bac"ground o the $ery absence o debate% Actually( why do we ear criticismO As can be seen rom some +in honour o - $olumes / or instance( Dra=o$ean 2CC1* OberlPnder-7Hrno$eanu 2CCC0( the $isiting card o the !omanian archaeologist is com#osed o the ollowing se6uences) 1% 'ni$ersity milieu in which he was ormed) the uni$ersity( the #ro essors* 2% the number and the im#ortance o the exca$ations to which he too" #art* .% the number and the im#ortance o the archaeological sites conducted by him* 9% the number o titles #ublished* ;% the leading #ositions held* ?% the coo#eration with researchers or institutions rom &estern countries( #re erable +great #owers- /'SA( 4ermany( 4reat <ritain( Mrance etc%0* >% the #artici#ation in +scienti ic mani estations o 8% +documentary tri#s in the ield o museums-* :% current #osition in the academic hierarchy* 1C% the number o so-called disci#les% 7his +decalogue- o the +scienti ic- #restige and o the #osition in the academic hierarchy / rom where results the #ower o decision( the authority0( inhibits any "ind o contradictorily debate( es#ecially when these im#ulses come rom those holding +subordinate- #ositions% In the course o time( the !omanian archaeology ound +the solution- o the #roblem o archaeological debate establishing a eudal intellectual regime on the #ast% 7he #ast has been di$ided( each archaeologist being the master o an e#och( a #eriod and +culture- or( at the best( o a site which he can conduct until the retirement or e$en urther% 7he archaeologist +s#ecialiEed- in a certain #roblem or master o a certain site holds the intellectual #ro#erty o and mono#oly on these% ,i"e in the Middle Ages( he can reach this #osition by in$estiture( inheritance or usur#ation /on the e$olution o some 2ast-2uro#ean societies rom socialism to + eudalism-( see Berdery 2CC.) 2;:-2:90% @onse6uently( as the territories are demarcated( a !omanian archaeologist should be ha##y i he can ind other scientists to debate the national and Eonal im#ortance- and +in international scienti ic mani estation-*

archaeological #roblems with which he is concerned% 7hus( e$en at #resent it is #er#etuated the a#athy about the #ublication o some archaeological wor"s( some o them $aluable( the absence o the debate about 6uestions lin"ed with the theoretical oundation o our disci#line and the #lace o archaeology in the !omanian society% 7he #resent-day !omanian archaeology is a sum o monotonous #arallel discourses( which cross only seldom% Moreo$er( the archaeologists with su icient symbolic ca#ital ha$e been trying now to im#ose a single way o +research*- they $iolently reNect any +#rocessualist- or +#ost-#rocessualist- heresy( both being included in the same category o Anglo-Saxon +le tist- curiosities% 7he !omanian archaeologist li"es the status o an ex#ert( o #ro essional - or maybe( the status o a detecti$e% ,i"e this one( he gathers with minuteness the +e$idence- or sol$ing a +case(- namely a gradual reconstruction o the #ast /according as other +clues(- +new data- a##ear0% 7hus +the solution o the case- is #ost#oned inde initely( but instead only the inter#retation o the +e$idence- is #er ormed /i%e% the cultural and chronological diagnosis o the material0% 7he !omanian archaeologist li"es the certainties and conse6uently reNects the +relati$ism- /arising rom the #olysemantic nature o the material culture0( +the $enturesome inter#retationswhich are associated by them with the Anglo-Saxon trends( whose re#resentati$es are $iewed as a sort o #oets% Garadoxically( many o the +#ro essionals- who im#ose today a certain archaeological #ractice ha$e not #ublished the results o their own researches( some o them started decades ago% 7he number o the un#ublished exca$ations is much greater than that o the #ublished exca$ations% 7he de#osits o the institutes( museums and uni$ersities are ull to the brim with unwashed( unmar"ed( archaeological materials that lie in unimaginable conditions% ,oo"ed u#on as #ro$isions or the uture( the de#osits re#resent in act +the dust under the car#et- namely the ailure and sterility o the archaeological #ractice in !omania% In this article we intend to demonstrate that +the struggle- against the otherIs #osition and the reNection o the criticisms /#ercei$ed as an attac" on the oneIs own #osition0 are instincti$e de ence reactions o a strongly hierarchical authoritarian centralised academic system #er#etuated rom the communist #eriod% 7hese abilities culti$ated in the communist #eriod( when most o the members o the #resent-day

archaeological elite were ormed( re#roduce this system% &e start rom the idea that the discourses on the #ast are written by #eo#le that li$e in certain historical and #olitical contexts* which means that the archaeology is not inde#endent rom the ideological( #olitical or biased #ressures and tem#tations /ex% GanameQo and Aalda 1:>:* 7illey 1:8:0% As in the case o the history /4eorgescu 1::1* <oia 2CCC0( the architecture /Ioan 1:::) 1?-18( 1C.-118* 2CCC0( the literature /Aegrici 2CC.0( or the arts /@Hrneci 2CCC0( the archeological ield in !omania is ar rom being autonomous% On the contrary( it is submitted to constraints F constraints re erring to moral censure( the com#ulsion o $arious #rograms( academic controls or #olitical commands% Some texts written during the #ost-communist #eriod em#hasise the ideological constraints and #ressure the archaeologist had to ace during the communist regime / or instance( Mihilescu-<Rrliba 1::>0% As ar as we are concerned( we wish to de#art rom the issue o the re#ressi$e action o the state in order to tac"le the res#onsibility o the archaeologists in rendering legitimacy to this system( namely to consider in what way they build u# ideologically rele$ant discourses% Mrom this #oint o $iew( we consider the archaeological ield in !omania as an arena where the social actors #roduce com#eting discourses re erring to the #ast /considered as being uni6ue and obNecti$e0( in a com#etition whose sta"e is to gain a social5#olitical( cultural( symbolic or economic ca#ital /<ourdieu 1:8?* 1:::) .>-.:* Bedery 1::9) 2C;-2980% Mollowing Ion Aestor who would ha$e desired a history o the !omanian archaeology in a social and #olitical context( in relation with the #hiloso#hical and ideological 2uro#ean trends in the course o the time /Aestor 1:?;) 9210( we thin" that an archeological text #roduced in !omania can be understood in accordance with a system o re erence with three coordinates) 1% the archaeology as an instrument o the national ideology* 2% the materialist-dialectical and historical /marxist-leninist0 archaeology and .% the archaeology anchored in the #ositi$ist #aradigm( which lay the stress on method% Our inter#retation is a sim#li ied reality li"e any other* as a matter o act( the discourses grow into a whole% 7he archaeologistIs statute as a +#ro essional-( who go$erns the archaeological methods( gi$es legitimacy to the other two discourses /the national and the +dialectic materialistic and historicalones0% On the other hand( the +#ro essional- in order to +#ractise archaeology-

/exca$ations( material #rocessing and #ublishing F acti$ities #receded by inancing demands0( in order to accede to administrati$e #ositions or academic titles has to maintain a socially and #olitically rele$ant discourse% Je needs that or obtaining the material and moral assistance rom the higher instances that are su##osed to grant legitimacy /whene$er the latter consider it necessary to ma"e use o the #ast in their attem#t to gi$e legitimacy to the current #olitical structure0% 7here is no +#urediscourse( corres#onding to each o the three ty#es( only a ine intertwining with a #re$ailing #attern and with some more or less di use elements o the others% !eality is much more com#lex i we ta"e into account also the act that the same social #layer might use se$eral ty#es o discourse in $arious contexts% 7hese discourses are ideological #atterns aimed at controlling the #ast% As whoe$er controls the #ast controls also the #resent% It is interesting to remar" how these ideological #atterns #ro$ide themsel$es with legitimacy by using the same words( namely +scienti ic- or +obNecti$e-( while reNecting each other( or other "inds o inter#reting the #ast by using o##osition terms /+anti-scienti ic-( +subNecti$e-0% Abo$e all our analysis o the transition rom communism to #ost-communism has been in luenced by similar studies by 2yal( SEelSnyi and 7ownsley /2CC10% 7hey tac"le the social changes in @entral 2uro#e brought about by the re$olutions o 1:8: by em#hasising the action o the social actors% 7he authors mentioned abo$e com#lete &eberIs distinction between the status societies and the class societies with <ourdieuIs theory on the ty#es o ca#ital /social( cultural( economic( and symbolic0 by ma"ing use o the conce#t o habitus% Mrom that #oint o $iew( the transition to #ost-communism means #assing rom the socialist status order /established u#on social hierarchy( and owner-client relationshi#s0 to the ca#italist class order / ocused u#on the economic criterion0% &ithin this #rocess( the social actors trying to +"ee# things wor"ing- ha$e to con$ert the #olitical ca#ital earned during the communist #eriod into cultural ca#ital( one o the highly #ro itable in the #ost-communist society% 7his article is not a summary o !omanian archaeology( nor a narration o the re#ression in licted u#on !omanian archaeologists o$er the time% &e wish to understand !omanian archaeological #ractice o today( by starting rom the discourses

>

issued by the archaeologists as #ro$iders o symbolic ca#ital or $arious #olitical regimes% It is an article on the archaeologistIs res#onsibility in society% Origins: Romanian archeology and the national ideology &e can say that there is a relationshi# o interde#endence between archaeology and the national ideology% 7he emergence and the de$elo#ment o the archeology are lin"ed to a great extent to the birth o the state-nation and to the #olicy ollowed by this one in the #rocess o searching and disco$ering its origins% On the other hand( when the archaeology documents new sites or older and older materials( it o ers itsel the reasons which the national ideology tries to include in its tendency to ix the roots o the nation as dee# as #ossible into the #ast% 7he resort to history and( im#licitly( to archaeology has become an im#ortant com#onent o the national ideology /<oia 2CC2* Oli$ier 1::8) 2;>-2;:0% Similarly in <ulgaria /<ailey 1::8) :C0( Goland /,ech 1::>-1::8) 9.-990( 4ermany /Arnold 1::>1::80( Mrance /Scarre 1:::) 1?C( Oli$ier 1:::) 1820( the archaeology has an ideological and #olitical role( as it becomes an instrument to legitimate the national state( an instrument used when they search or and a irm the national identity% During the 1>th-18th centuries the #ro$inces inhabited by !omanians were under the rule o or included in the Ottoman 2m#ire /&allachia( Molda$ia0 or the Austrian 2m#ire /7ransyl$ania( <anat( and <u"o$ina0% Among the intellectuals o that time emerged a de inition o !omanian ethnic conscience which stated that all !omanians ha$e a common origin and s#ea" a common language% Once the +Dacian eelingemerged during the 18th century( !omanian autochthonousness was #roNected dee#er and dee#er into the #ast /4eorgescu 1::2) 12?-12>0% 4radually( culture began to #lay an im#ortant role in building u# the !omanian nation as #atriotic eelings intensi ied and the national language ac6uired a "ey signi icance% In 189C /when the !omanian State did not exist yet0( Mihail 1oglniceanu /a historian( writer( later a #olitician0 wished that the re$iew Dacia Literar /,iterary Dacia0 which had Nust been established by him should be +a general directory o !omanian literature( mirroring the writers o Molda$ia( &allachia( 7ransyl$ania( <anat( and <u"o$ina( each with his ideas( his language( with his ty#e-%

