Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 79 Tina Milavec Department of Archaeology Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana Some Thoughts on Archaeology and Slavs The Dark Ages The Early Middle Ages1 are notoriously viewed as a troubled, violent and unstable part of our past, squatting among the ruins of Antiquity and not yet amid the Christian light. This era of migrations, invasions, wars, epidemics and political entities rising and falling is infinitely fascinating, colourful and diverse, twisting and turning behind every corner, but since at least the 19th century its main attraction has been the per- ceived potential to explain the births of nations, arrivals of nations, deaths of nations and general sense of roots, belonging and identity. In recent decades within the archaeological and historical professions countless attempts have been made to put the Dark Ages bias into context, to see the late antique period as something more than the Gibbonian “decline and fall” and the early medi- eval one as a transformed Antiquity, not the end of civilization.2 These endeavours have certainly brought much progress to the scholarly public, specialized in the topic, but have not necessarily significantly changed the perception of the period among the general public. Many volumes have also been written on the political misuse and abuse of the past in the 20th century, especially in connection with the early medieval period. The obvious attraction of the early medieval history to any political entity in search of new identity and in the construction of a sense of superiority towards its neighbours has been pointed out and criticized. While misrepresentation of the past often centred on the non-existent ethnic con- tent projected into it, actual existing opportunities to learn from it remain untapped. In both Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages we can observe how people faced uncertainty, otherness, diversity and change. In this paper would like to explore how 1 In Slovenia, the Early Middle Ages are traditionally dated to the 7th – 10th centuries AD. 2 E.g. Pohl, 2010; Brather, 2017; exhibitions on the Byzantine world: Byzanz 2001; Byzanz 2010; Transformation of the Roman World ERC project and Brill book series; Transformations of Romanness: Pohl et al., 2018; Der Untergang des Römischen Reiches exhibition in Trier; Francia Media. The cradles of European culture project; The legacy of Charlemagne 814-2014: Gustin et al., 2015. DOI:10.4312/ars.17.2.79-89 Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 79 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 80 the period is perceived in Slovenian archaeology at present on different levels, and plead for a more justified use of it in the construction of our future. The Slavic Dark Ages In Slovenian archaeology the Early Middle Ages begin with the historically reported arrival of the Slavs and end with the beginnings of feudalism in the 11th century. For a long time, the centuries in between were filled almost exclusively with the Slavs. After a while, the remains of the Roman(ized) population were accepted into the narrative. As the number of written sources rises after the 10th century and various non-Slavic individuals’ presence in what is now Slovenia is reported in the written sources, the Middle Ages begin, and they are allowed to be “international”. But the centuries before that were uncontestably Slavic (see the titles of the pub- lications listed in Milavec, 2009), and the cemeteries, jewellery, and settlements that were found were all spoken and written about primarily as such (as late as Guštin, 2002; 2008; Brezigar et al., 2015; Lux et al., 2018). It is only recently that the expression “early medieval” has begun to substitute the ethnic term of Slavic (e.g. Pleterski, 2008; Modrijan et al., 2020; Berden et al., 2021). I must emphasize two points here. First, I am not arguing the early medieval peo- ple of present-day Slovenia were not Slavic. However, we must also continue discussing what Slav-ness, undisputed in history, means in archaeology, and whether it translates in any way to material culture. I am arguing there were others involved in our past, and that this makes it no less ours. Secondly, we must take account of the interesting discrepancy in this regard with- in the Slovenian humanities between the fields of early medieval history and archaeol- ogy. It was a historian, Bogo Grafenauer, who in 1951 remarked that simply linking archaeological material and ethnic and linguistic groups had for a long time been criti- cized (Grafenauer, 1951, 168), and it was a historian who was of the opinion that this approach was methodologically wrong and all but dead in archaeology in 2004 (Štih, 2004a, 483). In the aftermath of Slovenian independence the same historian battled against the political abuse and propagandist misuse of the Slavic part