In 18.9( while the !omanian #rinci#alities were still under Ottoman rule and !ussian #rotectorate / ollowing the Geace o Adriano#le in 182:0( the Museum o Aatural Jistory and Anti6uities was ounded in <ucharest% Its goal was the culti$ation o the #atriotic eelings es#ecially by the #ublication +7he Aational Museum-% In that re$iew it was announced in 18.> that +it is high time we turned our glances bac"-( to ind out the origin o the !omanians /Gunescu 2CC.) 2.0( an im#ortant action or de ining the national identity% A ter accom#lishing the union o the !omanian #rinci#alities /18;:0 and winning the inde#endence ollowing the !ussian-!omanian-7ur"ish war /18>>-18>80( as #art o the modernisation #rogramme o the new state the 'ni$ersities o Iassy /18?C0 and <ucharest /18?90 were ounded( the Aational Museum o Anti6uities introduced new regulations /18?90 /Gunescu 2CC.) .C-.;0( and the !omanian Academic Society was established as well /18??0 including a history and archaeology de#artment% 7he archaeological elite o the time was #ro oundly in$ol$ed in that modernisation #rogramme that included building u# the !omanian nation( endea$ouring to create a national culture( because( as GHr$an wrote( +culture will sa$e the !omanians and culture can be national only- /apud Dub 2CC2) 1.10% @eEar <olliac( an anti6uities collector( also conducted archaeological exca$ations( and was "nown abo$e all as a Nournalist and #oet% A% Odobescu( the one who in 18>9 held the irst archaeology lectures at the 'ni$ersity o <ucharest /#ublished in 18>>* Odobescu 1:?10 was also a no$elist% Meanwhile( B% GHr$an is not Nust the archaeologist who created a true school( but also a #hiloso#her o culture% 7hey were men dee#ly committed to society( to the #olitical li e o the time( who held high #ositions in the academic system) leaders o the Archaeological @ommittee( managers o the Aational Museum o Anti6uities( members o the Academic Society( uni$ersity #ro essors% 7hese + ounders- o the !omanian archaeology built gradually the archaeology as a +#ositi$e science- /see also Aestor 1:?;) 929-92?* on the #ositi$ist discourse in !omanian archaeology( see bellow0 and at the same time( in their main wor"s /Odobescu 188:-1:CC* 7ocilescu 188C* Andrie=escu 1:12* GHr$an 1:2?0 they too" #art to the elaboration o the national discourse /also Aestor 1:88) 2>8-2>:0% 7he characteristic elements o this discourse are the terms +!omaniEing- /o the nati$e

+4eto-Dacians-0( +continuity- /o the +Daco-!omans-( a ter the e$acuation o the !oman administration dichotomies rom Dacia #ro$ince0( +!omanians ethnogenesis-( the /+Daco-!omansversus +migratory +autochtonous-allogeneous-

#eo#les-0( +sedentary-nomad-( + armers-she#herds- or the +o national im#ortancesyntagm% @oncei$ed as an auxiliary science( the archaeology ollowed the history in the e ort made by the latter to ind the origins o the !omanian #eo#le( to demonstrate the continuity o the 4eto-Dacian +autochthons- in the !oman #ro$ince( then o the Daco!omans- a ter the AurelianIs retreat% In the absence o written documents( the !omanian archaeology was as"ed to o er in ormation re erring to these #roblems% +So the #roblem o the nati$es is the beginning o the !omanian history whereas the #rehistoric archaeology is the most $aluable auxiliary o "nowledge- /Andrie=escu 1:12) B0% A ter &orld &ar I( the !omanian State doubled its territory by including 7ransyl$ania( <anat( <u"o$ina and <essarabia( the #ro$inces that had ormerly been occu#ied by the Austro-Jungarian 2m#ire and !ussia% Gerha#s it is not by chance that +Dacia- is the name o the irst !omanian #eriodical o international #restige( edited by B% GHr$an( the irst $olume o which was issued in 1:29% 7he re$iew #resented the results o the archaeological researches conducted in !omania in international act( the intense exca$ations conducted languages /es#ecially Mrench0% As a matter o

between 1:2. and 1:2? occurred es#ecially due to B% GHr$anIs interest in the #re!oman #eriod% 7he scholar did not acce#t that in the wor"s o the time the history o the !omanians began directly with the !omanisation o Dacia /Tte an 1:89) 1.80% In the inter-war #eriod( when !omania was a #reeminently agrarian state( B% GHr$an s#o"e the 4eths and Dacian +#lowmenIs- #raise /see also Andrie=escu 1:.1) >0)
The present-day Romanism does not come either from the Illyrian shepherds and mine workers or from the Thracian shepherds and mine workers. It descends straightly from the Danu e native plowmen living at the western frontiers of !annonia U%%%V to the mouth of the Danu e" and the Romans could not have come to stay in other place than in those places where they could ecome peasants" /GHr$an 1:;8) 1;.-1;90%

1C

7he $illage becomes the #lace where the soul o the !omanian #eo#le mani ests itsel entirely / or se$eral commentaries regarding +the soul o a nation(- see Andrie=escu 1:12) 2.0% 7hat is why the re#resentati$es o the sociological school ounded by Dimitrie 4usti considered that it was worthwhile in$estigating and #reser$ing the $illage /as well as the monuments related to the glorious #ast o the nation0 in the the Museum o the !omanian Geasant and the Museum o the Billage / ounded in 1:C?( res#ecti$ely( 1:.?0% Aow Andrie=escu /1:12) 11:0 ormulated the theme o the +allogeneous#o#ulations o$er lowing to the south
and leaving ehind as many of their people as we could ring to our nature and language and make them Romanians and grow that way our nation# e$actly as our DacoRoman ancestors had settled and formed it here" /GHr$an 1:2.) 1?0%

In conclusion( the outstanding re#resentati$es o the archaeological elite rom the #re-communist #eriod( besides the act that they de ined archaeology as an inde#endent disci#line( acti$ely too" #art in building u# the myths o the !omanian historiogra#hy /<oia 2CCC0( the constituent elements o the national discourse% 7he inality o this ty#e o discourse is culti$ating the #atriotic eeling /<erciu 1:.8) 1-2* Aestor 1:88) 2>8-2>:0 because( as Mihai 2minescu /considered to be the national #oet o the !omanians0 wrote( +patriotism is not love for one%s country# ut love for the past# as# without the cult of the past# there is no love for one%s country 0 /apud <erciu 1:.8) 10% 7hrough the acti$ity o the members o the archaeological elite( who held su icient cultural and social ca#ital( the themes o the national discourse entered the collected outloo" by the agency o the history handboo"s as early as the 1: th century /4rigoriu( 1:8.0% 7hese themes o the national discourse were disseminated also abroad) at the 'ni$ersal 2xhibitions o Garis /18?>( 188:( 1:CC( 1:.>0 or Bienna /18>.0 the #a$ilion o !omania asserted also the national identity by dis#laying archaeological #ieces /@atalogue 18>.* Blad 2CC10%

11

The Romanian Archeology in the communist period: national ideology, dialectical and historical materialism Des#ite #laying a meaningless role on the #olitical stage o the interwar #eriod( due to the small number o members and the obedience towards the #olitics o the So$iet 'nion( whose interests contra$ened those o the !omanian State( by the end o &orld &ar II( the !omanian @ommunist Garty( with So$iet su##ort( succeeded in coming to #ower also in !omanian /Deletant 1::8) :->20% During the #rocess o +building u# the communist society-( the !omanian Academy was abolished and turned into the Academy o the Geo#leIs !e#ublic o !omania /1:980( the Aational Museum o Anti6uities was trans ormed into the Institute o Archaeology /1:;?0( the re#resentati$es o the interwar intellectuality were excluded rom uni$ersity chairs and e$en arrested( and many died in #risons /Moisa 2CC2) 1:-9:0% Most !omanian archaeologists( howe$er( succeeded in +"ee#ing things wor"ing- /2yal( SEelSnyi and 7ownsley 2CC10( by turning the cultural and social ca#ital earned during the #re$ious #eriod into #olitical ca#ital% 7hey achie$ed that by their adhesion to the #arty a##aratus( by holding #olitical unctions and5or by collaborating with the Security /O#ri= 2CC9) 21-..;0% 7he gras# o$er this #olitical ca#ital was conditioned by the #ractice o the o icial discourse o the @ommunist Garty% <etween 1:9;-1:?9 the national discourse was a##arently sus#ended as in that #eriod the archeology was based on +the Marxian-,eninist outloo" and ounded on the #rinci#les o the dialectical and historical materialism- /Aestor 1:?C) 8-:0% Aext to many other cases o social con ormableness due to the change in the ty#e o discourse /com#are( or instance( Aestor 1:88 with Aestor 1:?C0( the com#arison o D% <erciuIs texts written during the interwar #eriod with those rom the #eriod ollowing the installation o the communist #ower is rele$ant% &hile in 1:.8 D% <erciu wrote about +knowing and putting to good use our past that egins with the emergence of the first prehistorical humanity in Dacia and &outh-'astern 'urope - as about a +duty-( a + elief in the generations of today and tomorrow - /<erciu( 1:.8) .1-.20( at the local @on erence o the archaeologists in the Geo#leIs !e#ublic o !omania( he + mentions the necessity of revising the terminology and the presence of certain reactionary remains- in some exca$ation re#orts and + draws the attention upon the failure of our

12

archaeologists to fully ac(uire the )ar$ist-Leninist knowledge- /*onferin+a 1:;C) 210% 7he ollowing year( D% <erciu wrote an article on +the emergence and de$elo#ment o the #atriarchy on the territory o the Geo#leIs !e#ublic o !omania- /<erciu 1:;C0% Barious #rehistorical materials were used to con irm archaeologically 2ngelsI e$olutionary thesis #resented in ,rigin of -amily# &tate and !rivate !roperty % Most bibliogra#hical re erences relate wor"s written by Stalin( 2ngels( Mihail !oller and by $arious So$iet authors% 7he "ey-terms o the new ty#e o archaeological discourse were +social system(- +class struggle(- +mode o #roduction(- + orces and relations o #roductionetc% In act( as Mihail !oller wrote( the history as a #art o +the new culture- should ha$e been +national as regards its orm( and socialist in its contents- /!oller 1:;?( 9;0% 7he main achie$ements o the archaeology in +the years o the #o#ular democracywere considered to be the new archaeological disco$eries rom $arious #eriods /the research being also stimulated by the oundation o the Institute o Archaeology o <ucharest in 1:;? and o the @entral <oard o the Jistorical Monuments in 1:;:0( the de$elo#ment o the archaeology o migrations #eriod and o the Middle Ages /Aestor 1:>Ca) 911-91.0( the organiEation o a national networ" o museums and the documentation o some a$orite themes o the national discourse as or instance the continuity o the Dacians in the !oman #eriod and their !omaniEation( the relationshi# o the +autochothonous- with the +allogeneous- #o#ulations /Aestor 1:?C0% 7he set o #roblems related to the continuity o the Dacians was broadened by the inclusion o the disco$eries made beyond the !oman #ro$ince /the so-called + ree-Dacians-0% 7he exhibitions organiEed e$ery year in the #eriod 1:9:-1:;2 tried to illustrate these achie$ements o the !omanian archaeology by means o dis#laying the disco$ered materials in a chronological order( rom +the e#och o sa$agery- and o +the barbarismto the +emergence o the eudal relations o #roduction- / or instance( '$po.i+ie 1:9:0% <ut the discourse regarding +the origins o the !omanian #eo#le(- the continuity and national unity( was slightly blurred( because the stress was laid on the study o the role #laid by !omanian #eo#le as a creator o history( the +unmas"ing- o the alse theories o the bourgeois historiogra#hy( the documentation o the +brotherly relations between the !omanian #eo#le and the !ussian one- /!oller 1:;?) 99-9;0%

1.

'ntil 1:;;( the boo"-re$iews in the magaEine &tudii /i *ercetri de Istorie 0eche had been exclusi$ely dedicated to boo"s #ublished in the So$iet 'nion /<abe= 1:::* 80% 7his was a signi icant act% One o the a$ourite themes o this discourse was +the class struggle- /i%e% +the struggle against the !oman domination and against the sla$e ex#loitation-0% 7his struggle mani ested through the su##ort gi$en by the Dacians to the barbarians who attac"ed the !oman #ro$ince( the light beyond the rontiers( +the action carried out in the interior by grou#s o isolated ighters named latrones( +mass u#risings o the o##ressed #o#ulation- /Istoria Rom1niei 2345) 92?-9.;* see also <erciu 1:;1* @hiril 1:;10% 7he mechanical usage o certain Marxian conce#ts in the in$estigation o #ast societies resulted in a sim#li ying economic determinism /@ri=an 1:>;) ..0% Mor instance( the im#ro$ed tools determined +the increase o the labour #roducti$ity(- namely o the +sur#lus #roduct(- a cause o the emergence o the +ex#loitation o man by man- /Daico$iciu 1:?;) ..0% 7he interest or #aleoeconomy determined a certain im#ulse o the multidisci#linary research( which became in act an a##endix o the dominant discourse /Anghelinu 2CC1-2CC2) 9;-9?0% 7he com#lexity o the #ast societies was sim#li ied by the usage o e$olutionist conce#ts( or instance +matriarchate- or +#atriarchate- /<erciu 1:;C0% Jowe$er( this #eriod had also a #ositi$e side( namely the attem#t to examine critically the a##roach o the !omanian archaeology( es#ecially due to the articles o Aestor /1:?;* 1:>Ca0% Je was the only scientist who tried to theoriEe this ty#e o archaeological discourse% In his accurate and slightly ironical style he de ined the Marxian archaeology o this #eriod as being MorganIs e$olutionism( +coloured in a Marxian way- by 2ngels and +dee#ened- by Irmgard Sellnow /Aestor 1:?;) 92.* or Sellnow( see 1ossac" 1::2) :>-:80% Aestor suggested new research directions re erring to the +economic basis- and +su#erstructure(- which had been neglected in the #re$ious #eriod /Aestor 1:?;) 92>0% 7hese e orts to theoriEe combined with ethnogra#hical exam#les were continued in the course o lectures #rinted in 1:>C /Aestor 1:>C0( an unusual wor" in our archaeological landsca#e( a wor" containing many sur#rising inter#retations% Des#ite the a##earances( it is ob$ious that in communist !omania it was not #racticed archaeology o the Marxian ty#e similar to that o the &est /see 7illey 2CCC0%

19

&e can rather say that they made use o vulgar )ar$ism% In act( as 1ristian 1ristiansen remar"ed( in most o 2astern 2uro#e communist countries /including !omania0 the so-called Marxian ex#lanations consisted in nothing else than mechanical statements stuc" to the beginning or the end o absolutely traditional /W #ositi$ist0 archaeological wor"s as regards the mode o a##roach /1ristiansen 1:89) :?0% In this res#ect( a good exam#le is the act that although es#ecially 2ditura Golitic /Golitical Gublishing Jouse0 #ublished translations o wor"s written by Marxian theorists /i%e% ,ouis Althusser( but es#ecially some members o the School o Mran" urt F XYrgen Jabermas( Jerbert Marcuse etc%0( these wor"s ha$e ne$er been used by the !omanian archaeologists% Moreo$er( we thin" that certain inter#retations o Marxian ins#iration similar to those #roduced in 2ngland in the eighties( which had as a central theme a series o conce#ts such as ideology# power( domination etc% would ha$e been incom#atible with the !omania totalitarian regime% Showing the im#ortance o these conce#ts both or the Gast and or the Gresent /see among other things Miller and 7illey 1:89* Miller( !owlands and 7illey 1::;0( the archaeological discourse would ha$e become critical o the communist system% A ter 1:?;( with the coming to #ower o Aicolae @eau=escu( until 1:>1( there ollowed a #eriod o ideological relaxation% In the #eriod 1:;?-1:>; in Goland( between the o icial Marxism-,eninism o the communist #arty and the academic Marxism a##eared a discre#ancy /,ech 1::>-1::8) 89-:.0* but in !omania the archaeology ollowed the Garty( that gradually assumed the national discourse necessary in order to legitimate a !omanian communism "e#t away rom the Moscow inter$entions +social /Berdery 1::9) :>-1C20% Some texts o this #eriod blend the Marxian-,eninist discourse ty#ical o the i ties /history being concei$ed as a succession o systems-0 with the national one /re erring to !omaniEation( continuity( unity0% Some exibitions rom museums were organiEed according to the same #rinci#le% Mor instance( a short #resentation o the themes #ro#osed or the organisation o the Jistory Museum o the Socialist !e#ublic o !omania /o#ened to the #ublic on the 8 th o May 1:>20 included( among other things( sections re erring to) -the emergence o the #rimiti$e commune-( +the consolidation and de$elo#ment o the matriarchy gentile organisation-( +the beginnings o the #atriarchy gentile society and the dissolution o

1;

the o the #rimiti$e commune system-( +the material culture o the !omanised autochthonous #o#ulation-( +the unitary material culture o$er the whole !omanian territory- /&chi+ tematic 1:>C( .-9( :0% Jowe$er( gradually the Marxism-,eninism receded into bac"ground both in the #olitical discourse and in the archaeological one% 7hat echoed the 1> theses #resented by Aicolae @eau=escu at the meeting o the 2xecuti$e @ommittee o the !omanian @ommunist Garty rom the ?th o Xuly 1:>1( that were meant to be the beginning o a cultural re$olution% 7he theses laid out the leading role o the @ommunist Garty +in all the #olitical and educational ields o acti$ity-( the im#ro$ement o the #olitical and ideological training o the #arty agents and members( the #romotion o the militant re$olutionary artistic #roductions( a strict control aimed at #re$enting the #ublication o wor"s that ail to meet the #artyIs re6uirements /Deletant 1::8) 1?8-1?:0% Jistory +was not a s#ecialiEed #ro ession(- but a #ure ideological acti$ity #racticed +only by #eo#le recruited by the #arty( only by #eo#le who were to become #arty acti$ists%- +7he teaching o history cannot ado#t any other outloo"- /4eorgescu 1::1) ?:->C0% Archaeology as +an auxiliary science- o history was a ected as well% The !rogram of the Romanian *ommunist !arty for the making of the multilaterally developed socialist society and the advance of Romania toward communism /1:>90 o#ened with a history o the !omanians% 7his s"etch o history began with the 7hracians( continued with the old national themes re erring to the !omaniEation #rocess( to continuity( unity( with many xeno#hobic stresses /the migratory #eo#les( the Ottomans( the em#ires would be res#onsible or our retardation0% 7he Dacianism( a trend reducing the origin o the !omanians to the Dacian element( which had been #resent in the writings o se$eral rightist intellectuals / or exam#le( Bulcnescu 1::1) .>-;;0 in the inter-war #eriod( re$i$ed in this #eriod /@ri=an 1:>>) ?0% @ontro$ersial #roblems re erring to e$ents o the Gast were sol$ed through decrees% 7he @entral @ommittee o the !omanian @ommunist Garty established the year when <oerebista ascended the throne so that they could celebrate 2C;C years ela#sed rom the e$ent in 1:8C( on the occasion o the International @ongress o Jistorical sciences in <ucharest /4eorgescu 1::1) ::0% +7he art o our days must continue to glori y such a brilliant

1?

Gast on all the coordinates- /@ri=an 1:>>) 810% Indeed( history became the main element o the o icial #ro#aganda)
UhistoryV invades the press# the radio and television programs# the theatres# the film studios# music hall# art galleries 6...7. 'ach moment of the present is referred to the !ast# eing rooted in the depth of the centuries# each achievement is presented as the final achievement of a long historical evolution" /4eorgescu 1::1) 11>0%

&riters( actors( roc" bands( ol" singers and #o# singers( too" #art in -lacra ,iterary @ircle /whose leader was the #oet Adrian Gunescu0 and in the esti$al *1ntarea Rom1niei /a cultural mo$ement initiated by the secretary general o the communist #arty himsel 0( glori ying the Gast o the socialist homeland and Aicolae @eausescu( whose #ersonality included all the 6ualities o a whole series o 4etoDacians "ings and !omanian rulers /Getrescu 1::8* Aegrici 2CC.) ;.-;?( ?>->C0% 7he archaeology went on tal"ing about the themes o the national ideology( but on a more exalted tone% As the a$ourite theme was +our ancestors-( the archaeological disco$eries ta"en out o the context were themsel$es mani#ulated /sometimes e$en by the archaeologists( e%g% @ri=an 1:>>* <erciu 1:8?0 in the elaboration o this ty#e o discourse% During that #eriod( D% <erciu /a##ointed director o the !omanian Institute o 7hracology( ounded in 1:>:0 changed his ty#e o discourse once again( returning to the nationalist rhetoric ado#ted during the interwar #eriod /see the discussion abo$e* in order to get a ull image o the sinuous #attern o the archaeological discourses issued by <erciu see( successi$ely( <erciu 1:.8( *onferin+a 1:;C) 21* <erciu 1:;C* <erciu 1:8?0% In a short text /<erciu 1:8?0 in which he celebrated +2;CC years rom the irst written historical testimony o the 4eto-DaciansI struggle or reedom-( D% <erciu democratically 6uoted Jerodotus and Aicolae @eau=escu% Des#ite some critics /<abe= 1:>90( the #ro#agandistic archaeology considered that the !omanian national state had existed e$er since <oerebista who
will lay the foundations of the first state in our history# which will e then perpetuated facing all kind of vicissitudes# reaching the glorious moment of the con(uest of our state independence and later the making of the Romanian unitary state" /@ri=an 1:>>) 8C0%

1>

Similarly( a history o !omanian #hiloso#hy had to begin with the 4etoDacians as e$en Glato borrowed rom them +models o the dialectical thin"ing- /@ri=an 1:>>) 1?8-1?:0% Jistory had an im#ortant role had to be aware( or instance( that
the defining feature# that of 8ustice# inherited from the Dacian and 9eths ancestors and preserved as such# can e found a undantly in the entire policy of the Romanian *ommunist !arty# in the whole domestic and foreign policy of our state" /@ri=an 1:>>) 810%

or the de$elo#ment o

the

+re$olutionary consciousness- and the +o the new man( builder o the socialism- who

In act( at least in the o icial intention( the archaeologist blended two statutes) that o a researcher and o an ideologist / or <ulgaria( see <ailey 1::8) :.-:90)
+!arallel with the activity of research# the collective of archaeology engaged themselves entirely in the activity of propaganda# of spreading the scientific knowledge and of educating the young generation in a patriotic spirit U%%%V. In this way# the archaeology responds to a second ma8or task incum ent on research in general# namely the contri ution on multiple levels to the uilding of the socialist society in our country" /Greda 1:89) 2..0%

7he museums also too" #art acti$ely in the o icial #ro#aganda( a act mirrored also in some articles #ublished in Revista )u.eelor in the se$enties and eighties /e%g% Tte nescu 1:>.* 1:>?* Daberca 1:>?* Ardeleanu 1:>80% 7he museum was considered to be a #olitical institution% @onse6uently( it had to contribute to the +change o the mass conscience(- the + ormation o the socialist consciousness- and the +ma"ing o the new man- by means o +museum #ro#aganda- /an action assumed as a result o the #arty directions0) the organiEation o sym#osia( #ro#agandistic mo$ies( recitals o #oetry and #atriotic music( #ioneer com#etition / or instance) +Meeting the ancestorsorganiEed by the Museum o Jistory o the !omanian Socialist !e#ublic0( meetings with the Garty #ro#agandists /organised by the same museum( see Tte nescu 1:>.) .C;0% Some meetings with the #ioneers at the Aational Jistory Museum had themes such as +Decebalus( an ethic role model- or +7he !omanian #eo#le F a result o the

18

intertwining o the Daco-4etian ci$ilisation with the !oman ci$ilisation- /Tte nescu 1:>.) .C;* 1:>?) .90% Some museums would organiEe +itinerant exhibitions- in actories and +the scienti ic brigades(- consisting o museogra#hers( could go e$en to the houses where the wor"ers li$ed /Daberca 1:>?0% 7he museum( which stored the exem#lary #ast( became a #lace o consecration( where( a ter an entire ceremonial( the #u#ils +became #ioneers-% In 1:>8 @eau=escu reached the age o +?C years o li e and o$er 9; years o re$olutionary acti$ity- and at the Museum o Jistory o the !S! was o#ened the exhibition with the suggesti$e title) Tokens of the love# high esteem and profound appreciation en8oyed y the president :icolae *eau/escu and comrade 'lena *eau/escu# of the ample relations of friendship and cooperation etween the Romanian people and the peoples of other countries /4eorgescu et al% 1:810% 7he $isitor #ercei$ed $isually as he or she $isited the whole exhibition rom #rehistory to the halls dedicated to the secretary general( the whole ceremonial o the o icial #ro#aganda) the ul illment o the national destiny through @eau=escu( in whose #ersonality all the 6ualities o the ancestors were gathered% Excursus: On positivism and positivists In the meantime( the re#resentati$es o that archaeology named con$entionally by us positivist archaeology( namely a #ositi$e science( +based on document and rigorous examination- /Dub 1:8;) 220 carried on their acti$ity silently /sometimes #roducing also #ro#agandist texts( see *olegiul de redac+ie 23;<* 'ditorial 1:8?* <erciu 1:8?0 F through their silence legitimating #ractically the dominant discourse /<oia 2CCC) 12?0% 4i$en the act that this "ind o archaeology is obsessed with im#artiality and considers the #ast as being inde#endent o the subNect* we could also name it( as Aestor did /1:88) 2>>0( realist-o 8ective archaeology% 7his "ind o archaeology has se$eral characteristics( es#ecially the use o the conce#t o +archaeological culture- /in the sense de ined by 1ossinna or @hilde0 and conse6uently could be included in the cultural-historical archaeology too /7rigger 1:8:) 198-2C?0% 7he intellectual sources o this direction were the +#ositi$ism- o the 4erman archaeology /es#ecially Merhart( see 1ossac" 1::20 and the +school o criticism- o the