of the nation’s past, and attempted to show it for what it was (to the best of our historical knowledge) (Štih, 2004a; 2004b; 2005a; 2005b; 2006; 2007a; 2007b; 2011 and others). A little book called The Myth of Nations by Patrick Geary (2005) was translated into Slovenian and has been available since 2005. It is an essentially simple, reader-friendly and approach- able explanation of the errors of past historiography and their consequences, and a proposal for how to understand the Europe of 1,500 years ago beyond our Romantic bias with regard to the importance of nation states, yet it seems to have had zero im- pact on Slovenian archaeologists. Archaeologists often complain of the dictatorial role Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 80 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 81 of history in our interpretations, yet we might benefit from paying more attention to the progress in historians’ interpretative frameworks. While it is true that historical sources give us a context we must not be ruled by, we should also not neglect the parts which complement our work. The Early Middle Ages of present-day Slovenia through the eyes of archaeology are a closed-off, shut-out scatter of relatively poor and primi- tive communities. But for historians the region is a part of a vibrant, colourful new empire in the making. There may be another discrepancy making Slovenian early medieval archaeology so overwhelmingly Slavic. The questions of identities, ethnicities and ideological abuse among Slovenian scholars were discussed by the “theoretical archaeologists” (Mirnik Prezelj, 1998; 2000; Slapšak et al., 1996), and their critique was not integrated into teaching or interpreting basic level early medieval archaeology. Perhaps I am oversim- plifying, but equating ethnic groups and small finds, however misconstrued, sounds practical and applicative. Goths, Longobards and Slavs can appeal to an archaeologist as clear and tangible categories, easy to label and fit into the historical narrative. The complexities of the archaeological interpretation without them may seem daunting. It may well be that the persistence of this approach in Slovenian early medieval ar- chaeological publications is (at least partly) simply the consequence of a lack of a more convenient tool. However, a compelling new tool, ancient DNA (aDNA) analyses, is uncovering biological categories, another point of view for us to add and integrate into the way we think about people in the past. But the natural sciences offer no easy answers to questions we could not answer before – quite the contrary – and are extremely open to further abuse, especially due to the very high level of interdisciplinary collabora- tion necessary for a comprehensible interpretation, particularly for the general public (Geary et al., 2016). An amazing result of the aDNA analyses of whole cemeteries is the biological pattern of a community. We can find out who was the mother of whom, who could have died of a particular disease, was the community exogamous, are different grave goods reflected in the biological characteristics of people or not, the biological sex of the children and young adults, were biological families buried together or apart, and much, much more. We will still not be able to know in what terms they thought about themselves and each other, even if we know better than they did who fathered whom. Does it really matter so much whether they would have styled themselves as (only) Slavs or not? There is so much to know about the early medieval communities, yet we persistently want to force them into the categories that obsess us in the present. Per- haps that is not the most important task of archaeology, unless of course we need these categories in order to care about our past and our heritage? Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 81 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 82 Slavs, our heritage One step further from the archaeological interpretation carried out by academics is how we present our work to the public. Here we, as archaeologists, are directly re- sponsible for not repeating the mistakes we reproach the propagandists and politicians with. Yet in some relatively recent exhibition catalogues statements can be found link- ing early medieval material culture and “ancient Slovenians” (Globočnik et al., 2013, 34; Perko, 2016, 9). Even high-status Carolingian and Ottonian material culture is pre- sented as belonging to “ancient Slovenians” (Globočnik et al., 2013, 33). Even more alarming is the title of an article on the official website of the Institute of Archaeology ZRC SAZU – “Groundbreaking discoveries on the settlement of Slove- nians with artificial intelligence”3. With due respect to my colleagues, if an institution such as the Institute of Archaeology of the SAZU endorses this kind of statement, how far from the 19th century have we