1:

!omanian historiogra#hy in irst hal o the 2C-th century( a school which laid the stress on method( on em#irical a##roach and obNecti$ity /Dub 1:8;* 1:8;a* Aestor 1:880% 7he re#resentati$es o #ositi$ist archaeology state the inde#endence o their ield o "nowledge rom #olitics and sometimes rom history as this disci#line lays the accent on its own methods% 7he methods +restrict the mo$ements o the archaeologistIs imagination and emotion( but we donIt "now whether we could say that they also #rotect him always rom these- writes with humour Ion Aestor /Aestor and Bul#e 1:>1) 1.10% A 4ero $on MerhartIs student( Aestor introduced in the #ractice o !omanian archaeology +the methods- #eculiar to archaeology( the three true +#illarso the archaeological research /ty#ology( stratigra#hy( chorology0 /Aestor 1:?;) 922* Aestor and Bul#e 1:>1* about Merhart( see 1ossac" 1:8?* 1::2) 8:-:C0% In a wor" /Aestor 1:..0 which laid the oundation o the contem#orary !omanian archaeology( Aestor succeeded in organiEing a great 6uantity o materials scattered in museums and in ormulating inter#retations whose in luence has mani ested itsel at #resent too% Moreo$er( Aestor( ollowing @hilde( theoriEed in se$eral un orgettable #ages the inducti$e a##roach o archaeology /Aestor 1:.>0% <ut the $aluable wor"s belonging to this archaeological trend are looded with exca$ation re#orts( county re#ertoires( monogra#hs o some +cultures- or o archaeological sites( studies re erring to a certain ty#e o #ot( metal arte act etc%( +rigorously- described and classi ied in subty#es or $ariants% 7he #ur#ose o these actions was con ined only to the chronological and cultural organiEation% 7he a##roach to $arious archaeological themes had the tendency to become standardiEed) a history o research under the orm o a series o names( years and titles o wor"s( the descri#tion o the ty#e o the habitat and o the mortuary #ractices( the ty#ology o the arte acts( chronology and the catalogue o the disco$eries /com#are !oman 1:>?( !oman =i ASmeti 1:>8 with texts #ublished a ter 1:8:( as Gaul 1::2( Schuster 1::>( SES"ely 1::>( @uco= 1:::( @iugudean 2CCC( Dumitroaia 2CCC =%a%0% 7he ty#ology /+re#ertoire o orms-0 and chronology( deduced rom instruments with which we could de ine centers o #roduction( modalities o exchange or which can hel# the understanding o the signi icance o #ottery or o other categories o #ieces( become #ur#oses in themsel$es( which catalogue and sort out the ormal analogies% And as an answer to the

2C

abo$e-mentioned ideological aggressions( the archaeology o this "ind reNects any ty#e o theoretical a##roach /which would lea$e aside +the acts-0( ta"ing re uge in method and in a blind em#iricism% It is an archaeology built on the belie that the archaeologistIs irst duty is to exca$ate obNecti$ely the archaeological material( to organiEe it and only a terwards to inter#ret it /e%g% Aestor 1:.>( 1;;-1;?* <erciu 1:.8) 1;* Aestor =i Bul#e 1:>1* <abe= 1::9) :9-:;0% <ut( the direct and un orced understanding o the material culture is illusory because it is iltered through a priori codes which( ha$ing been assimilated by the obser$er( become culti$ated a#titude /<ourdieu 2CC1) 1:C* see also <ourdieu and Delsaut 1::10% In act( the !omanian archaeologist exca$ates( gathers and inter#rets the material in accordance with se$eral #re-de ined conce#ts /culture( #hase( ethnic grou#0 which inally are considered by him obNecti$e realities% 7he inter#retation based on a alse amiliarity with the archaeological material is reduced to the cultural and chronological diagnosis% In other words( by means o +#ro#er methods(- the material culture is +integrated- into +archaeological cultures(- +as#ects- and +cultural grou#s*- new such entities are de ined and their chronology /+relati$e- or +absolute-0 is established% 7he +inter#retation- becomes a combination o e$olutionist and di usionist conce#ts lin"ed also with !atEelIs geogra#hical determinism% 7he +cultures- are territorially and ty#ologically well-de ined entities( with clear-cut rontiers* they ha$e origins( interact with each other( migrate( de$elo# through se$eral #hases( disa##ear( but they contribute to the ormation o others only a terwards /see( or exam#le( !oman 1:810% Mor instance( or the <ronEe Age( the large number o the +archaeological cultures- de ined in geometrical #rogression o$er the time is in a shar# contrast to the low number o articles on the archaeoEoology o that #eriod /<l=escu et al. 2CC.0% &hen we #ass beyond the +methods(- the inter#retations are utilitarian /a criticism o this ty#e o inter#retations using ethnogra#hic exam#les was ex#ressed by Aestor 1:>C) 8>-880% 7hey are anchored in the common sense under the orm o notions such as +house(- +/garbage0 #it(- +gra$e- /which would ha$e had in the #ast the same + unctions- as they ha$e now0 or F better F +the archaeological com#lex(- a neutral term( a su#reme sign o +obNecti$ity-% 7he contexts that transcend the limits o the socalled common sense are classed in the category o +cult- /+cult building(- +cult gra$e-

21

and +ritual burial(- +burial with s#ecial character-0 on account o a logic that #roNects into the #ast the contem#orary dichotomy between sacred and #ro ane% 7he societies o the #ast( as they are inter#reted by the !omanian archaeologists( are ahistoricF a danger #ointed out by Aestor /1:?;) 92?0 F ha$ing a structure /directly mirrored( they thin"( es#ecially in the mortuary #ractices0 similar to almost all the e#ochs and #eriods% 7hat is to say( they are societies consisting o men( women and children /+the archaeological sex-0 who are members o + amilies- and +clans- and belong to $arious grou#s o status /+high-5+s#ecial- and +common-0% 7a"en as mechanisms /the role o the social agent being com#letely neglected0( the societies o the #ast + unction- according to certain rules and the archaeologist thin"s to redisco$er them when certain ty#es o associations o the com#onent obNects o the uneral in$entory are established% Jowe$er( generally( the archaeologists belonging to this category claim that the +methodological- im#ro$ement is the necessary and su icient condition or the inter#retation to be #roduced% 7he #re#onderance o this style o inter#retation in the archaeological discourse in !omania be ore 1:8: is mirrored by the Inde$ o the re$iew &tudii /i *ercetri de Istorie 0eche /i =rheologie >&tudies and Researches of =ncient ?istory and =rchaeology@( #ublished in $ol% .?( no%1-2( 1:8;% Indeed( +this #ublication o ers the largest and most aith ul mirror o the e$olution- o !omanian archaeology in the last ;C years /<abe= 1:::) ;0% 7he articles are classi ied by e#ochs( #eriods( cultures( #hases( $arious categories o archaeological #ieces( #roblems /metallurgy( de#osits0( categories o contexts /settlements( cemeteries0% 7he national ideology is #resent under the heading + oreign #o#ulations and their culture-% Sym#tomatically( in the category +miscellaneous #oints- we ind the terms +man(- + auna(- +#alynology#aleoclimatology in Gleistocene(+#alynology in Jolocene(+#aleobotany-% +dendrochronology(- +absolute chronology-% 7en articles containing most o them criticism and ad$ice re erring to the elaboration o some catalogues o disco$eries are #laced under the heading +methodology in archaeological research%- 'n ortunately( the index o the re$iew Dacia #ublished in 2CC. re lects the same image%

Romanian archaeology in the post-communist period

22

7he #er#etuation o the bureaucratic centralised institutional system ty#ical o the communist #eriod and the in liction o the #ositi$ist discourse( to the detriment o the others /national and Marxist0 considered to ha$e been com#romised during the #re$ious #eriod( are the two characteristics / ound in a relation o interde#endence( as we are going to argue below0 o !omanian archaeology in the #ost-communist #eriod% 7he +Marxian-,eninist discourse- was assumed com#letely by the !omanian archaeology only in the Stalinist #eriod( but a ter 1:8: it a##eared di use( under the orm o accentuated economical determinism% Similarly( the discourse o #olitical #ower has been gradually oriented toward the 2uro#ean integration trying to marginaliEe its nationalist side( at least in the dialogue with 2uro#e% 7he national ideology has little need o archaeology in the new #olitical context and this act is re lected by the budgetary resources allocated( by the #roblems o #ublication o the +#restigious magaEines- /&*I0=( Dacia( )ateriale /i *ercetari =rheologice etc%0 /<abe= 1:::) :0( by the isolation mani ested and the absence o the oreign boo"s and( last but not least( by the salaries o the archaeologists and museologists% 7he national discourse which #re$ailed in the last decades o the ormer regime and was used #eriodically in certain contexts a ter 1:8: was #re erred now by the re#resentati$es o the category named the +water melons- /those who #romote a right extremist nationalism( but which be ore 1:8: had been close lin"ed with the communist structures) that is to say( li"e the water melons( they are red inside and green outside* !adu 1::10 as well as by those #romoting 7hracoman exaggerations /I%@% Drgan( A S$escu0% Sometimes it is also used with the o##ortunity o exhibitions organiEed +u#on demand(- with the occasion o im#ortant #olitical e$ents( when !omania must dis#lay her +glorious #ast%- Some wor"s( es#ecially those re erring to the #eriod o migrations( #romote e$en a ter 1:8: the national discourse with its a$ourite themes) +the uninterru#ted continuity o the autochthonous #o#ulation( their relations with di erent migratory nations that #enetrated tem#orarily in the @ar#athian-DanubianGontic regions- /7eodor 1::?) ;0% 7he Jistory o !omania begins in some +s#ecialiEed wor"s- /'rsulescu 1::20 with the a##earance o the Australo#ithecus at <ugiule=ti%

2.

A ter 1:8:( the most im#ortant eature o the !omanian archaeology has become the im#osition o the discourse o #ositi$ist archaeology( whose "ey-words are + undamental research(- +ste#s o research(- +scienti ic(- +obNecti$ity(- +em#irical-% 7he s#ectacular #resence o this ty#e o discourse in the oreground was mirrored in that !lan de msuri al *omitetului din Institutul de =rheologie din Aucure/ti al -rontului &alvrii :a+ionale /!lan of measures of the :ational &alvation *ommittee -ront of the Institute of =rchaeology of Aucharest 0( document concei$ed in the context o the December 1:8: !e$olution and #ublished in S@IBA 91%1( 1::C( .-?% In the #reamble o this document( the authors de#lore the losses that occurred in the #eriod o the old regime and were caused by +the ideological inter erence and #ressures(- by the #romotion o +a #rimiti$e and anti-scienti ic nationalism- and by the isolation% +In these circumstances# which worsened year after year# most of the specialists in our field of knowledge succeeded however in preserving the professional dignity# a fact which should e underlined at this eginning of new era -% In the sweet style consecrated in the #eriod condemned by that document se$eral lines abo$e( + the staff of the Institute of =rchaeology of Aucharest# the main institution of specialty in our country- declared +enthusiastically their total attachment to the principles of the program of the *ouncil of :ational &alvation -ront-% <eside the concrete measures re erring to the reorganiEation o the institution( the #lan #ro#osed measures which( on the one hand( #er#etuated the centraliEation s#eci ic o the totalitarian #eriod and( on the other hand( assured the mono#oly o the inter#retation o the #ast to this ty#e o +scienti ic- discourse% 7he Institute o Archaeology was subordinated to a +central orum- /7he !omanian Academy0 /the irst item o the #lan0( but at the same time( it subordinated the higher education and the Archaeological @ommission% 7his institution( the @ommission( had the tas" +to wor" out the national #lan o research( to control the archaeological exca$ations and watch their turning to good account( as well as the awarding o the scienti ic degrees- /the 19-th item0% In brie ( the #lan #ro#osed the re orm o the archaeological ield in !omania only by administrati$e measures that not a ected the centraliEed academic system( but which assured the domination o the +scienti ic- discourse to the detriment o the other discourses%

29

7he Institute o Archaeology in <ucharest indeed #assed /li"e the others archaeological institutes in the country0 under the control o the !omanian Academy( orgetting that this ty#e o organisation ollows a So$iet model /li"e in other countries in the So$iet bloc"( see Aeustu#ny 1::.) 1.1-1..* 4ringmuth-Dallmer 1::.) 1.?( 1.:* <Z"Zny 1::.) 192-199* Dolu"hano$ 1::.) 1;C-1;10% Meanwhile( the Archaeological @ommission has ac6uired an ornamental status under the Ministry o @ulture /which subordinates also all the Aational Museums in the country0( the only institution that inances the exca$ation with #ublic money and decides on !omanian archaeology #olicy% 2$en a ter 1:8:( these institutions o the #olitical and academic #ower "e#t trying to im#ose an inter#retation o the #ast re#roducing to a great extent the same solutions( which had been o icial during the totalitarian #eriod% Mor exam#le( in the year 2CC1 a great number o archaeologists too" #art acti$ely to the im#lementation o an older #roNect o the !omanian Academy( namely( the #ublication o a new Treatise of the ?istory of the Romanians % 7hese ex#erts were introduced as +the best s#ecialists o the stages treated- /<erindei 2CC1) [BIII0% 7he !omanian Academy wanted to con$ince us o the high #ro essionalism o those im#lied% <ut a recent critical study o the archaeology o the origin o the nation in the treatise o the history o !omanians /Aiculescu 2CC.0 brought orward the sordid ace o this #roNect - the #olitical command( the nationalist discourse and( last but not least( the intellectual the t /the #lagiarism0 /see also <abe= 2CC20% In s#ite o some critical attem#ts and o the emergence o new styles o inter#retation /<olomey 1:>.* Aiculescu 1::>* 2CCC* @urta 2CC1* Bul#e 1:::-2CCC* Go#o$ici 1:::-2CCC* Anghelinu 2CC1-2CC2* 2CC.0( the +#ositi$ist- remains the dominant discourse e$en at #resent% At the same time( the Noint #roNects with &estern institutions /that totally lac"ed during the communist #eriod0( in s#ite o the act that they brought some new things in with good e ects es#ecially as regards micro-Eone researches /Southern !omanian Archaeological GroNect( resulted rom the collaboration with !omanian and <ritish institutions( see <ailey et al% 2CCC0 or the exca$ation method and multidisci#linary researches /!omanian-Mrench #roNect at JHr=o$a( see !andoin et al% 2CCC0 did not succeed in bra"ing u# the mono#oly held by the #ractice o

2;

archaeology rooted in the #ositi$ist #aradigm% An element o no$elty in #ostcommunist !omania is the a##earance o the contractual archaeology and o a new ty#e o archaeologist F the cultural manager% 7he main eature o the cultural managers is that they regard the #ast rom a so-called ca#italist #ers#ecti$e( based on the idea o e iciency and #ro it% Archaeology is reduced to the status o a #roduct \ that has to e sold in order to recover the investment cost# which presupposes developing a marketing strategy likely to ensure the sale# a strategy likely to persuade the pu lic to uy \ /Angelescu 2CC9) 1C0.% Des#ite the act that this ty#e o discourse is mainly #roduced by the o icials o the Ministry o @ulture( the #ro its are not used in order to re orm the archaeological ield( but or the sur$i$al o the scheme o organiEation and wor"ing o the old institutions% 7he cultural managers do not thin" to decentraliEe the system% 7hey are interested only to occu#y the "ey-#ositions within the ramewor" o the system( as these #ositions assure them the immediate access both to the budgetary resources F which could be redistributed to their #ersonal archaeological sites or to those conducted by the obedient archaeologists /whose critical $oices are not heard0 F and to great #roNects which attract extra-budgetary unds% 7he cultural managers assume and ma"e use o the discourse s#eci ic o the #ositi$ist archaeology( although in certain contexts they resort to the national discourse% As #ro essionals( they consider that they #ractice a modern archaeology( concei$ed in act as a traditional archaeology #lus 4GS% It is ob$ious that a ter 1:8: in !omania the status society characteristic o the communist #eriod was not re#laced by a ca#italist class society whose main criterion o di erentiation is the economic one% 7a"ing ad$antage o the absence o a ci$il society( communist bureaucracy grabbed the #olitical #ower( thus #er#etuating institutions( #ractices( hierarchies( #ower relationshi#s ty#ical o the #re$ious #eriod% 'nder these circumstances( !omanian archaeology could only loo" li"e the rest o the society) a centralised( hierarchical academic system on which e$eryone is su##osed to "now his #lace% !omanian archaeologists #layed an im#ortant role in #er#etuating this system% A ter the re$olution o 1:8:( the members o the !omanian archaeological elite
.

7his boo" is a #lagiarism /see the demonstration and debates on this \incident\ on the website htt#)55www%archaeology%ro0% ,ater( the author o the #lagiarism( at the time director o the Archaeology De#artment o the Ministry o @ulture and !eligious A airs( modi ied also this boo"( and #ublished it in a new orm on the website www%cimec%ro% Our re erences relate to the irst #rinted $ariant o the boo"%

2?

once again had to correct their social standing by turning the #olitical ca#ital earned during the communist #eriod /by their adhering to the Garty and the #ro$iding ideologically rele$ant discourses0 into cultural ca#ital /2yal( SEelSnyi and 7ownsley 2CC1) 99-98( 8C-820* in other words( by trying to #ro$e that they owe their #ositions exclusi$ely to their intellectual merit% As they gained their #lace in society / unctions in the academic system( +scienti ic #restige-0 by #ractising( during their career( the #ositi$ist discourse in archaeology( the only one that has become legitimate a ter 1:8: /many are now attem#ting to conceal the wor"s written in a nationalist or Marxist,eninist style0( the archaeologists ha$e no other solution but to iercely de end this ty#e o discourse% 'nder the circumstances( the criticism o the #ositi$ist discourse is largely #ercei$ed as an attac" against the +authority-( that is against the social #osition o these archaeologists( a true menace against the academic system% Mor the same reason other archaeological inter#retation #atterns are reNected $ehemently% 7his system has an extraordinary ca#acity o re#roduction% 7he main strategy used to this end is brea"ing o communism( e acing it rom the collecti$e memory% Many archaeologists resorted to a radically anticommunist discourse /going so ar as to $ehemently reNect any +le tist- ideas0% In our o#inion( the reason o this change o attitude is identical with that one described by <arbu in the case o the members o the #ost-nomenclature)
Uthe #oliticians and the intellectualsV have resorted immediately after the fall of the regime to the denial of the communism as a modality to refuse to admit that their own careers started efore 23;3 were in principle the result of a selection ased on the criterion of the fidelity# pu licly declared or tacitly assumed# to the ideology and B or the institutions of the state socialism. *laiming today that at the origin of their present dominant positions >in politics# administration# usiness or culture@ there is e$clusively the personal merit# they are the most interested to wipe communism from the collective memory" /<arbu 2CC9) .C0%

7he desire to wi#e any trace lin"ed with the communist #ast( which is common to many o the members o the #resent elite( is also #ro$ed by the lac" o interest mani ested or the archaeology of the recent past% In accordance with the legislation( +the archaeological sites should be generally older than 1CC years- /OberlPnder-

2>

7Hrno$eanu 2CC2) 190% 7here is a classi ication o the historical monuments which uses the chronology as a uni6ue criterion) $ery old /o$er 9CC years0( old /2CC-9CC years0( relati$ely old /1CC-2CC years0( recent /buildings rom #eriod 1:19-1:;C0 /Oberlander7Hrno$eanu 2CC2) 19-1?0% &e can agree with the statement +each generation establish their own criteria o a##reciation(- but we do not belie$e that +a distance in time is always necessary in order to a##reciate the $alue o cultural assets- /OberlPnder7Hrno$eanu 2CC2) 1?0( because it might #ro$e to be too late% Also( the !omanian Academy considers that it is necessary time to #ass in order to be able and Nudge sine ira et studio the communist #eriod* this is why it has not been included in the Treatise of the ?istory of Romanians% Mrom our #oint o $iew( we ha$e to do here with a deliberate #olicy o ignoring( #ost#onement and e$en destruction o the sites( which reminds us o the communist regime( the archaeologists and those res#onsible with the #rotection o the monuments beha$ing as i these monuments had not existed% 7he archaeology deals with the in$estigation o the material culture rom Galeolithic to the #resent / or studies regarding the contem#orary material culture see Jodder 1:82* Shan"s and 7illey 1::2) @ha#ter 8* !athNe and Mur#hy 2CC1* <uchli 1:::* <uchli and ,ucas 2CC1* Cournal of )aterial *ulture# ?ome *ultures0% 7he industrial buildings /wor"s( actories( #lants0 and the industrial Eones /regions radically changed by mining0( materialiEation o the scienti ic mythology o communism /<oia 1:::0( the to"ens o the coo#erati$iEation o agriculture /Agricultural @oo#erati$es o Groduction( Stations o Agricultural Machines( Agricultural State 2nter#rises( the $illages built by those de#orted in <rgan0( the bloc"s o small lats standardiEed in order to create the illusion o the e6uality among the citiEens( the communist cemeteries /Getre 1::80( the Nails and the #rison cam#s( the notorious + ood sho#s(- #laces o mani estation o the +stay in line- culture( were or are to be #ri$atiEed( demolished( degraded under the orm o #iles o scra# iron or sim#ly( they ha$e been trans ormed into other things( with a new signi icance% Soon we shall study the monuments o the communist #eriod only on the basis o written documents( the #ro#aganda texts( the handboo"s o economic geogra#hy( and the documentary ilms% <ut why shanIt we study them also archeologicallyO As regards this last case( according to the legislation in orce( weIll ha$e to wait se$eral decades% 7he lac" o interest or the contem#orary #eriod is also

28

due to the act that the !omanian archaeology is concei$ed as an +auxiliary science- o history( being as"ed only to round the image o the societies o the historical #eriods% Also( the #roblem o chronology and o the cultural classi ication F the a$ourite subNects o the !omanian archaeologists F is already sol$ed in the case o the contem#orary sites and that is why they are no longer considered worthy o attention% 7he same archaeologists cited abo$e maintain that in s#ite o some com#romises with the regime( which li e orced them to ma"e /com#romises described as being not im#ortant0( they dealt with their #ersonal research( they did science and #ublished $aluable wor"s( they wor"ed with the students and ormed new generations o researchers( they e$en had the courage to introduce in $arious wor"s archaeological arguments which were not in accord with the theses o the Garty% 7his attitude ultimately would be a orm o resistance% ,et us see <arbuIs answer to these Nusti ications)
The theme of resistance through culture ecame thus# even from the first moments of post-communism a commonplace of strategic importance for the survival of the cultural elite emerged and promoted under the totalitarian regime. U]V Dho made true culture E or science or research E could e# ipso facto# only anti-communist U]V Therefore# all the valua le works created under communism and their authors should not e 8udged today as products of the communist epoch# ut as a result of a collective movement of su tle and non-violent resistance to communism. U]V The guilt of this category of intellectuals# researchers# artists and academics# who consider that in their personal fields of competence they have created spiritual goods of value and preserved the authenticity of the national cultural tradition consists in the fact that their mode of thinking is E through the re8ection of the self-e$amination and the refusal to accept the political co-responsi ility E identical with that of the :a.i party" /<arbu 2CC9) ;?-;>0% U]V The whole culture of the five decades of totalitarianism was# almost without remainder# the product of the ideology and of the varia le ut implaca le mechanisms of the censorship. In the last analysis# Fto make culture% did not constitute a form of resistance# ut one of participation# participation to the dynamics of the communist pu lic space. ,n the contrary# it would pro a ly e more ade(uate to speak a out an assent through culture" /<arbu 2CC9) ;80

2:

7he strategy o

orget ulness( used to e ace the communist #ast o many

members o the archaeological elite( has o ten been a##lied also to institutions( thus gi$ing them legitimacy to their #er#etuation with no re ormation% Mor instance( the Institute o Archaeology in <ucharest is no longer considered to be an institution ounded in 1:;?( as we said abo$e( a ter a So$iet model that( conse6uently( should undergo re ormation* it is the heir o the Museum o Aatural Jistory and Anti6uities ounded in 18.9 /Alexandrescu 1::;0% 7hus( as a +re#ository o legacy-( the Institute is su##osed to carry its entire #restige% As already stated( the #ositi$ist discourse in archaeology( by its em#hasis on obNecti$ity and re uge into the #ro ession( is a tacit ally o this centralised system% 7his ty#e o discourse disseminates by the courses held by the re#resentati$es o the archaeological elite at the history aculties /becoming a s"ill culti$ated by students0* or by establishing a master-disci#le relationshi# between the archaeologist and the student through the doctor^s degree #rogramme and by his #artici#ation in archaeological exca$ations annually% At the same time( the conce#tion according to which archaeology is reduced to exca$ations re#resents an e icient tool o #er#etuating the hierarchical #yramid o !omanian archaeology% 7he archaeologist^s worth is not a##reciated in !omania according to the ideas he issues( but exclusi$ely on the basis o the \exca$ation ex#erience\( which is #ro$ed also by the existence o the amous =rchaeologistsG Directory /di$iding the archaeologists into three hierarchical categories according to the number o exca$ations they too" #art in( the academic titles they hold etc%0( a system #ro$iding to \ex#erts\ a docile mass o ^s#ecialist^ subordinates and young ^beginners^( thus ne$er ending the re#roduction o the #aradigm o a \scienti ic\ archaeology% Jow can the current state o !omanian archaeology be changedO At #resent( !omanian archaeologists #ro#ose two ty#es o discourses as \re orm\ solutions% Mirstly( there is the \scienti ic\ discourse /howe$er( reducing the inter#retation o the #ast to the cultural and chronological attribution0( authoritarian /aggressi$ely reNecting any other ty#e o inter#retation0 and submissi$e towards the system rom which it ex#ects maintenance by the inancing o the so-called \systematic exca$ations\% Secondly( there is a \managerial\ discourse reducing the #ast to the status o a commodity that must be

.C

sold by #utting it into an accessible language em#hasising the necessity to obtain alternati$e inance sources( by the so-called \rescue exca$ations\% 7he !omanian archaeologist recei$es as a \ca#italist\ solution #lacing himsel in an aw"ward #osition by #ractising both discourses) the rescue exca$ations are regarded as a "ind o second hand exca$ations( use ul or getting the money necessary to maintain the \systematic exca$ations\( that is the \scienti ic\ discourse% 7he goal o re orming !omanian archaeology should not be orbidding these #re$ailing discourses /issued rom \to# to bottom\( rom the \centre\0( but brea"ing u# / rom \bottom to to#\0 the mono#oly held by these by di$ersi ying the inter#retations and by criticising the social-#olitical context generating them% It is an illusion to thin" that the re orm o !omanian archaeology can be reduced to the re ormation o the academic5uni$ersity system /by ste#s towards decentralisation( #romoting #ri$ate initiati$es in archaeology( organising bids0 without critically debating its theoretical bases% Mrom this #oint o $iew( we thin" that we should regard the \re orm\ o the archaeological #ractice not in itsel but in a broader context( irst o all in relation with the interde#endent ields) the #olicy o conser$ing and restoring the monuments and the styles o #resenting the #ast /museums0% 7he #re$ailing discourses in !omanian archaeology( con$erted into \legitimate culture\ /by the education system scienti ic texts etc%0 im#ose certain #atterns o #resenting exhibitions in museums( but also criteria or selecting historic monuments \worthy\ o being conser$ed% 7he changes /\re orm\0 occurring in any o the three ields /archaeological #ractice( #olicy o conser$ing and restoring monuments( museums0 might in luence the di$ersi ication o the inter#retation #atterns issued by the others% At the same time( we thin" that one o the main solutions o brea"ing u# the mono#oly held by the #re$ailing discourses is the dee# in$ol$ement o archaeology in contem#orary !omanian society% Archaeology o the recent #ast would im#ly to shi t the ocus o the discussion rom chronology to the inter#retation o the material culture% 7he archaeological +com#lexes- will not be any longer regarded only as +closed com#lexes(- use ul only or dating the #ieces( but as contexts which ha$e signi icance and o er meanings to the #ieces% 7he archaeology o the recent #ast could o er in ormation regarding the mode

.1

in which the signi icance o the #ieces changes de#ending on the contexts in which these a##ear - the centres o #roduction( who #roduces and who consumes the material culture( the in luence o ideology on the material culture and en$ironment etc% @easing to be an a##endix o the history( the archaeology can be hel#ed by this one( but also by the sociology( the anthro#ology( the #hiloso#hy( the literature( the history o arts( the architecture( the theatre( to understand the contexts in which the material culture is mani#ulated% &ithout laying claim to establish by ormal analogies( generaliEation $alid or archaeological situations o the #ast( an archaeology o the communist #eriod could contribute to the understanding o our contem#orary history rom other #ers#ecti$es% In other words( the archaeology would become an instrument o "nowledge but also o criticism o the society in which we li$e% Epilogue !omanian archaeologists ha$e been ones o the main #ro$iders o symbolic ca#ital or the national ideology /during the #re-communist #eriod0( or the \Marxist,eninist\ discourse and the nationalist one /during the communist #eriod0% 7he #ositi$ist discourse elaborated during this #eriod ga$e to many archaeologists the illusion o withdrawing into an i$ory tower( ar rom the com#romises inherent when issuing the two ty#es o discourses mentioned abo$e% <ut by "ee#ing silent( they did nothing else but gi$ing legitimacy to them% On the whole( the !omanian archaeologists did not ha$e any "ind o attitude( were not socially im#licated( did not assume any ci$ic res#onsibility during the communist regime and by their obedience contributed to the strengthening and #er#etuation o a criminal system% 'n ortunately( we can say that only a too small number o archaeologists did not coo#erate under any orm with the communist regime% 7hese scientists ha$e ne$er made 6uite a career( they did not tra$el abroad( they were eliminated rom the institutions in which they wor"ed /and were re-em#loyed only to be better su#er$ised by some o their colleagues( collaborationists o the Golitical Golice0( they su ered s#littings and searches o the Securitate or e$en became #olitical #risoners%

.2

Mrom our #oint o $iew( most o the archaeologists who ha$e #racticed their #ro ession in this #eriod can be classi ied( ollowing the ty#ology created by Daniel <arbu regarding the attitudes and conduct o those who li$ed in communism( in the category of active o edience /<arbu 2CC9) 11.0% 7hey Noined the Garty( and were obedient as regards the structures o #ower or e$en coo#erated under any orm with the Golitical Golice /Securitate0( because they wanted to #ractice their #ro ession /<arbu 2CC9) 11.0% 7his way they could ma"e 6uite career( they could tra$el abroad /including &estern countries0( #ublish boo"s( ha$e better li$ing standards etc% 7hey ado#ted a Marxian-,eninist-Stalinist discourse ull o cliches with a $iew to social ad$ance and accumulation o #restige% Jence the internal struggles and the com#etition mar"ed by denunciations and com#laints to the @entral @ommittee( the Academy o Social and Golitical Sciences or e$en to the Golitical Golice( ri$alry de$elo#ed in order to gain the sym#athy o the su#erior instances o legitimacy% 7heir o##ortunism is shown also by statistics% <y the end o the year 1:?9( 92_ o the academic #ersonnel o all the le$els were members o the @ommunist Garty /<arbu 2CC9) ;?0% <y the end o the year 1:>1( ?C_ o the members o the academy( doctors o science( uni$ersity #ro essors and scienti ic researchers( were #arty members /<arbu 2CC9) ?C0% &e agree with Daniel <arbu that these could be considered morally guilty /<arbu 2CC9) 11.-1190% 7hose who engaged themsel$es to ser$e the regime orm another category o archaeologists% 'n6uestionably( these should be re#roached with a criminal guilt% /<arbu 2CC9) 1190% 7he same #eo#le #ose now as the most loyal de enders o democracy( as su##orters o the &est( using a new language F the language o the 2uro#ean integration F because this is the only #ros#ecti$e /2uro#ean #roNects( grants etc%0% During the communist #eriod( the !omanian archaeologists ha$e been accustomed to ado#t a double language% Aow they continue to #ractice an archaeology anchored in the #ositi$ist #aradigm and at the same time enthusiastically and obediently #artici#ate /with texts( #roNects or exhibitions0 in the ormulation o new myths necessary to the construction o a 2uro#ean identity /!en rew 1::9* !owlands 1::9* Glucienni" 1::8* Bul#e 1:::-2CCC) 19-1;0% 7hat is why we donIt ex#ect such #ersons to be critical o the ca#italist system !omania is cra$ing or%

..

&hat is the lesson /i any0 o ered by the exam#le o !omanian archaeologyO In a country where e$erything we li$e today is the wor" o the communist elite( \con$erted\ a ter 1:8: to democracy and liberalism /a di use mixture o authoritarian #ractices and aggressi$e liberalism0( also the archaeological ield bears the same stam#) an authoritarian centralised system intolerant with those who thin" \otherwise\( next to the so-called \re ormation\ attem#ts% 7he !omanian academic system continues to maintain5#romote the myths o \obNecti$ity\( \scientist\ or \#olitically unin$ol$ed\% 7he alleged neutrality only su##orts tacitly the ideology o those who hold the #ower% 7he su##orters o the re uge into the \i$ory tower\ o unin luenced obNecti$e science in act Nusti ies #assi$ity( cowardice and com#romise( that nourish all domination% Mrom our #oint o $iew( the archaeologists should lay em#hasis on criticism and re lexi$eness5intros#ection and gi$e u# the need or certainty /reci#es0% &e ha$e to hold debates with the other \#ro essional colleagues\ and be critical not only o oursel$es( but also o the o#erating strategies o any institution relating to archaeological #ractice directly or indirectly% Archaeology means not only exca$ations( arti acts or #ublishing \scienti ic\ wor"s% It also in$ol$es struggling or social #restige( social ascent( material ad$antages( in short F struggling or #ower% Although we are all in$ol$ed( in one orm or another( more or less( in the com#etition or earning \symbolic ca#ital\( ew archaeologists ha$e the courage to admit that( most #re erring to #resent themsel$es as doctor( uni$ersity #ro essor( academician( researcher( site manager( grant leader etc% All these micro#olicies in which those in$ol$ed ha$e something to gain or lose ha$e to undergo analyses% In conclusion( we thin" that archaeology F regarded as a long-term history may contribute to counteracting and unmas"ing those discourses generated at the to#( by which an attem#t is made at #resenting social #roNects as \natural\( \customary\( \the only #ossibility\( thus imbuing the idea that there are no alternati$es( as \this is how it should ha##en\% Our message is that archaeology is not a means o esca#ing e$eryday li e( but a means by which we might try to understand both the #ast and the #resent% It is a matter o "nowledge and sel -"nowledge% 7he archaeologists should be res#onsible rom both #oints o $iew%

.9

RE)ERENCES* Alexandrescu+ P, -../% 1?C de ani sub semnul continuitii% &*I0= 9?%1) >-1?% Andr e%escu+ I, -.-0% *ontri u+ie la Dacia Hnainte de romani( Ia=i) Institutul de Arte 4ra ice A% B% Tte niu ` @o% Andr e%escu+ I, -.1-% Asu#ra rs#Hndirii nord$estice a tracilor la Rnce#utul istoriei% in Inchinare lui :icolae Iorga cu prile8ul Hmplinirii v1rstei de 45 de ani ( @luN /o #rint0% An!elescu+ M, 0223% =rheologia /i tehnicile de management% <ucure=ti) Institutul