come? Whose ages then? We are not alone in the search for a contemporary interpretative framework which would be as easy to use on the material as the so-called “culture history paradigm”, and at the same time free of its bias. And we are not alone in trying to shake off the remains of the nationalist-oriented past. In other parts of Europe with historically reported Slavic settlements in the Early Middle Ages and/or a mainly Slavic population today, various different scenarios are under way. In Croatia, early medieval archaeology is divided between the Dalmatian (Croat) and Pannonian (Slavic) part of the country. In Dalmatia, after what is now more than a century of research into the “old Croatians” (Bilogrivić, 2019), the emphasis turned first to the Carolingians and now also to the Byzantines as important points of identity (Milošević, 2000; Džino et al., 2018; Ančić et al., 2018). The Pannonian part of the country has, similar to Slovenia, benefitted from the motorway excavations project which has seen groups of archaeologists working on early medieval settlements, pot- tery, cemeteries and physical anthropology.4 The so-called “Bijelo Brdo culture” or group has been dusted off and presented in a different context or as a fashion, linking the now Hungarian, Austrian, Croatian and Slovenian Pannonia in the 10th–12th centuries AD (Obenaus, 2010; Bilogrivić, 2019, 223, footnote 141). 3 https://iza2.zrc-sazu.si/en/novice/groundbreaking-discoveries-on-the-settlement-of-slovenians-with- artificial-intelligence (access 28. 8. 2023). Slovenians are italicized by Tina Milavec. 4 E.g. Bekić 2016; Dugonjić et al. 2020; Proceedings of International Scientific Conferences of Medieval Archaeology by the Institute of Archaeology in Zagreb, physical anthropology schools around Mario Šlaus and Mario Novak. Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 82 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 83 In Austria, early medieval archaeological research has in recent years moved along with the Vienna School of History in perceiving Carantania as a multi-ethnic polity with fluid identities, and moving away from the focus on ethnicities while at the same time criticizing and reassessing the past negative bias towards the Slavs (Eichert, 2010, 2012; Leskovar, 2016; Breibert, 2011; Novotny, 2018; Diesenberger et al., 2020). In Germany an overview of the research on the western Slavs and many of the questions outlined here were elaborated in the works of Sebastian Brather (Brather, 2008, 2011). Brather calls for a focus on other topics in the Early Middle Ages apart from ethnicities, and underlines the limited reach of archaeology in this respect. In Poland the competing theories about the autochthonous or allochthonous ori- gin of the Slavs are now taking advantage of the aDNA analyses to prove their points (Stolarek et al., 2023 with further reading). As often happens in “genetic” papers, the state-of-the art biogenetic technology is framed by outdated ideologically informed archaeological concepts and questions. But ethnicity is not a biological category. The Czech and Slovak early medievalists are concerned with Moravian and Pre- myslid ruling dynasties and principalities and their very impressive archaeology, un- contestably Slav (bibliography available by colleagues from the Institute of archaeology and Masaryk University in Brno, Institute of Archaeology in Nitra, Charles University in Prague and many others). Perhaps the national identification with the early medieval elite, equal to their western neighbours, creates a peaceful feeling of content, with only the east-west religious preferences fluctuating according to the political inclination. The once “Slavic” early medieval archaeological finds in Friuli and northern Italy are still viewed with suspicion (Possenti, 2021; Borzacconi, 2021). At the beginning I emphasized I do not intend to deny the Slav-ness of our early medieval history and archaeology. But I regret to see other parts of our past neglected. The Early Middle Ages were a time of great political and social change, especially in the territory of present-day Slovenia. Since prehistory the geography of the land, the easiest communication corridors and the position within Europe have dictated both settlement characteristics and road networks. Various climate and relief differences are reflected in the political and administrative characteristics of the lands we now call Slovenia, a bundle of small parts of larger geo-political units. This bundle may not have been joined under one rule for a very long time – a fact that seems greatly regretted by modern Slovenians – but our history and archaeology are consequently significantly richer and more colourful. Could we not be proud of this great diversity? We live in a time of great population changes and migrations. While we should certainly avoid oversimplifications and direct comparisons with the post-Roman past, we can use contemporary social diversity, the need for inclusiveness and equality to build a proportionate sense of pride in our more-than-Slavic and less-than-royal past, and to learn from it. Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 83 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 84 I would like to ask my fellow early medievalists, have they never wondered at the difference between the publications of early medieval sites and the first early medieval sources? How the skeletons and head-rings clash with the descriptions of vineyards, honey-combs, ponds, farmers, smithies and complex network of families and people from a much wider territory? Slavic and non-Slavic. Two images of the same world, seen from two different perspectives. We will never – thankfully – reach the same conclusions, historians and archaeologists, but I believe this should encourage us to research several other facets of early medieval life. Acknowledgement: The source of funding that has supported the work is Javna agencija za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost RS grant number P6-0247. References Ančić, M., Shepard, J., Vedriš, T., Imperial Spheres and the Adriatic. Byzantium, the Carolingians and the Treaty of Aachen (812), New York: Routledge 2018. Bekić, L., Rani srednji vijek između Panonije i Jadrana, Monografije i katalozi 27, Pula 2016. Berden, T. and P. Pavlin, Grobišča pri Humku v Dobovi / Cemeteries at Humek in Dobova (Slovenia), Arheološki vestnik 72, 2021, p. 187–225. Bilogrivić, G., Medieval Reality or a Modern Construct? Old Croatian Culture in Medieval Studies Between the 19th and the 21st Century, Südost-Forschungen 78, no. 1, 2019, p. 191–225. Borzacconi, A., “Cultura di Köttlach”: Contesti e rinvenimenti in Friuli Venezia Giulia. Considerazioni e prospettive di ricerca, Quaderni Friulani di Archeologia XXXI, 2021, p. 279–305. Brather, S., Archäologie der westlichen Slawen. Siedlung, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 61, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter 2008. Brather, S., Western Slavs of the Seventh to the Eleventh Century – An Archaeological Perspective, History Compass 9/6, 2011, p. 454–473, Brather, S., The archaeology of identities and alterities. Opposite perspectives for the Early Middle Ages, in: Entangled Identities and Otherness in Late Antique and Early Medieval Europe. Historical, Archaeological and Bioarchaeological Approaches (eds. López Quiroga, J, Kazanski, M, Ivanišević, V.), BAR S2852, 2017, p. 11–22. Breibert, W., Grabfunde aus Krungl in der Steiermark (Österreich) – Überlegungen zu Chronologie und Wirtschaft des Frühmittelalters im Ostalpenraum, in: Der Wandel um 1000, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 60, 2011, p. 441–452. Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 84 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 85 Brezigar, B., Josipović, D., Staroslovansko pokopališče v Šturjah (Ajdovščina), Goriški letnik (2013-2014), 2015, p. 127–149. Byzanz - das Licht aus dem Osten: Kult und Alltag im Byzantinischen Reich vom 4. bis 15. Jahrhundert: Katalog der Ausstellung im Erzbischöflichen Diözesanmuseum Paderborn, Paderborn, Mainz: P. von Zabern 2001. Byzanz: Pracht und Alltag: Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bonn. München: Hirmer 2010. Der Untergang: Der Untergang des Römischen Reiches. Der aktuelle Wissensstand aus internationaler Perspektive, Begleitband und Ausstellungskatalog zur Landesausstellung in Trier 2022. Diesenberger M., Eichert S. and K. Winckler (eds.), Der Ostalpenram im Frühmittelalter. Herrschaftsstrukturen, Raumorganisation und archäologisch-historischer Vergleich, Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 511, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 23, Wien 2020. Dugonjić, A., Rapan Papeša, A., Avari i Slaveni. Dvije strane pojasnog jezičca — Avari na sjeveru i jugu kaganata / Avars and Slavs. Two Sides of a Belt Strap End — Avars on the North and South of the Khaganate, Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis Collectanea archaeologica 5, 2020. Džino, D., Milošević, A., Vedriš, T. (eds.), Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire, Leiden: Brill 2018. Eichert, S., Die Frühmittelalterlichen Grabfunde Kärntens: die materielle Kultur Karantaniens anhand der Grabfunde vom Ende der Spätantike bis ins 11. Jahrhundert, Klagenfurt 2010. Eichert, S., Frühmittelalterliche Strukturen im Ostalpenraum: Studien zu Geschichte und Archäologie Karantaniens, Aus Forschung und Kunst 39, Klagenfurt 2012. Eichert, S., Ethnic Identity, National Consciousness and Archaeology. The Case Study of Carinthia/Austria, in: The Country Where My Heart Is. Historical Archaeologies of Nationalism and National Identity (eds. Brooks A., Mehler, N.), 2017, p. 95–118. Geary, P., Mit narodov. Srednjeveški izvor Evrope, Ljubljana, Studia humanitatis 2005. Geary, P., Veeramah, K., Mapping European Population Movement through Genomic Research, Medieval worlds 4, 2016, p. 65–78. Globočnik, D., Perko, V., Črtomirov poslednji boj: Prešernov Krst pri Savici v likovni umetnosti in Črtomirov čas v arheoloških predmetih. Kranj, Gorenjski muzej 2013. Grafenauer, B., O arheologiji in zgodovini (On archaeology and history), Zgodovinski časopis 5, 1951, p. 163–174. Gustin, M., Hall D., Schellen, E., The legacy of Charlemagne: 814-2014, Gent 2015. Guštin, M. (ed.), Zgodnji Slovani. Zgodnjesrednjeveška lončenina na obrobju vzhodnih Alp / Die frühen Slawen. Frühmittelalterliche Keramik am Rand der Ostalpen, Ljubljana 2002. Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 85 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 86 Guštin, M. (ed.), Srednji vek. Arheološke raziskave med Jadranskim morjem in Panonsko nižino / Mittelalter. Archäologische Forschungen zwischen der Adria und der Pannonischen Tiefebene, Ljubljana 2008. Leskovar, J. (ed.), Frühmittelalter in Oberösterreich. Inventare aus den archäologischen Sammlungen des Oberösterreichischen Landesmuseums, Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberosterreich 40, Lienz 2016. Lux, J., Štular, B., Zanier, K. (eds.), Slovani, naša dediščina / Our heritage, the Slavs, Vestnik 27, 2018. Milavec, T., A review of research into the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia, Arheološki vestnik 60, 2009, p. 249–270. Milošević, A. (ed.), Hrvati i Karolinzi, Split 2000. Mirnik Prezelj, I., Slovenska zgodnjesrednjeveška arheologija med preteklostjo in sedanjostjo – pogled z Zahoda / Slovene Early Medieval archaeology between the Past and Present – view from the West, Arheološki vestnik 49, 1998, p. 361–381. Mirnik Prezelj, I., Re-thinking ethnicity in archaeology / Ponovno razmišljanje o etničnosti v arheologiji, in: Slovenija in sosednje dežele med antiko in karolinško dobo. Začetki slovenske etnogeneze / Slowenien und die Nachbarländer zwischen Antike und karolingischer Epoche. Anfänge der slowenischen Ethnogenese (ed. Bratož, R.), Situla 39, 2000, p. 581–605. Modrijan, Z., Strmčnik Gulič, M., Sv. Jurij na Legnu – zgodnjesrednjeveška cerkev in grobišče, Arheološki vestnik 71, 2020, p. 283–319. Nowotny, E., Thunau am Kamp −Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld auf der Oberen Holzwiese. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 87, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 2018. Obenaus, M., Arpadenzeitliche Gräberfelder und Grabfunde des 10. bis 12. Jahrhunderts in Ostösterreich, Fundmaterialien des Burgenländischen und Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseums, Eisenstadt 2010. Perko, V., Slovani, kakšni Slovani? / Slavs, what Slavs? Gorenjski muzej, Kranj 2016. Pleterski, A. (ed.), Zgodnjesrednjeveška naselbina na Blejski Pristavi. Najdbe. / Frühmittelalterliche Siedlung Pristava in Bled. Funde, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 14, Ljubljana 2008. Pohl, W., Archaeology of Identity: introduction, in: Archaeology of Identity / Archäologie der Indentität (eds. Pohl, W., Mehofer, M.), 2010, p. 9–23. Pohl, W., Gantner, C., Grifoni, C., Pollheimer-Mohaupt, M., Transformations of Romanness: Early Medieval Regions and Identities, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG 2018. Possenti, E., Produzioni metalliche di VIII-X secolo in Veneto e Trentino-Alto Adige e loro rapporto con la cosiddetta cultura di Köttlach, Quaderni Friulani di Archeologia XXXI, 2021, p. 177–213. Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 86 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 87 Slapšak, B., Novaković, P., Is there national archaeology without nationalism? Archaeological tradition in Slovenia, in: Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe (eds. Díaz-Andreu, M., Champion, T.), University College of London Press 1996. Štih, P., Glose k novi monografiji o Karantaniji, Zgodovinski časopis 58, 3-4, 2004a, p. 467–487. Štih, P., Slowenische Geschichtsmythen und Feindbilder, Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 95, 2004b, p. 59–67. Štih, P. Nacionalizem kot zgodovinski nesporazum, in: Geary, P., Mit narodov. Srednjeveški izvori Evrope, Studia Humanitatis, Ljubljana, 2005a, p. 221–237. Štih, P., Poglavje iz nacionalizirane zgodovine ali O zgodnjesrednjeveških začetkih zgodovine Slovencev, Studia Historica Slovenica 5, 1/3, 2005b, p. 105–132. Štih, P., Miti in stereotipi v nacionalnem videnju starejše slovenske zgodovine, Nova revija 25, 293/294, 2006, p. 244–267. Štih, P., Die Nationswerdung der Slowenen und damit verknüpfte Geschichtsvorstel- lungen und Geschichtsmythen, Carinthia I, 197, 2007a, p. 365–381. Štih, P., Pledoaje za drugačen pogled na starejšo slovensko zgodovino, Nova revija 26, 307/308, 2007b, p. 194–206. Štih, P., Slovansko, alpskoslovansko ali slovensko?: o jeziku slovanskih prebivalcev prostora med Donavo in Jadranom v srednjem veku (pogled zgodovinarja), Zgodovinski časopis 65, 1/2, 2011, p. 8–51. Stolarek, I., Zenczak, M., Handschuh, L., Juras, A., Marcinkowska-Swojak, M., Spinek, A., Dębski, A., Matla, M., Kóčka-Krenz, H., Piontek, J., Figlerowicz, M., Genetic history of East-Central Europe in the first millennium CE, Genome Biology 24, 2013, 173. Štular, B., Lozić E., Belak M., Rihter J., Koch I., Modrijan Z., Magdić, A., Karl, S., Lehner, M., Gutjahr, C., Migration of Alpine Slavs and machine learning: Space-time pattern mining of an archaeological data set, PLoS ONE 17(9), 2022, e0274687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274687. Nekaj misli o arheologiji in Slovanih Ključne besede: zgodnji srednji vek, arheologija, Slovani, dediščina, nacionalizmi Zgodovina in arheologija zgodnjega srednjega veka (približno 7. do 11. stoletje n. št.) prekipevata od imen in premikanja skupin ljudi, vojskovanja, pokristjanjevanja ter propadanja in ustanavljanja vedno novih političnih enot. Evropejci 19. in 20., pa tudi 21. stoletja se obračamo nanju enkrat v želji po skupni identiteti, drugič po tistem, kar nas dela posebne, po koreninah in po občutku lastne vrednosti. Arheologiji tega ob- dobja ni pripadla le nehvaležna naloga ustvariti povezavo med nami in materialnimi Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 87 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 88 ostanki naših neposrednih prednikov; od nje se pričakuje tudi izbiranje kandidatov za nacionalne in druge simbole. Zdi se celo, da je varovanje dediščine lažje sprejemljiva naloga, če se nam ta dediščina zdi zares naša. Če smo z njo malodane genetsko pove- zani. Arheologija zgodnjega srednjega veka je zato v marsikateri državi, kjer govorimo slovanske jezike, kar arheologija Slovanov. S tem pa se odpovedujemo pisani in bogati sliki tega dela preteklosti, odpovedujemo se mnogim drugim razlogom, da bi bili po- nosni na dediščino sedaj našega prostora. Ali smo zmožni pustiti tovrstne zahteve ob strani? Smo zmožni pogledati na ob- dobje po propadu zahodnega rimskega imperija premaknjenih političnih silnic in šte- vilnih neslovanskih poudarkov tudi drugače? Smo se sposobni soočiti z omejitvami stroke pri vprašanjih identitet predmetov, prebivališč in grobov nekega obdobja? V tem prispevku za zgodnjesrednjeveško arheologijo iščem poti iz preživete službe narodu. Some Thoughts on Archaeology and Slavs Keywords: Early Middle Ages, archaeology, Slavs, heritage, nationalisms Early medieval history and archaeology (ca. 7th – 11th centuries) is bursting with mi- grating groups, warfare, Christianization, and polities rising and falling. Many 19th- and 20th-century Europeans turned to early medieval history and archaeology in a search for identity, exclusive characteristics, roots or sentiments about their intrinsic values, a process that continues today. The ascribed task of early medieval archaeol- ogy was to create an association between us and the material remains of our direct ancestors and to provide candidates for national and other symbols. Moreover, it also seems that protecting heritage is easier if the heritage is ours, and almost genetically connected with us. In many Slavic-speaking countries, early medieval archaeology be- came simply the archaeology of the Slavs. However, by doing this we renounce a rich and colourful past and many other reasons to be proud of the heritage within Slovenia. Can we leave aside such requirements and look at the period after the fall of the West- ern Roman Empire from a wider perspective, including many non-Slavic accents? Can we face the limitations of archaeology when studying the identity of objects, dwellings and graves? Can we look for a way out from the antiquated service to the nation in such efforts? O avtorici Tina Milavec je doktorirala na Univerzi v Ljubljani. Ukvarja se z arheologijo pozne antike in zgodnjega srednjega veka s poudarkom na poznoantičnih višinskih nasel- binah ter materialni kulturi, predvsem steklenih in kovinskih najdbah, ter arheologiji Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 88 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15 Tina Milavec / SoMe ThoughTS on archaeology and SlavS 89 visokogorja. Poučuje arheologijo zgodnjega srednjega veka na Oddelku za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.  E-naslov: tina.milavec@ff.uni-lj.si About the author Tina Milavec completed her graduate and postgraduate studies at the University of Ljubljana. She specializes in archaeology of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages with particular interest in late antique settlements and material culture, especially glass and metal artefacts, and the archaeology of the Alps. She teaches early medieval archaeology courses at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. E-mail: tina.milavec@ff.uni-lj.si Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 89 6. 02. 2024 13:36:15