Aaional al Monumentelor Istorice%


An!4el nu+ M, 022--0220% De ce nu exist teorie Rn arheologia #reistoric din !omHniaO &arge+ia .C) .:-9:% An!4el nu+ M, 0221% 'volu+ia g1ndirii teoretice Hn arheologia din Rom1nia. *oncepte /i modele aplicate Hn preistorie% 7Hrgo$i=te) @etatea de Scaun% Ardeleanu+ I, -.56% Grocesele de initorii ale istoriei naionale oglindite Rn ex#oEiiile de baE ale muEeelor de istorie% Revista mu.eelor 1;%9) 12-2;% Arnold+ 7, -..5--..6% 7he #ower o the #ast) nationalism and archaeology in 2C th century 4ermany( in =rchaeology in the J5th century. Ideas-people-research( X% ,ech /ed%0% =rchaeologia !olona .;-.?) 2.>-2;.% A$ra'+ A, -..0% 4rigore 7ocilescu /18;C-1:C:0 F arheolog =i e#igra ist% &*I0= 9.%2) 1.:199% 7abe%+ M, -.53% Guncte de $edere relati$e la o istorie a Daciei #reromane% &*I0= 2;%2) 21>299% 7abe%+ M, -.58% Odobescu =i teEaurul de la Gietroasa /studiu introducti$0% In A% Odobescu( ,pere I0% <ucure=ti) ;-9C% 7abe%+ M, -.6-% Marile eta#e ale deE$oltrii arheologiei Rn !omHnia% &*I0= .2%.) .1:-..C% 7abe%+ M, -..0% Odobescu( arheologul% &*I0= 9.%2) 11:-12?% 7abe%+ M, -..3% Arheologia% in 'nciclopedia arheologiei /i istoriei vechi a Rom1niei ( $ol% I( @% Greda /ed%0) :9-::% <ucure=ti) 2ditura 2nciclo#edic% 7abe%+ M, -...% S@IBA F cinci decenii Rn sluNba arheologiei romHne% &*I0= ;C%1-2) ;-:% 7abe%+ M, 0220% Arheologia =i societatea% O #ri$ire retros#ecti$% JJ( [III( no% ?;9) 1C-11% 7a le9+ D,:, -..6% <ulgarian archaeology% Ideology( socio#olitics and the exotic% In =rchaeology under -ire. :ationalism# politics and heritage in the 'astern )editerranean and )iddle 'ast( ,ynn Mes"ell /ed%0% ,ondon-Aew 3or") 8>-11C%

.;

7a le9+ D,+ Andreescu+ R,+ T4 ssen+ L,+ Ho;ard+ A,+ Mac<l n+ M,+ Ha &=+ C, And M lls+ S, 0222% ,andsca#e archaeology o Aeolithic Southcentral !omania) aims( methods and #reliminary results o the Southern !omania Archaeological GroNect% &*I0= ;1%.-9) 1.1-1;1% 7arbu+ D, 0223% Repu lica a sent. !olitic /i societate Hn Rom1nia postcomunist % Second edition% <ucure=ti) 2ditura Aemira% 7=l=%escu+ A,+ Udrescu+ M,+ Radu+ ", And Po(o$ c + D, 0221 % =rchKo.oologie en Roumanie. *orpus de donnKes% 7Hrgo$i=te) @etatea de Scaun% 7erc u+ D, -.16% @e este #reistoriaO Revista Istoric 29%1-.) 1-.2% 7erc u+ D, -./2% Des#re a#ariia =i deE$oltarea #atriarhatului #e teritoriul !e#ublicii Go#ulare !omHne% &*I0 1%2) ;2-?9% 7erc u+ D, -./-% ,u#ta b=tina=ilor din Dacia Rm#otri$a cotro#itorilor romani% &*I0 2%2) >.-:;% 7erc u+ D, -.68% 2;CC ani de la #rima atestare istoric scris a lu#tei geto-dacilor #entru libertate% &*I0= .>%.) 1:;-1:>% 7er nde + D, 022-% Gre a% In Istoria Rom1nilor. )o/tenirea timpurilor Hndeprtate /$ol% 10( M% Getrescu-DRmbo$ia and A% Bul#e /eds%0% <ucure=ti) Academia !omHn- Secia de Ttiine Istorice =i Arheologie% 2ditura 2nciclo#edic) [BII-[[% 7o a+ L, -...% )itologia /tiin+ific a comunismului% <ucure=ti) Jumanitas% 7o a+ L, 0222% Istorie /i mit Hn con/tiin+a rom1neasc% Second edition% <ucure=ti) Jumanitas% 7o a+ L, 0220% Dou secole de mitologie na+ional% <ucure=ti) Jumanitas% 7><>n9+ S, -..1% !ecent de$elo#ments in Jungarian archaeology% =nti(uity ?>) 192-19;% 7olo'e9+ A, -.51% Aoi moduri de abordare a cercetrii #reistoriei% &*I0 29%9) ?21-?.1% 7ourd eu+ P, -.68% 'conomia unurilor sim olice% <ucure=ti) Meridiane% 7ourd eu+ P, -...% Ra+iuni practice. , teorie a ac+iunii% <ucure=ti) Meridiane% 7ourd eu+ P, 022-% 4ust artistic =i ca#ital cultural% In *ultur /i societate. De. ateri contemporane( X%@% Alexander( S% Seidman /eds%0% <ucure=ti) Institutul 2uro#ean) 1:C-1::% 7ourd eu+ P, and Delsau&+ Y, -..-% Gentru o sociologie a #erce#iei artistice% In &ociologia percep+iei artistice( D% 4heorghiu /ed%0% <ucure=ti) Meridiane) 9C-9:% 7uc4l + ", -...% =rchaeology of &ocialism% Ox ord-Aew 3or") <erg% 7uc4l + ", and Lucas+ G, ?ed,@ 022-% =rchaeologies of the contemporary past% ,ondon-Aew 3or") !outledge% Ca&alo! -651% *atalog der rumLnischen = teilung% &ien% C#rnec + M, 0222% =rtele plastice Hn Rom1nia. 23M<-23;3% <ucure=ti) Meridiane%

.?

C4 r l=+ E, -./-% MrmHntri sociale la sarmai Rn secolul IB e%n% &*I0 2%2) 18.-188% C u!udean+ H, 0222% 'neoliticul final Hn Transilvania /i AanatN cultura *o+ofeni % 7imi=oara) Mirton% Cole! ul de redacA e -.6/% Din realiErile arheologiei romHne=ti Rn e#oca socialist% Idei luminoase ale #re=edintelui Aicolae @eau=escu cu #ri$ire la im#ortana istoriei =i la inter#retarea unor as#ecte eseniale ale istoriei !omHniei% &*I0= .?%1-2) .-2:% Condurac4 + E, -.83% an$mHntul arheologiei =i istoriei $echi la 'ni$ersitatea din <ucure=ti% =nalele Oniversit+ii Aucure/ti 1.) 1.-22% Condurac4 + E, -.53% Academicianul @onstantin Daico$iciu /18:8-1:>.0% In In )emoriam *onstantini Daicoviciu( J% Daico$iciu /ed%0% @luN) Dacia% ConBer nAa -./2, @on erina #e ar a arheologilor din !e#ublica Go#ular !omHn% &*I0 1%1) 1;-22% Cuco%+ S, -...% -a.a *ucuteni A Hn .ona su carpatic a )oldovei % Giatra-Aeam) <ibliotheca Memoriae Anti6uitatis ?% Cr %an+ I,H, -.5/% Aure ista /i epoca sa% <ucure=ti) 2ditura 2nciclo#edic !omHn% Cr %an+ I,H, -.55% ,rigini% <ucure=ti) Albatros% Cur&a+ ), 022-% The )aking of &lavs. ?istory and =rchaeology of the Lower Danu e Region c. <55-P55% @ambridge) @ambridge 'ni$ersity Gress% Da co$ c u+ H, -.8/% Dacii% <ucure=ti) 2ditura Ttiini ic% Dele&an&+ D, -..6% Romania under communist rule% <ucure=ti) Mundaia Academia @i$ic% Dolu<4ano$+ P, -..1% Archaeology in the ex-'SS!) #ost-#erestroy"a #roblems% =nti(uity ?>) 1;C-1;?% Dra%o$ean+ ), ?ed,@, 022-% -estschrift fQr 9heorghe La.arovici. Rum 45. 9e urtstag % 7imi=oara) 2ditura Mirton% Du' &roa a+ G4, 0222% *omunit+i preistorice din nord-estul Rom1niei. De la cultura *ucuteni p1n Hn ron.ul mi8lociu% Giatra-Aeam) <ibliotheca Memoriae Anti6uitatis >% Ed &or al -.68% Gartidul @omunist !omHn la a ?;-a ani$ersare% &*I0= .>%2) 11>-12C% Ex(oC A a -.3.% '$po.i+iaN Re.ultatele spturilor arheologice din 23M3 Hn R!R % <ucure=ti) 2ditura Academiei !G!% E9al+ G,+ SCelDn9 + I, And To;nsle9+ E, 022-% *apitalism fr capitali/ti. :oua elit conductoare din 'uropa de 'st% <ucure=ti) Omega% Geor!escu+ ), e& all, -.6-% '$po.i+ia Dove.i ale dragostei# Hnaltei stime /i profundei pre+uiri de care se ucur pre/edintele :icolae *eau/escu /i tovar/a 'lena *eau/escu# ale

.>

amplelor rela+ii de prietenie /i cola orare dintre poporul rom1n /i popoarele altor +ri"% <ucure=ti% Geor!escu+ ", -..-% !olitic /i istorie. *a.ul comuni/tilor rom1ni# 23MM-23PP % <ucure=ti) Jumanitas% Geor!escu+ ", -..0% Istoria rom1nilor de la origini p1n Hn .ilele noastre % 7hird edition( <ucure=ti) Jumanitas% Gr !or u+ P, -.61% Manualele de istorie din secolul al [I[-lea F $eridice mrturii ale lu#tei romHnilor #entru libertate =i unitate naional% Revista mu.eelor /i monumentelor ?) .12% Gr n!'u&4-Dall'er+ E, -..1% Archaeology in the ormer 4erman Democratic !e#ublic since 1:8:% =nti(uity ?>) 1.;-192% Hodder+ I, -.60% The !resent !ast. =n introduction to anthropology for archaeologists % ,ondon) <%7% <ats ord ,td% Ioan+ A, -...% Shora. Teme /i dificult+i ale rela+iei dintre filosofie /i arhitectur % <ucure=ti) Gaideia% Ioan+ A, 0222% Ai.an+ dup Ai.an+ dup Ai.an+ >Teme ale arhitecturii Hn secolul TT. *a.ul rom1nesc@% @onstana) 2x Gonto% Is&or a Ro'#n e -.82% Istoria Rom1niei( volumul I% <ucure=ti) 2ditura Academiei !e#ublicii Go#ulare !omHne% Eossac<+ G, -.68% 4ero $% Merhart und sein a"ademischer 'nterricht in Marburg% 9edenkschrift fQr 9ero von )erhart .um 255. 9e urtstag ( )ar urger &tudien .ur 0or-und -rQhgeschichte >) 1-1?% Eossac<+ G, -..0% Grehistoric archaeology in 4ermany) its history and current situation% :orwegian =rchaeological Review 2;%2) >.-1C:% Er s& ansen+ E, -.63% Ideology and material culture) an archaeological #ers#ecti$e% In )ar$ist perspectives in archaeology( M% S#riggs /ed%0% @ambridge) @ambridge 'ni$ersity Gress) >2-1CC% Lec4+ F, -..5--..6% <etween ca#ti$ity and reedom) Golish archaeology in the 2C th century% In =rchaeology in the J5th century. Ideas-people-research( X% ,ech /ed%0% =rchaeologia !olona .;-.?) 2;-222% M 4= lescu-7Grl ba+ ", -..5% Im#act o #olitical ideas in !omanian archaeology be ore 1:8:% &tudia =nti(ua et =rchaeologica .-9) 1;>-1?C% M ller+ D, and T lle9+ C, ?eds,@% -.63% Ideology# power and prehistory% @ambridge) @ambridge 'ni$ersity Gress%

.8

M ller+ D,+ Ro;lands+ M, and T lle9+ C, ?eds,@ % -../% Domination and resistance% ,ondonAew 3or") !outledge% Mo sa+ G, 0220% Istorie /i propagand istoric Hn Rom1nia. 23M<-23;3% Oradea) 2ditura MuEeului brii @ri=urilor% Mo&Co -C4 c deanu+ I, 0221% In memoriam !adu Go#a% In In memoriam Radu !opa. Temeiuri ale civili.a+iei rom1ne/ti Hn conte$t european ( D% Marcu Istrate( A% Istrate and @% 4aiu /eds%0% <ucure=ti) Accent) 1>-22% Ne!r c + E, 0221% Literatura rom1n su comunism% <ucure=ti) 2ditura Mundaiei G!O% Nes&or+ I, -.11% Der Stand der Borgeschichts orschung in !umPnien% AerR9S 22) 11-181% Nes&or+ I, -.15% Sabia de la <oiu% &arge+ia 1) 1;;-219% Nes&or+ I, -.82% Grinci#alele realiEri ale arheologiei romHne=ti Rn anii regimului democrat#o#ular% &*I0 :%1) >-2.% Nes&or+ I, -.8/% @u #ri$ire la deE$oltarea cercetrii istoriei comunei #rimiti$e Rn !omHnia% &*I0 1?%.) 921-9.C% Nes&or+ I, -.52% Istoria societ+ii primitive% <ucure=ti) 'ni$ersitatea din <ucure=ti( Macultatea de Istorie% Nes&or+ I, -.52a% Directions de recherches dIarchSologie mSdiS$ale en !oumanie% Revue Roumaine d%?istoire :%.) 9C;-91.% Nes&or+ I, -.66% 7endine noi Rn istoriogra ia romHneasc% =rheologia )oldovei 12) 2>>-2>: / irstly #ublished in @u$Hntul I[( no% 2>8;( 2; Xanuary 1:..) 1-20% Nes&or+ I, -../% Odobescu arheolog% &*I0= 9?%.-9) 2C>-212% Nes&or+ I, and "ul(e+ A, -.5-% Metode noi Rn arheologie%In )etode noi /i pro leme de perspectiv ale cercetrii /tiin+ifice% <ucure=ti) 1.1-1.?% Neus&u(nH+ E, -..1% @Eechoslo$a"ia) the last three years% =nti(uity ?>) 12:-1.9% N culescu+ A, -..5% Inter#retarea enomenelor etnice de ctre istorici =i arheologi% Gericolele argumentaiei mixte% In In honorem emeritae Ligiae A1r.u. Timpul istoriei I# )emorie /i patrimoniu% <ucure=ti) ?.-?:% N culescu+ A, 0222% 7he material dimension o ethnicity% :ew 'urope *ollege Uear ook >233P-233;@% <ucure=ti) 2C.-2?2% N culescu+ A, 0221% Des#re arheologia originii naiunii Rn 7ratatul de istorie a romHnilor( $ol% 1-.( <ucure=ti( 2CC1% 'n#ublished #a#er #resented at the Institute o Archaeology +Basile GHr$an-( <ucharest( De#atment o Medie$al Archaeology% OberlInder-T#rno$eanu+ E, 0222% 4a$ril Simion( @titorul% In Istro-!ontica( M% Iacob( 2% OberlPnder-7Hrno$eanu and M% 7o#oleanu /eds%0% 7ulcea) [[BII-[[[BI%

.:

OberlInder-T#rno$eanu+ I, 0220% On 0iitor pentru Trecut. 9hid de un practic pentru pstrarea patrimoniului cultural% <ucure=ti) cIMe@% Odobescu+ A, -66.--.22% Le trKsor de !Ktrossa. ?istori(ue-Description. Vtude sur l%orfevrerie anti(ue% Garis% Odobescu+ A, -.8-% *ursu de archeologia. Istoria archeologiei% <ucure=ti) 2ditura Ttiini ic% Ol $ er+ L, -..6 ,IarchSologie rancaise et le regime de Bichy /1:9C-1:990% 'uropean Cournal of =rchaeology 1%2) 291-2?9% Ol $ er+ L, -..., 7he origins o Mrench archaeology% In Theory in -rench =rchaeology( @% Scarre and S% Stoddart /eds%0% =nti(uity >.) 1>?-18.% O(r %+ I, 0223% Istoricii /i &ecuritatea% <ucure=ti) 2ditura 2nciclo#edic% Pana'eJo+ R, and Nalda+ E, -.5.% Ar6ueologda) e#ara 6uiSn% :ueva =ntropologWa ./120) 111129% Paul+ I, -..0% *ultura !etre/ti% <ucure=ti) Museion% P=unescu+ A, 0221% Din istoria arheologiei rom1ne/ti pe a.a unor documente de arhiv % <ucure=ti) A4I!% P#r$an+ ", -.01% Inceputurile vie+ii romane la gurile Dunrii% <ucure=ti) bara Aoastr% P#r$an+ ", -.08% 9etica. , protoistorie a Daciei% <ucure=ti% P#r$an+ ", -./6% Dacia. *ivili.a+iile strvechi din regiunile carpato-danu iene % <ucure=ti) 2ditura Ttiini ic /7hird edition* irst time #ublished under the title Dacia. =n outline of the early civilisations of the *arpatho-Danu ian countries. @ambridge( 1:280% Pe&re+ K, -..6% Adio( scum# to$ar=f Schi de antro#ologie unerar comunist% In )iturile comunismului rom1nesc( ,% <oia /ed%0% <ucure=ti) Aemira) 2>2-289% Pe&rescu+ D, -..6% 9CC CCC s#irite creatoare) *1ntarea Rom1niei sau stalinismul naional Rn esti$al% In )iturile comunismului rom1nesc( ,% <oia /ed%0% <ucure=ti) Aemira) 2.:2;1% Pluc enn <+ M, -..6% Archaeology( archaeologists and g2uro#eI% =nti(uity >2) 81?-829% Po(o$ c + D, -...-0222% Aote #entru o $iitoare =i necesar istoriogra ie a arheologiei romHne=ti /I0% Auletinul )u.eului Teohari =ntonescu" ;-?) 1>-22% Preda+ C, -.63% De la MuEeul Aaional de Antichiti la Institutul de Arheologie% &*I0= .;%.) 222-2..% Radu+ M, -..-% Des#re #e#eni( naionalism =i comunism% =gora 9%9) 2.-2?% Rando n+ 7,+ Po(o$ c + D, And R alland+ Y, 0222% Metoda de s#tur =i Rnregistrarea datelor stratigra ice Rntr-un sit #luristrati icat) tell-ul neo-eneolitic de la JHr=o$a% *ercetri =rheologice 11%1) 1::-2.9%

9C

Ra&4Le+ :, and Mur(49+ C, 022-% Ru o AriEona Gress%

ishX The =rchaeology of 9ar age% 7ucson) 'ni$ersity

RenBre;+ C, -..3% 7he identity o 2uro#e in #rehistoric archaeology% Cournal of 'uropean =rchaeology 2%2) 1;.-1>.% Roller+ M, -./8% &tudii /i note /tiin+ifice privind istoria Rom1niei % <ucure=ti) 2ditura de Stat #entru literatur #olitic% Ro'an+ P, -.58% !omHnia% Ro'an+ P, -.6-% Morme de mani estare cultural din eneoliticul tHrEiu =i #erioada de tranEiie s#re e#oca bronEului% &*I0= .2%1) 21-92% Ro'an+ P, % ND'e& + I, -.56% *ultura Aaden Hn Rom1nia% <ucure=ti) 2ditura Academiei !e#ublicii Socialiste !omHnia% Ro;lands+ M, -..3% &hy do we need a 2uro#ean Association o ArchaeologistsO% Cournal of 'uropean =rchaeology 2%2) 1>;-1>8% Scarre+ C, -...% Archaeological 7heory in Mrance and <ritain% In Theory in -rench =rchaeology( @% Scarre and S% Stoddart /eds%0% =nti(uity >.) 1?1-1?>% Sc4 A= &e'a& c= -.52% &chi+ tematic a )u.eului :a+ional de Istorie a Rom1niei % <ucure=ti) @omitetul de Stat #entru @ultur =i Art% Sc4us&er+ C, -..5% !erioada timpurie a epocii ron.ului Hn a.inele =rge/ului /i Ialomi+ei superioare% <ucure=ti) <ibliotheca 7hracologica 2C% S4an<s+ M, and T lle9+ C, -..0 % Re-*onstructing archaeology. Theory and practice % Second edition% ,ondon-Aew 3or") !outledge% Suce$eanu+ A, 0223% 1>C de ani de arheologie Rn !omHnia% =cademica 1;%..) 2C-2;% SCD<el9+ Ks, -..5% !erioada timpurie /i Hnceputul celei mi8locii a epocii ron.ului Hn sud-estul Transilvaniei% <ucure=ti) <ibliotheca 7hracologica 21% M&eBan+ A, -.63% Grogresele arheologiei =i muEeogra iei Rn !omHnia Rn #erioada 1881-1:2>% &*I0= .;%2) 1C:-19.% M&eB=nescu+ L, -.51% MuEeul =i uncia educati$-ci$ic a istoriei% Revista mu.eelor 1C%9) .C9.C?% M&eB=nescu+ L, -.58% !elaia muEeu-=coal( actor de Rntrire a coo#errii Rn #rocesul educaiei moral-ci$ice a tineretului =colar% Revista mu.eelor 1.%1) ..-.;% Teodor+ D, G4, -..8% )e/te/ugurile la nordul Dunrii de Cos Hn secolele I0-TI d.?r. Ia=i% T lle9+ C, -.6.% Archaeology as socio-#olitical action in the #resent% In *ritical traditions in contemporary archaeology. 'ssays in the philosophy# history and socio-politics of *ultura *o+ofeni% <ucure=ti) 2ditura Academiei !e#ublicii Socialiste

91

archaeology( B% Gins"y and A% &ylie /eds%0% @ambridge-Aew 3or"-Gort @hesterMelbourne-Sydney) @ambridge 'ni$ersity Gress) 1C9-11?% T lle9+ C, 0222% Marxist archaeology% In =rchaeological method and theory. =n encyclopedia( ,% 2llis /ed%0% Aew 3or" and ,ondon) 4arland Gublishing( Inc%) .99-.9:% Toc lescu+ G, -662% Dacia Hnainte de romani% <ucure=ti) 7i#ogra ia Academiei !omHne% Tr !!er+ 7, -.6.% = ?istory of =rchaeological Thought % @ambridge) @ambridge 'ni$ersity Gress% Ursulescu+ N, -..0% Dacia Hn cadrul lumii antice% Ia=i) 2ditura 'nirea% "erder9+ E, ?-..3@ *ompromis /i re.isten+. *ultura rom1n su Jumanitas% "erder9+ E, 0221% &ocialismul. *e a fost /i ce urmea.% Ia=i) Institutul 2uro#ean% "lad+ L, 022-% Imagini ale identit+ii na+ionale. Rom1nia /i '$po.i+iile Oniversale de la !aris# 2;4P-23YP% <ucure=ti) Meridiane% "ulc=nescu+ M, -..-% Dimensiunea rom1neasc a e$isten+ei% <ucure=ti) 2ditura Mundaiei @ulturale !omHne% "ul(e+ A, -..-% Bladimir Dumitrescu /1:C2-1::10% Dacia :.&. .;) 22:-2.9% "ul(e+ A, -...-0222% Istoria% antre mit =i cutarea ade$rului Rn antichitate =i Rn #reEent% Auletinul )u.eului Teohari =ntonescu" ;-?) :-1;% "ul(e+ R, -.58% Jistoire des recherches thracologi6ues en !oumanie% Thraco-Dacica 1) 1.-;1% Kaberca+ ", -.58% Morme de colaborare Rntre muEeul de istorie =i Rntre#rinderile industriale% Din ex#eriena MuEeului de Istorie al Nudeului @ara=-Se$erin( !e=ia% Revista mu.eelor 1.%2) 1.-1?% Kub+ A, -.6/% De la istoria critic la criticism >Istoriografia rom1n la finele secolului TIT /i Hnceputul secolului TT@% <ucure=ti) 2ditura Academiei !e#ublicii Socialiste !omHnia% Kub+ A, -.6/a% Systhme et em#irisme dans lIhistoriogra#hie criti6ue roumaine% In Vtudes d%historiographie( ,% <oia /ed%0% <ucure=ti) 'ni$ersitatea <ucure=ti( Macultatea de Istorie =i MiloEo ie) 18;-1:2% Kub+ A, 0220% 0asile !1rvan. Dilemele unui istoric% Ia=i) Institutul 2uro#ean% Abre$ a& ons Agora <er!41 Agora% !e$ist trimestrial #ublicat de Moreign Golicy !esearch Institute( Ghiladel#hia% <ericht der !Zmisch-4ermanischen 1ommission des Deutschen *eau/escu ( <ucure=ti)

92

ArchPologischen Instituts( Mran" urt am Main% cIMe@ Dacia A%S% S@IB/A0 Studia Anti6ua et Archaeologica Studia Anti6ua et Archaeologica( 'ni$ersitatea +Alexandru Ioan @uEa-( Ia=i% @entrul de istorie =i memorie cultural( <ucure=ti% Dacia% !e$ue dIArchSologie et Jistoire Ancienne( Aou$elle SSrie( <ucure=ti% Studii =i cercetri de istorie $eche /=i arheologie0( <ucure=ti%

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi