Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917-1989: Breaking the Glass Ceiling 3030875199, 9783030875190

Citation preview

Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989 Breaking the Glass Ceiling Florin Curta Iurie Stamati

Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989 “Incisively and with erudition, Women Archaeologists under Communism examines the lives of a group of pioneering scholars whose achievements have been largely overlooked. The role of five women in establishing medieval archaeology as a discipline in Eastern Europe after 1945 is critically explored, along with their ambitions, careers, and struggles. The authors offer stimulating new perspectives on how women working within Communist regimes helped shape understanding of the human past.” —Helena Hamerow, Professor, Early Medieval Archaeology, University of Oxford, UK “The basic idea of this book is simply wonderful: a close systematic look at a number of individual women archaeologists of the Soviet period, embedded in a discussion of modern feminist and gender perspectives. The result is a fascinating interweaving of disciplinary history, personal experiences and political context, with illuminating details of the lives and careers of women professionals in Communist Eastern Europe. At the same time and going well beyond the geographical and chronological parameters of the case studies, the volume helps us to understand the formation and workings of “disciplinary culture” in archaeological disciplines, located as they are on the borderline of humanities and sciences.” —Heinrich Härke, Professor, Archaeology, Higher School of Economics University, Moscow, Russia “An exciting, unique and fundamentally innovative examination of the archaeology of the Middle Ages as seen through the biographies of five pioneering women archaeologists. The authors reveal the profound impact of the political context of Communist regimes on their careers, and indeed how the very discipline of medieval archaeology in Eastern European countries originated and developed in this context.” —Alejandra Chavarria Arnau, Professor, Medieval Archaeology, University of Padova, Italy

Florin Curta • Iurie Stamati

Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989 Breaking the Glass Ceiling

Florin Curta University of Florida Gainesville, FL, USA

Iurie Stamati Laurentian University Sudbury, ON, Canada

ISBN 978-3-030-87519-0    ISBN 978-3-030-87520-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For Daniela and Lucia

Acknowledgments

For those holding this book in their hands, these words are at the beginning. For the authors, they come at the end: the final words written after a long and exhausting attempt, lasting six years. During all that time, we strove to bring to life an idea that first emerged in discussions in a chalet at Saint-Donat on the shore of Lake La Clef (Québec province of Canada), the key to our friendship and cooperation. There are many debts, and not enough ways to say thank you. Our journey led us across many boundaries, of nation-states and academic disciplines. During the initial phase of the project, one of the authors benefitted from a two-year fellowship of the Fonds de recherche Société et culture, Québec. The other author would like to thank the participants in the annual workshop of the Department of History at the University of Florida, for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of the book. Invaluable observations and critical remarks on various chapters came from our respective spouses— Daniela Moisa (an anthropologist) and Lucia Curta (a historian). We are also indebted to Alexandra Comşa, Igor Gavritukhin, Rumiana Koleva, Ágnes Ritoók, and Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, without whom we would never have come across some of the most interesting materials for this book, including precious photographs. At different stages of this book, Hajnalka Herold, Evgenia Komatarova-Balinova, Daniela Marcu-­ Istrate, Andrei Soficaru, and Daniela Tănase read and offered feedback. Any mistakes in the text are entirely our own.

vii

Contents

Introduction  1 Chapter 1: Women in Eastern Europe, 1917–1989 11 Summary  15 Chapter 2: Archaeology Under Communism 21 Summary  26 Chapter 3: A Woman’s Place Is in Slavic Archaeology: Irina Rusanova 37 Summary  47  Chapter 4: Under the Glass Ceiling: Zhivka Văzharova and Maria Comşa 59 Summary  70 Chapter 5: Reaching Through the Glass Ceiling: Ágnes Cs. Sós and Helena Zoll-­Adamikowa 83 Summary  92

ix

x 

Contents

Chapter 6: Research Topics, Gender and Marxism105 Research Topics 105 Relations with Male Archaeologists 108 Marxism and Gender 110 Summary 116 Conclusion139 Bibliography169 Index221

List of Figures

Chapter 1: Women in Eastern Europe, 1917–1989 Fig. 1 The landscape and political map of (post-Communist) Eastern Europe: 1—Belarus (within the Soviet Union before 1991); 2—Bulgaria; 3—Hungary; 4—Moldova (within the Soviet Union before 1991); 5—Poland; 6—Romania; 7—Russia (within the Soviet Union before 1991); 8—Ukraine (within the Soviet Union before 1991)

14

 Chapter 3: A Woman’s Place Is in Slavic Archaeology: Irina Rusanova Fig. 1 Principal sites mentioned in the text Fig. 2 Irina Rusanova and the two granddaughters of Boris Timoshchuk sorting out and marking the ceramic material resulting excavations of the Subcarpathian expedition in Zbruch (near Chernivtsi, now in Ukraine), 1988. Photo by Tat’iana Timoshchuk, courtesy of Igor Gavritukhin Fig. 3 Irina Rusanova and Boris Timoschuk, on the day of their marriage ceremony in Moscow, November 3, 1981. Photo by Tat’iana Timoshchuk, courtesy of Igor Gavritukhin Fig. 4 Irina Rusanova (sitting, on the right), next to Boris Timoshchuk, and surrounded by participants in the Subcarpathian archaeological expedition of the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow at Zbruch (1987). Standing, from left to right: Vasilii Kuza, Iurii Boliavskii, Valeriia Tumanova, Marina Iagodinskaia, and Igor Gavritukhin. Photo from the archive of Iurii V. Boliavskii, courtesy of Igor Gavritukhin

38

40 45

46 xi

xii 

List of Figures

 Chapter 4: Under the Glass Ceiling: Zhivka Văzharova and Maria Comşa Fig. 1 Maria Comşa, shortly after her doctoral studies in Moscow (1957). (Source: “Colect ̦ia bibliografică Eugen şi Maria Comşa” (https://comsa.cimec.ro/, visit of January 7, 2020)) 60 Fig. 2 Principal sites mentioned in the text 61 Fig. 3 Maria Comşa in 1957 visiting the newly discovered rock-cut church at Murfatlar (near Constant ̦a, Romania), together with a group of archaeologists. From left to right: Emil Condurachi, Maria Comşa, Radu Florescu, Ion Barnea, unknown, Constantin Nicolăescu-Plopşor. (Source: “Colecti̦ a bibliografică Eugen şi Maria Comşa” (https://comsa.cimec.ro/, visit of January 7, 2020)) 68 Fig. 4 Zhivka Văzharova at the central railroad station in Sofia, to meet the Soviet delegates to the 1976 Soviet-Bulgarian archaeological meeting. Photo taken by Valerii Flerov. Courtesy of Evgeniia Komatarova-Balinova69

 Chapter 5: Reaching Through the Glass Ceiling: Ágnes Cs. Sós and Helena Zoll-­Adamikowa Fig. 1 Ágnes Cs. Sós among Hungarian archaeologists in Brno-Líšeň, Czechoslovakia, October 31, 1955. From left to right: László Barkóczi, Mária Alföldi, Ágnes Cs. Sós, Edit Thomas, Ida Kutzián, unknown, Ilona Kovrig, László Vertes. The original photograph was owned by Éva Garam and is now in the archive of the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest. Courtesy of Ágnes Ritoók 85 Fig. 2 Principal sites mentioned in the text 86 Fig. 3 Helena Zoll-Adamikowa (in the middle) surrounded by her colleagues in Igołomia, near Cracow (late 1960s), in front of the Pracownia Archeologiczne of the Institute of the History of Material Culture in Cracow. From left to right: Anna Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa, Stanisław Koziel, Kazimierz Godłowski, Jan Gurba (with glasses), Jan Machnik, Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, two unknown persons, Władysław Morawski, unknown person, Grażyna Zakrzewska, and Anna KulczuckaLeciejewiczowa. Photograph from the archive of the Institute of Archaeology in Cracow. (Courtesy of Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski)90

Chapter 6: Research Topics, Gender and Marxism Fig. 1 Principal sites mentioned in the text

106

Introduction

Ever since the late 1980s, gender has become a major problem of archaeological research. The first archaeological studies to address gender were prompted by a feminist critique of androcentrism, and, as a consequence, almost all the initial approaches were about “finding women.” This, however, referred both to women in prehistory, and to female archaeologists who had been excluded from disciplinary history. In tune with the claims of second-wave feminism, studies dedicated to women in the history of archaeology were primarily concerned with issues of equality between the sexes and operated within a paradigm defined by standpoint theories.1 Those theories were based on the idea that certain social groups have epistemic privilege because of their marginalized situation. While people in privileged situations tend to be uncritical, people placed in subjugated positions are motivated to understand the reasons of their own oppression.2 Such ideas derived directly from Marxist notions of the privileged epistemic position of the proletariat. They simply substituted women for the proletariat, as well as patriarchal societies in general for capitalism. Women seeking to advance in the discipline were struggling to break the “glass ceiling,” the invisible, yet impenetrable barrier separating them from the uppermost levels of the academic life.3 The lives and experiences of these women—the heroic predecessors of the feminists of the 1990s— needed to be retold and used as a source of inspiration. In an attempt, perhaps, to offer an alternative to the impersonal style of the androcentric © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6_1

1

2 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

archaeological literature written in a conspicuously objectifying, “scientific” language, feminist archaeologists writing about women archaeologists in the past favored biography.4 With the advent of the third-wave feminism in the early 1990s, feminists transferred their attention from issues of (in)equality to issues of difference. At stake now were historically and socially constructed differences between men and women, or among men and women of contrasting sexualities, ethnicities, and social classes.5 With gender positioned as only one social determinate among other identity markers, one of the main arguments for studying women in archaeology became to discover some of the characteristics of the disciplinary culture and the factors affecting its development. Are there any systematic patterns in women’s participation? Did women work in particular areas (Near Eastern or Egyptian archaeology, for example), or with specific topics and materials (e.g., pottery or textiles)?6 Such questions became of outmost importance because of the rapid increase in the number of women employed in archaeology, both in the United States and in Europe.7 In some European countries, such as Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia, and Norway, the majority of the workforce is currently made up of women.8 Despite such rapid demographic transformations, the topical and methodological structure of the discipline did not undergo any significant changes. More women archaeologists did not mean a greater interest in gender archaeology. In Greece, for example, the first and only international conference devoted to gender archaeology took place in Rethymno in 2005. Interest in gender in the past remains limited in Greece, Poland, Slovenia, or Romania—all countries with high numbers of women working in the field.9 This situation is commonly explained in terms of the weak relation between feminism and gender archaeology. Presumably, there can be no gender archaeology in those countries in which feminism is not a political movement. However, while dominating in the workforce, women seem to prefer certain topics of archaeological research, even in the absence of any preoccupation with gender theory. In Germany, women work primarily in the early medieval and classical archaeology. Their preferred subjects are pottery, clothes, dress accessories, and paleobotany.10 In Australian archaeology, on the other hand, women do not seem to write in ways and from perspectives different from those of men, but women have made such key contributions to regional surveys, ethnohistory, and ethnoarchaeology that without them such foci of research would not exist at all.11 The examination of citation practices in four archaeology journals—American Antiquity,

 INTRODUCTION 

3

Journal of Field Archaeology, Ancient Mesoamerica, and Southeastern Archaeology—has demonstrated that in three of them, men cite women at rates statistically similar to those at which women cite women, but that is a relatively recent trend (after 1990).12 Similarly the ratio between male and female authors in Arheološki vestnik—the main archaeology journal in Slovenia—became relatively balanced only after 1990.13 While the representation of female authors in two of the leading Polish journals of archaeology, Archaeologia Polona and Wiadomos ́ci Archeologiczne, remains considerably lower than that of men, 42.8 percent of all 1042 articles published in Sprawozdania Archeologiczne are written by women. The difference is important, for in both specialized periodicals and at conferences, women tend to prefer specialized topics and quite detailed analyses to broad generalizations, surveys of topics, and theory.14 Such contrasts suggest the existence of a disciplinary culture, with long established patterns of inequality. The most recent focus on gender in archaeology has left archaeological practices largely untouched.15 To be sure, Joan Gero’s research has highlighted the gender division of labor in the construction of the archaeological knowledge in the United States.16 More recently, on the basis of interviews with Australian archaeologists, Stephanie Moser has analyzed the professional and organizational culture of archaeology and the central role of the fieldwork in shaping both a sense of identity for the profession and the gendered (highly masculine) attributes of the professionalization. Since fieldwork is perceived as an overtly physical pursuit demanding strength and experience, as well as the ability to work under tough conditions, the archaeologist in the field is ideally a male, not a female. Since fieldwork is still viewed as fundamental for the advancement of the discipline, all topics related to the results of fieldwork are promoted and published more than others.17 But can one generalize from the experience of women in the United States and Australia? Among the most important feminist contributions to archaeology, recent studies have listed the role of hunting in human evolution, the origins of women’s oppression, ancient goddess worship, and nonbinary gender systems.18 However, the work of women archaeologists in Central, Southern, or Eastern Europe has brought contributions in areas of research that have little, or nothing to do with the feminist contributions to American, West and North European, or Australian archaeology. Nor is there any scholarly concern with specific theoretical choices that women archaeologists in Europe (or in Asia) have made when tackling the issues of interest to them.19

4 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Conspicuously rare in the literature is the attempt to gauge the experience of women in the professional and organizational culture of archaeology in Eastern Europe, particularly under the Communist regimes. If standpoint theories postulate that women are the subjugated group within patriarchal societies, it should be of scholarly concern whether such a model may apply to societies (re-)organized along Marxist principles. If the disciplinary culture is blamed for the pronounced differences between men and women in research foci, publication, promotion, and funding, then how can the leading role of women archaeologists be explained in those countries of Eastern Europe in which Communist regimes have been established after 1945? The practice of archaeology under Communism has been the object of much scholarly interest in recent years, but most studies focus on ideology and its reflection in archaeological practice.20 Little if any attention has been paid to individual archaeologists, and to the way in which they adopted and adapted Marxism to the archaeological practice, from fieldwork to interpretation. Equally neglected is the lack of any concern with gender issues in the archaeology of Communist countries.21 Finally, with a few exceptions, there are very few studies dedicated to women archaeologists.22 This is both surprising and regrettable, given the extraordinary opportunity offered by the study of women archaeologists working under the Communist regime. Because the equality between women and men was a postulate of Marxist ideology, such a study could serve as a good testing ground for some of the key tenets of third-wave feminism, especially the idea that gender inequality is rooted in disciplinary culture. Our book is meant to explore that uncharted territory through the biographies of five women archaeologists—Irina Rusanova in the Soviet Union, Zhivka Văzharova in Bulgaria, Maria Comşa in Romania, Ágnes Cs. Sós in Hungary, and Helena Zoll-Adamikowa in Poland. They were all working in medieval archaeology, with a specific focus on the (early) Slavs. The choice of specialists in medieval archaeology (and not prehistoric archaeology, for example) has much to do with the authors’ own research interests and expertise. However, as the core chapters of the study will show, there is another, much more profound reason. Despite some pioneering work in the late nineteenth century, medieval archaeology in all the five East European countries considered in this book began to develop into a serious discipline less than a century ago. The main catalyst for the sudden rise of medieval archaeology was a dramatic shift in emphasis from traditional, political, and constitutional to social and economic history. In

 INTRODUCTION 

5

all five countries, the rise of medieval archaeology thus coincides in time, and was ultimately caused by the imposition of Communist regimes. The five women were therefore true pioneers in their field, and respective countries. The structure of the book is designed to highlight those historical connections. The first chapter is dedicated to the position of women in the political discourse of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. Particular emphasis is laid upon the discrepancy between the official discourse promoting gender equality and the social reality that was far from those ideals. Equally significant is that, over time, the political discourse about the role of women in socialism changed. The second chapter shifts the emphasis onto the newly created (sub-)discipline of medieval archaeology and its (re)institutionalization. We pay special attention to the way in which Marxism penetrated (or not) the (sub-)discipline, as well as to the political and ideological significance of the research on the (early) Slavs. While in many respects in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe gender equality remained an unfulfilled ideal, there can be no doubt that under the Communist regimes in all five cases considered in this book, women gained unprecedented access to higher education, as well as to professions, which, like archaeology, had until then been restricted to men. The analysis of the biographies of the five women archaeologists specializing in medieval archaeology covers three chapters (A Woman’s Place Is in Slavic Archaeology: Irina Rusanova; Under the Glass Ceiling: Zhivka Văzharova and Maria Comşa; and Reaching Through the Glass Ceiling: Ágnes Cs. Sós and Helena Zoll-Adamikowa). Instead of five different vignettes, we have built two out of those chapters in a comparative mode, and therefore examined pairs of cases together. The guiding principles of that approach are Pierre Bourdieu’s ideas about the “scientific field.”23 While covering the lives and activity of the five women archaeologists, we will of course highlight their contributions to the study of the (early) Middle Ages in Eastern Europe. However, we will deal with their attitude toward Marxism and gender issues only in the last chapter. The conclusion will tie together all those strings of arguments to advance the idea that the way in which each one of the five women was perceived in her country among archaeologists had less to do with the ideals of the Communist society or with the disciplinary culture, and much more with the pervasive nationalism embedded in the discipline of medieval archaeology.

6 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Notes 1. Michał Pawleta, “Where do we stand? Exploring the contours of gendered archaeology,” Archaeologia Polona 44 (2006), 232. See also Laurie A. Wilkie and Katherine Howlett Hayes, “Engendered and feminist archaeologies of the recent and documented pasts,” Journal of Archaeological Research 14 (2006), no. 3, 243–64. 2. Sandra Lozana Rubio, “Gender thinking in the making: feminist epistemology and gender archaeology,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 44 (2011), no. 1, 28–29. The feminist standpoint theory is commonly associated with such works as Nancy C.  M. Hartsock, Money, Sex, and Power (New York: Longman, 1983) and “The feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism,” in Discovering Reality. Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, edited by Sandra Harding and Merrill Hintikka (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983), pp.  283–310 (republished in Nancy C.  M. Hartsock, The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays [Boulder: Westview Press, 1998], pp.  105–32); Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986); Dorothy Smith, “Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology,” in Feminism and Methodology, edited by Sandra Harding (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), pp.  84–96; and Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990). For a direct parallel between proletarians in Marxist theory and women in standpoint feminism, see Nancy C.  M. Hartsock, “Comment on Hekman’s ‘Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited’: truth or justice?” Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22 (1997), no. 2, 368. 3. The phrase “glass ceiling” was coined in 1986 by two American journalists, Carol Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt. In the 1990s, it had already become part of the everyday language, and was incorporated into the title of a United States Commission. The Glass Ceiling Commission issued the Civil Rights Acts 1991, with the mission to study the barriers and to issue recommendations for their removal. See Claire Smith and Heather Burke, “Glass ceilings, glass parasols, and Australian academic archaeology,” Australian Archaeology 62 (2006), 13. That early feminist ideas derived from Marxism is not just a matter of theory. Emma Lou Davis (1905–1988), one of the earliest women archaeologists to call herself a feminist, took her archaeology degree after an eclectic career as an artist and Communist activist. See Kelley Hays-Gilpin, “Feminist scholarship in archaeology,” in Feminist Views of the Social Sciences, edited by Christine L.  Williams (Thousand Parks: Sage, 2000), p. 94.

 INTRODUCTION 

7

4. This is particularly true for the biographical vignettes in Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994): Mary Ann Levine, “Creating their own niches: career styles among women in Americanist archaeology between the wars,” pp. 9–40; Diane L. Bolger, “Ladies of the expedition: Harriet Boyd Hawes and Edith Hall at work in Mediterranean archaeology,” pp.  41–50; Rosemary A. Joyce, “Dorothy Hughes Popenoe: Eve in an archaeological garden,” pp.  51–66; Susan J.  Bender, “Marian E.  White: pioneer in New  York archaeology,” pp.  85–95; Nancy Mary White, Rochelle A. Marrinan, and Hester A. Davis,” Early women in Southeastern archaeology: a preliminary report on ongoing research,” pp. 96–106; and Lynne P. Sullivan, “Madeline Kneberg Lewis: an original Southeastern archaeologist,” pp. 110–19. 5. Third Wave Feminism. A Critical Exploration, edited by Stacy Gillis, Gillian Howie, and Rebecca Munford, 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000). 6. Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, “Rescue and recovery. On historiographies of female archaeologists,” in Excavating Women. A History of Women in European Archaeology, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen (London/New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 43. 7. Dana N.  Bardolph, “A critical evaluation of recent gendered publishing trends in American archaeology,” American Antiquity 79 (2014), no. 3, 525–26. 8. Irena Lazar, Tina Kompare, Heleen van Londen, and Tine Schenk, “The archaeologist of the future is likely to be a woman: age and gender patterns in European archaeology,” Archaeologies 10 (2014), no. 3, 257–80, here 258. According to the authors, Poland is one of the countries in which men still dominate the discipline. This is in contradiction with the data offered by Liliana Janik and Hanna Zawadzka, “Gender politics in Polish archaeology,” in Excavating Women. A History of Women in European Archaeology, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen (London/New York: Routledge, 1998), p.  94. Between 1945 and 1980, out of 1440 archaeologists employed in Poland, 50.7 percent were women, and 49.3 percent were men. 9. For Greece, see Liv Helga Dommasnes and Sandra Monton-Subías, “European gender archaeologies in historical perspective,” European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2012), no. 3, 373. For Slovenia, see Lazar, Kompare, van Londen, and Schenk, “The archaeologist of the future,” pp. 261–65. For Romania, see Nona Palincaş, “Living for the others: gender relations in prehistoric and contemporary archaeology of Romania,” in Situating Gender in European Archaeologies, edited by Liv Helga

8 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Dommasnes, T.  Hjørungdal, Sandra Monton-Subías, M.  SánchezRomero, and Nancy Wicker (Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2010), pp. 93–116. 10. Mirial Noël Haidle and Linda R. Owen, “Ur- und Frühgeschichtlerinnen nach der Promotion: eine schützenswerte Spezies?” Ethnographisch-­ archäologische Zeitschrift 39 (1998), 563–94, here 565. 11. Sandra Bowler and Genevieve Clune, “That shadowy band: the role of women in the development of Australian archaeology,” Australian Archaeology 50 (2000), 27–35. 12. Scott R. Hutson, “Gendered citation practices in American Antiquity and other archaeology journals,” American Antiquity 67 (2002), no. 2, 331–42. Both men and women cite women less than expected given the rate at which women publish. 13. Lazar, Kompare, van Londen, and Schenk, “The archaeologist of the future,” p. 263. 14. Janik and Zawadzka, “Gender politics,” p. 100. 15. Silvia Tomášková, “Mapping a future: archaeology, feminism, and scientific practice,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14 (2007), no. 3, 280. 16. Joan Gero, “Socio-politics of archaeology and the woman at home ideology,” American Antiquity 50 (1985), 342–50; “Gender division of labor in the construction of archaeological knowledge in the United States,” in Social Construction of the Past. Representation as Power, edited by G. C. Bond and A. Gilliam (New York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 144–53. However, see the pertinent remarks of Hays-Gilpin, “Feminist scholarship,” pp. 91–92. 17. Stephanie Moser, “On disciplinary culture: archaeology as fieldwork and its gendered associations,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14 (2007), 235–63. Cheryl Classsen, “Homophobia and women archaeologists,” World Archaeology 32 (2000), no. 2, 173–79 goes as far as to claim that women did not enter the field of archaeology in great numbers until 1950 for fear of being labeled lesbians because they had to fit into the predominantly male ideal of professionalization. 18. Hays-Gilpin, “Feminist scholarship,” pp.  97–100, who noted that “it is nonarchaeologists who tend to raise” the issue of the origins of women’s oppression. 19. Hays-Gilpin, “Feminist scholarship,” p. 101: the most highly valued contributions feminism has made to archaeology is “the use of nonstandard media, presentation formats, and writing styles to present results and interpretations. These include biographical narratives and personalized accounts of the research experience, dialogue, and hypertext.” The question remains, however: are there any specifically feminist modes of interpretation (as opposed to modes of presentation)?

 INTRODUCTION 

9

20. Paul M. Barford, “Marksizm w archeologii polskiej w latach 1945–1975,” Archeologia Polski 40 (1995), 7–75; Jacek Lech, “Małowierni. Spór wokól marksizmu w archeologii polskiej lat 1945–1975,” Archeologia Polski 42 (1997), 175–228; Werner Coblenz, “Archaeology under Communist control: the German Democratic Republic, 1945–1990,” in Archaeology, Ideology, and Society. The German Experience, edited by Heinrich Härke (Frankfurt a.M./Berlin/Bern: Peter Lang, 2000), pp.  304–38; Grażyna Rutkowska, “Czy archeologia służyła ideologii PRL? Tematyka archeologiczna na łamach ‘Trybuny ludu’ w latach 1948–1970,” in Hereditatem cognoscere. Studia i szkice dedykowane Profesor Marii Mis ́kiewicz, edited by Zbigniew Kobyliński (Warsaw: Wydział nauk historycznych i społecznych Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, 2004), pp.  308–33; Alexandru Dragoman and Sorin Oant ̧ă-Marghitu, “Archaeology in Communist and post-Communist Romania,” Dacia 50 (2006), 57–76; Mircea Anghelinu, “Failed revolution: Marxism and the Romanian prehistoric archaeology between 1945 and 1989,” Archaeologia Bulgarica 11 (2007), no. 1, 1–36; Alexandru Madgearu, “The Dridu culture and the changing position of Romania among the Communist states,” Archaeologia Bulgarica 11 (2007), no. 2, 51–59; Lev S. Klein, Soviet Archaeology. Schools, Trends, and History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Eduard Krekovič and Martin Bača, “Marxism, Communism and Czechoslovak archaeology,” Anthropologie 51 (2013), no. 2, 261–70; Iurie Stamati, “Two chapters of the Sovietization of the Romanian archaeology (from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s),” Archaeologia Bulgarica 19 (2015), no. 1, 81–95. For an archaeology of (as opposed to under) Communism and its repressive regime, see Radu-Alexandru Dragoman, Materialitatea experimentului Piteşti. Eseu arheologic despre memoria represiunii şi rezistenţei în România comunista ̆ (Baia Mare: Eurotip, 2015). 21. In the subfield of medieval archaeology, all studies of gender published in East Central Europe post-date the fall of the Communist regimes: Iurii M. Lesman, “Variazhskoe nasledie v zhenskoi subkul’ture drevnei Rusi,” in Skify, khazare, slaviane, drevniaia Rus’. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaia konferenciia, posviashchennaia 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia professora Mikhaila Illarionovicha Artamonova. Sankt-Petersburg, 9–12 dekabria 1998 g. Tezisy dokladov, edited by A.  D. Stoliar (Sankt-Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 1998), pp. 158–62; Dmitrii A. Stashenkov, “Polovozrastnaia stratifikaciia novinkovskogo naseleniia (po materialam ukrashenii kostiuma),” in Kul’tury evraziiskikh stepei vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e. (iz istorii kostiuma), edited by Dmitrii A. Stashenkov, Anna F. Kochkina and Anna M. Kuznecova, vol. 2 (Samara: Samarskii oblastnyi istoriko-kraevedcheskii muzei im. P.V. Alabina, 2001), pp. 141–65; three studies by Jacek Kowalewski, Przemysław Sikora, and Arkadiusz

10 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Koperkiewicz in a collection of studies titled Kobieta, s ́mierć, męzċ zyzna, edited by Wojciech Dzieduszycki and Jacek Wrzesiński (Poznań: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, 2003), pp.  227–35, 299–306, and 307–24; Anton Distelberger, Österreichs Awarinnen. Frauen aus Gräbern des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts. (St. Pölten: Niederösterreichischer Institut für Landeskunde, 2004); Laurynas Kurila, “Socialinis statusas ir lytis: Geležies amžiaus Rytų Lietuvos socialinės organizacijos analyze,” Lietuvos archeologija 35 (2009), 153–92. All those articles have been written by men, with no contribution so far from female archaeologists making an explicit reference to gender theory. This is also true for the very few theoretical approaches to the question of gender in archaeology, such as Ioan Marian Ţ iplic, “Probleme generale ale arheologiei medievale la început de mileniu,” Studia Universitatis Cibinensis Historica. Seria Historica 3 (2006–2007), 27–45, or Pawleta, “Where do we stand?” 22. For a few exceptions pertaining to the subfield of medieval archaeology, see Igor O. Gavritukhin and Andrei M. Oblomskii, “Rusanova Irina Petrovna (1929–1998),” in Institut arkheologii, istoriia i sovremennost’. Sbornik nauchnykh biografii, edited by V. I. Guliaev (Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2000), pp.  207–10; Anna L. Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba—arkheologiia. Issledovateli slavianskoi istorii—Irina Petrovna Rusanova i Boris Anisimovich Timoshchuk,” Slavia Antiqua 41 (2000), 191–210; Totiu Totev, “D-r Ivanka Akrabova-Zhandova i preslavskata risuvana keramika,” in Ivanka Akrabova Zhandova. In memoriam, edited by Magdalina Vaklinova, Irina Shtereva, Violeta Nesheva, Pavlin Dimitrov and Mariia Manolova-Voikova (Sofia: Nacionalen Arkheologicheski Institut s Muzei, 2009), pp. 1–5; Stamati, The Slavic Dossier, pp. 168–76. 23. According to Pierre Bourdieu, “La spécificité du champ scientifique et les conditions sociales du progrès de la raison.” Sociologie et sociétés 7 (1975), 91–92, the scientific field is the stage of the struggle for the monopoly of scientific competence or authority (understood as social power).

Chapter 1: Women in Eastern Europe, 1917–1989

Marx, Engels, and Lenin were no advocates of feminism.1 However, the Bolshevik (and, after 1922, Soviet) regime launched an unprecedented campaign for the emancipation of women and their transformation into a political and economic force of the new state. One of the first measures taken by the new government was to introduce the legal equality between women and men. The Bolsheviks desacralized the institution of marriage, considerably simplified the legal procedures for divorce, and legalized abortion for the first time in history. Moreover, the legislative changes were accompanied by a sustained propaganda employing such slogans as “Let’s free women from the kitchen slavery” or the struggle against the “capitalist reminiscences” concerning the intellectual and professional abilities of women. Under the direct aegis of the party, a special institution was established in 1919, Zhenotdel, the women’s department in the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party. Its primary mission was the political mobilization of women for the building of the new social order. Although women were given a key role in the construction of the new society, they were also viewed as “retrograde” and therefore dangerous from an ideological point of view. The task of Zhenotdel was therefore to “enlighten” women politically.2 According to official statistics, the effort to draw women on the side of socialism was a complete success. By the mid-1980s, women made up 33 percent of the members in the Supreme

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6_2

11

12 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Soviet of the Soviet Union, 36 percent of the Supreme Soviets in the Soviet republics, 40 percent in those of the Bashkir and Tatar autonomous republics, and 50 percent of the members of local soviets. However, such numbers do not mean much in terms of the Soviet women’s participation in the decision-making process. Their membership in those legislative bodies was rather decorative, since members in the supreme soviets were appointed, not elected. Both male and female members of the soviets were expected to approve decisions handed to them by the superior echelons of the party. The number of female members of the real decision-making bodies, such as the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (politburo) or the Council of Ministers remained small throughout the history of the Soviet Union. For example, women never represented more than 1.9 percent of the members of the politburo.3 As a matter of fact, equality between women and men never became a reality of the socialist society. What the Soviet project managed to do was simply to turn women into an important labor resource, for more than half of those employed in the Soviet economy were women.4 Even in economy (both industry and agriculture), women occupied most of the lower and worst paid positions.5 The situation in the academe is a somewhat different matter. On one hand, the Bolshevik government launched a vast program of eliminating illiteracy, especially among women. Quotas were established for women in professional schools affiliated with specific factories, but also in institutions of higher education. Such quotas varied between 25 and 60 percent of all students.6 A special institution was also created inside the Academy of Sciences entirely dedicated to women’s studies—the Museum for Women’s Study.7 Official statistics painted a rosy picture in this respect as well. While in 1926 the rate of literacy among Soviet women reached only 42 percent, female illiteracy had been completely eradicated only five years later. Just before World War II, women made up 43 percent of all students in Soviet schools of various kinds. Even if one treats official statistics with a grain of salt, a radical transformation has most certainly taken place under the Soviet regime in terms of women’s access to education. For the first time in history, women in that part of the world had the right, and were encouraged to seek education, including that at the highest level possible. By the late 1980s, women made up 55 percent of all students at institutions of higher education.8 However, much like in economy, women in the academe occupied positions of secondary importance, often under directors or research

  CHAPTER 1: WOMEN IN EASTERN EUROPE, 1917–1989 

13

directors who were men.9 Tedious tasks ranging from typing to compiling and (lab) data recording were more often assigned to women, who tended to remain longer than men in positions associated with such tasks. Equally significant is the rate of delays among women finishing and defending dissertations: while the rate for men was 40 percent, that for women never moved higher than 26 percent.10 By the late 1980s, women represented 34.4 percent of all those who held the first postgraduate degree (Candidate of Sciences), 14.9 percent of those with a doctoral degree (Doctor of Sciences), but only 1.6 percent of the full or corresponding members of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.11 Despite local variations, the situation of women in other socialist countries was not different from that in the Soviet Union (Fig. 1). More often than not, the official discourse about women’s rights was simply an imitation of the Soviet rhetoric on that matter, and the corresponding legislation a mere translation of the Soviet laws.12 Much like in the USSR, one of the first measures taken by the pro-Soviet governments established after the war in East Central and Southeastern Europe was to introduce laws establishing the equality between women and men. As in the Soviet Union, the access of women to the higher echelons of the ruling parties in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, or Hungary remained difficult. However, women quickly became a key component of the labor force in each one of those countries, much like in the USSR.13 However, women were never given the same positions of leadership and decision-making that men had, a situation symmetrically similar to that in the Soviet Union.14 There are also strong (although perhaps not surprising) similarities in respect to the access of women to education and position in the academe. After the establishment of the Communist regimes in the satellite countries, the number of women in universities began to grow rapidly, and soon surpassed that of male students. However, more well-paid and important positions in the academic system were taken by men than by women. The higher one goes in the academic hierarchy, the smaller the number of women.15 For example, during the late 1980s, about 55 percent of all students in institutions of higher education in Bulgaria were women. Meanwhile, however, no more than 22 percent of all associate professors were women, and only 9 percent of the full professors.16 Most scholars explain this situation in terms of the survival of deeply entrenched, patriarchal attitudes toward women through the dramatic changes brought by the implementation of the socialist society. Despite the radical changes in society and the promises of the new regimes to

14 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Fig. 1  The landscape and political map of (post-Communist) Eastern Europe: 1—Belarus (within the Soviet Union before 1991); 2—Bulgaria; 3—Hungary; 4—Moldova (within the Soviet Union before 1991); 5—Poland; 6—Romania; 7—Russia (within the Soviet Union before 1991); 8—Ukraine (within the Soviet Union before 1991)

condemn to oblivion the “old order,” women continued to be regarded primarily as wives and mothers. This was supposedly reinforced by the family traditions in which girls were educated to become future wives and mothers.17 Such traditions were transferred to school curricula. Although most subject matters were taught with no gender distinctions whatsoever, during vocational training classes in which the emphasis was placed on acquiring skills for future professions, boys were introduced to such “male” occupations as carpenter or locksmith, while girls were taught

  CHAPTER 1: WOMEN IN EASTERN EUROPE, 1917–1989 

15

cooking, knitting, and sewing.18 In reality, such attitudes were entrenched in state policies as well. Despite the declared equality between women and men, the former had increasingly additional roles and obligations in the face of the law. Besides being an important component of the labor force, women were gradually assigned reproductive tasks, as they were made responsible for producing the future citizens of the socialist society. It has long been noted that soon after the establishment of the Communist regimes in East Central and Southeastern Europe, women were increasingly regarded as mother-workers. Historians have pointed out that, side by side with the official discourse about the public role of Soviet women, after 1930 they were also increasingly assigned roles in the domestic sphere, with the accompanying subordination to men. The change is epitomized by such slogans as “Women are the support of men and families!”19 Between old traditions and new laws, women rapidly found themselves in a particularly disadvantageous position in relation to men. The beginning of their academic careers often coincided with the years of their lives in which they were expected to give birth.20 To have access to really important positions of leadership often implied geographic and administrative mobility, especially the ability to switch from expertise in agriculture to some industrial sector, or vice versa, as well as participation in multiple activities (especially business or political meetings) covering extra-hours beyond the workload. Participation in such meetings also implied the ability to cope with an almost exclusively male participation, as well as with socializing events in which alcohol consumption, often in abundance, was to be expected.21 In party political structure, in economy, or in the academe, women were constantly confronted with prejudice and stereotypes regarding their intellectual (especially their skills for career in science) or leadership abilities. Many women were therefore inclined to doubt that they would ever have a chance to succeed in their careers or to occupy decision-making positions.22 Much like in the contemporary “West,” the glass ceiling appeared to be much too resistant to be broken simply through the implementation of a socialist society.

Summary Since the fall of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, 32 years ago, many assumptions about the social position, economic role, and political participation of women in the Soviet Union and the satellite countries

16 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

have been questioned; there are very few controversies or ambiguities about what is certain in this regard. Despite the creation of a number of legal instruments and institutions meant to ensure the equality of men and women in the new regime, women were often kept at a distance from the decision-making process. They were often paid lower salaries and be given positions lower than those of men. However, truly dramatic changes took place in education, with female illiteracy being eliminated relatively soon after the establishment of the Communist regimes. Women gained unprecedented access to education, but, much like in economy, they could rarely reach to positions of directors and directors of research. The number of female members in national academies of sciences remained very low, and few full professors in institutions of higher education were women. On the other hand, women were gradually assigned reproductive tasks with roles in the domestic sphere subordinated to men. Whatever the large-scale consequences of the radical changes in society and the promises of the new regimes, equality between women and men never became a reality of the socialist society.

Notes 1. All three have been very critical of, and even mocked the early feminist movement, especially the suffragettes. See N. L. Pushkareva, “‘Zhenskii’ vopros v teorii marksizma (pochemu brak marksizma s feminizmom okazalsia neschastlivym?),” Zhenshchiny v rossiiskom obshchestve (2002), no. 1, 2–13. According to Susan Himmelweit, “Reproduction and the materialist conception of history: a feminist critique,” in The Cambridge Companion to Marx, edited by Terrell Carver (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 210, Marx was far less progressive in his thinking with respect to women than Engels. Meanwhile, Heather H. Brown, Marx on Gender and the Family. A Critical Study (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012) still wants to salvage Marx for feminism, but there is no mention in her book either of suffragettes or of women’s right to vote. 2. E.  A. Zdravomyslova and A.  A. Temkina, “Gosudarstvennoe konstruirovanie gendera v Sovetskom obshchestve, ” Zhurnal issledovanii social’noi politiki 1 (2003), nos. 3–4, 307–10. For Zhenotdel, see also Mary Buckley, Women and Ideology in the Soviet Union (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1989), pp. 65–69. 3. E.  V. Kochkina, “Politicheskaia sistema preimushchestv dlia grazhdan muzhskogo pola v Rossii, 1917–2002 gg.,” in Gendernaia rekonstrukciia politicheskikh sistem, edited by N.M. Stepanova, and M.M.  Kirichenko, E.V. Kochkina (St. Petersburg : ISPG-Aleteia, 2003), pp. 479–88.

  CHAPTER 1: WOMEN IN EASTERN EUROPE, 1917–1989 

17

4. Luciana M. Jinga, Gen și reprezentare în România comunista ̆ 1944–1989. Femeile în cadrul Partidului Comunist Român (Bucharest: Politom, 2015), p. 176. The participation of women in the labor force, however, was to be limited by their supposedly innate physical and psychological capacities. See Wendy Goldman, Women, the State, and Revolution. Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917–1936 (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Diane Koenker, “Men against women on the shop floor in early Soviet Russia: gender and class in the socialist workplace,” American Historical Review 100 (1995), no. 5, 1438–64; Melanie Ilic, Women Workers in the Soviet Interwar Economy. From “Protection” to “Equality” (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999); Amy Randall, “Legitimizing Soviet trade: gender and feminization of the retail workforce in the Soviet 1930s,” Journal of Social History 37 (2004), 965–90. 5. As late as 1989, the average monthly wages of better-educated white-collar women in the non-private spheres of the economy in Hungary were below those of blue-collar men. See Julia Szalai, “Some aspects of the changing situation of women in Hungary,” Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 17 (1991), no. 1, 159–60 with table 3. 6. N.  I. Pushkareva, “Zhenshchiny v sovetskoi nauke 1917–1980-e gg.,” Voprosy istorii (2011), no. 11, 92–102; O. A. Khazbulatova, “Zhenshchiny i obrazovanie v Rossii: istoricheskii obzor (1860–2000),” Zhenshchiny v rossiiskom obshchestve (2003), nos. 1–2, 31–35. 7. Pushkareva, “Zhenshchiny,” p. 93. 8. Pushkareva, “Zhenshchiny,” pp. 92–102. 9. Although women were already present in the academic life of the Soviet Union between 1920 and 1940, their number increased rapidly after the war. This had nothing to do with state policies meant to encourage women to apply for positions in the academe, but was a direct consequence of the dramatic losses inflicted upon the male population during the war. See N. I. Pushkareva, “’Akademiki v chepce?’ Istoriia diskriminacionnykh praktik v otnoshenii rossiiskikh zhenshchin-uchenykh,” Zhenshchina plius 1 (2004), available at http://www.owl.ru/win/womplus/2004/01_11. htm (visit of January 7, 2020). 10. Pushkareva, “Zhenshchiny,” pp. 7–8. 11. Vitalina Koval, “Soviet women in science,” in Women in Science, Token Women or Gender Equality?, edited by Veronica Stolte-Heiskanen, and Feride Acar, Nora Ananieva, and Dorothea Gaudart (Oxford/New York: BERG, 1991), p. 127. 12. A. Luleva, “Konstruirovanie gendera v bolgarskom socialisticheskom proekte: zhenskii vopros,” Zhenshchina v rosiiskom obshchestve (2008), no. 1, 3–24; Elena Ananieva and Evka Razvigorova, “Women in state ­administration in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria,” Women & Politics 11 (1991), no. 4, 31–32.

18 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

13. In 1974, for example, women represented 45.2 percent of the total labor force in Romania. The percentage was much higher in certain sectors—63.3 percent of those employed in education, culture, and the arts, 72 percent of those employed in public health and social services, and 75.7 percent of those employed in the textile industry. Similarly, women represented in the 1980s 92 percent of the labor force in hospitals and medical facilities in Hungary, 85 percent among draftspersons, 71 percent among clerical employees, and 72 percent among teachers. By contrast, among all managers of firms in the socialist sector in Hungary, only 3.6 percent were women. See Ivan Volgyes, “Blue-collar working women and poverty in Hungary,” in Women, State, and Party in Eastern Europe, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Alfred G. Meyer (Durham: Duke University Press, 1985), pp. 222–23; Jill Massino, “Workers under construction: gender, identity, and women’s experiences of work in state socialist Romania,” in Gender Politics and Everyday Life in State Socialist Eastern and Central Europe, edited by Shana Penn and Jill Massino (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 21. 14. Jinga, Gen și reprezentare, pp. 181–296; Sharon L. Wolchik, “Women and the politics of gender in Communist and post-Communist Central and Eastern Europe,” in Eastern Europe. Politics, Culture, and Society since 1939, edited by Sabina P.  Ramet (Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998), pp. 285–93. 15. Ágnes Haraszthy, “Equal opportunities for women? Women in science in Hungary,” in Women in Science, Token Women or Gender Equality?, edited by Veronica Stolte-Heiskanen, and Feride Acar, Nora Ananieva, Dorothea Gaudart (Oxford/New York, BERG 1991), pp.  195–97; Małgorzata Fuszara and Beata Grudzińska, “Women in Polish academe,” in The Gender Gap in Higher Education, edited by Suzanne Stiver Lie, and Lynda Malik, Duncan Harris (London/Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994), pp. 143–46; Renata Siemieńska, “Women in academe in Poland: winners among losers,” Higher Education in Europe 25 (2000), no. 2, 163–65. 16. Nicolina Sretenova, “The nation’s showcase: Bulgarian academic women, between the Scylla of totalitarianism and the Charybdis of change,” in The Gender Gap in Higher Education, edited by Suzanne Stiver Lie, and Lynda Malik, Duncan Harris (World Yearbook of Education 1994)(London/ Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994), pp. 37–43. 17. Pushkareva, “Zhenshchiny,” pp. 92–102. See also Elizabeth Waters, “The modernization of Russian motherhood, 1917–1937,” Soviet Studies 1 (1992), 123–35; David L. Hoffman, “Mothers in the motherland: Stalinist pronatalism in its pan-European context,” Journal of Social History 34 (2000), no. 1, 35–54; E.  Thomas Ewing, “Maternity and modernity: Soviet women teachers and the contradictions of Stalinism,” Women’s History Review 19 (2010), no. 3, 451–77.

  CHAPTER 1: WOMEN IN EASTERN EUROPE, 1917–1989 

19

18. Rózsa Kulcsár, “The socioeconomic conditions of women in Hungary,” in Women, State, and Party in Eastern Europe, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Alfred G.  Meyer (Durhma: Duke University Press, 1985), p.  201; Jinga, Gen și reprezentare, p. 227. 19. Luleva, “Konstruirovanie,” pp.  3–24; O.  A. Khazbulatova, “Dvizhenie zhenshchin-obshchestvenic v 1930-e gody kak tekhnologiia gosudarstvennoi politiki po vovlecheniiu domashnikh khoziaek v obshchestvennoe proizvodstvo,” Zhenshchiny v rossiiskom obshchestve (2004), nos. 1–2, 43–56; Galia Chimiak, “Bulgarian and Polish women in the public sphere,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 5 (2003), 5–6; Zdravomyslova and Temkina, “Gosudarstvennoe konstruirovanie,” pp.  308–14. One of the most interesting cases in this respect is Poland during the years following Stalin’s death, at a time of increasing political autonomy in relation to the Soviet Union, as well as of revival of the Catholic traditions. During that period, the political discourse of the first years of the Communist regime, which had emphasized the equality of women and men, was condemned for having contributed to a moral degradation of the incipient socialist society. The emancipation of women through their access to the public sphere, the labor market, and the political life of the country was regarded as unnatural. The official discourse of the Communist regime therefore insisted now upon the exclusively reproductive and domestic roles of Polish women. See Joanna Z. Mishtal, “How the Church became the State: the Catholic regime and reproductive rights in state socialist Poland,” in Gender Politics and Everyday Life in State Socialist Eastern and Central Europe, edited by Shana Penn and Jill Massino (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), pp. 133–49, here 137–42; Małgorzata Fidelis, Women, Communism, and Industrialization in Postwar Poland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 170–203. 20. Pushkareva, “‘Akademiki v chepce?’”; Koval, “Soviet women”, pp. 123–24; Sarunas Milisauskas, “Historical observations on archaeology in the Polish People’s Republic, 1945–1989,” in Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny (Cham: Springer, 2016), p. 134. It is important to note that such changes coincide in time with the introduction of natalist policies and the abolition of abortion—1936  in the Soviet Union, 1967  in Romania, 1968 in Bulgaria. Abortion became illegal in Poland only after the fall of Communism, while in Hungary no attempt was made to abolish abortion after its legalization under the Communist regime in 1953. The attempts to tighten the abortion laws in 1975 were fiercely opposed by what has been dubbed as the “proto-feminist” movement in Hungary, one of the leading figures of which was Júlia Rajk. See Andrea Pető, “Stories of women’s lives: feminist genealogies in Hungary,” in Gender Relations in South

20 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Eastern Europe. Historical Perspectives on Womanhood and Manhood in 19th and 20th Century, edited by Slobodan Naumović and Miroslav Jovanović (Münster: Lit, 2004), p. 218. For the contrast between demographic policies in Hungary and Romania, see Robert J.  McIntyre, “Demographic policy and sexual equality: value conflicts and policy appraisal in Hungary and Romania,” in Women, State, and Party in Eastern Europe, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Alfred G. Meyer (Durham: Duke University Press, 1985), pp. 270–85. 21. Most leadership positions were reserved for those who had already been in such positions either in agriculture or in industry. Most women in party structures had been trained in education, humanities, or social sciences. As a consequence, women were often perceived as incapable of dealing with the “real world out there,” which was supposedly too harsh or too cruel for them. See Kochkina, “Predstavitel’stvo zhenshchin.” 22. Jinga, Gen și reprezentare, p. 146; Pushkareva, “Zhenshchiny,” pp. 92–102; Nora Ananieva, “Women and science in Bulgaria: the long hurdle-race,” in Women in Science, Token Women or Gender Equality?, edited by Veronica Stolte-Heiskanen, and Feride Acar, Nora Ananieva, Dorothea Gaudart, (Oxford/New York, BERG 1991). pp. 109–14; Haraszthy, “Equal opportunities,” pp. 193–98.

Chapter 2: Archaeology Under Communism

From the very beginning of Soviet power, archaeology was perceived as an academic discipline with great political and ideological potential. That is why the archaeological practice and thought received much attention, in the form of a legislative framework, as well as generous funding for research in archaeology. The need to control that research results clearly from the early efforts at institutional centralization. There were several centers of archaeological research in pre-Bolshevik Russia—the Society for History and Antiquities in Odessa, the Imperial Archaeological Commission in St. Petersburg, and the Imperial Archaeology Society in Moscow. Shortly after the Bolshevik takeover, the Academy for the History of Material Culture was created in Petrograd, with a branch in Moscow.1 In 1937, the Academy was reorganized as an Institute for the History of Material Culture, which was then placed under the Academy of Sciences. Six years later, its headquarters were moved from Leningrad to Moscow, and in 1959 the name was changed again to the Institute of Archaeology. This was meant to be the institute supervising archaeological research throughout the Soviet Union. However, several other institutions, such as regional museums, were also in charge with archaeological research. Each Soviet republic in fact had at least one central institution of archaeological research, either a museum or an institute of archaeology (or at least an archaeology department in some other institute).2 The political and ideological potential of archaeology and the generous government funding were replicated after World War II in all satellite © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6_3

21

22 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

countries occupied by Soviet troops or in which Communist regimes were established with Soviet support. Much like in the Soviet Union, archaeological research was organized centrally.3 In Bulgaria, the two institutions of archaeological research created before 1945—the National Museum of Archaeology and the Bulgarian Archaeological Society—were merged into a National Institute of Archaeology with Museum, which was, much like in the Soviet Union, integrated into the Academy of Sciences.4 In Hungary, a group of archaeological research formed after the war was similarly turned into the Institute of Archaeology under the Academy of Sciences. However, the National Hungarian Museum established in 1802 remained a separate, albeit drastically reorganized institution. Archaeological research in Hungary was not coordinated and supervised by any of those two institutions, but by the Archaeological Commission of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.5 Ever since the late 1940s, the archaeological research in Romania was under the control of the Institute of History and Philosophy of the Romanian Academy. The National Museum of Antiquities, established in 1834, was incorporated into that institute in the mid-1950s, soon to be turned into a separate Institute of Archaeology. However, much like in Hungary, the archaeological research was not entirely under the control of the Institute in Bucharest, for two other Institutes of History and Archaeology were created in Cluj (1949) and Iaşi (1964).6 Poland was the only satellite country that, like the Soviet Union, had an Institute for the History of Material Culture.7 Communist regimes in all satellite countries encouraged the activity of regional museums, which they regarded as centers of government propaganda. Such museums had been established, in many cases, before 1945 and already had sections of archaeology dedicated to the research of local sites. Moreover, departments of history in some universities also ran campaigns of archaeological excavations.8 The institutional Sovietization also involved the creation of a shared informational space, the primary purpose of which was to implement thoroughly in each satellite country the theoretical and ideological tenets of Soviet archaeology inspired by Marxism. Equally important was the promotion of certain research themes, particularly the history of the Slavs. Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, and Hungarian archaeologists were thus invited to draw inspiration from the works of Soviet archaeologists, since the Soviet school of archaeology was regarded as the most progressive in the world. That is the reason for which young archaeologists from satellite countries were sent to study in the USSR.  Soviet archaeologists and

  CHAPTER 2: ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER COMMUNISM 

23

historians in turn paid “friendly visits” to “sister Communist countries,” thus contributing to the consolidation of their ties to the Soviet Union. By the late 1950s, contacts with Soviet archaeologists and historians were the only form of international cooperation in which archaeologists in satellite countries were allowed to engage.9 The earliest efforts toward the introduction of a thoroughly Marxist approach into Soviet archaeology may be dated to the mid-1920s and are associated to young archaeologists trained at the Marxist schools in Moscow. Convinced that they would be able to turn archaeology into a Marxist science, they promoted the so-called “ascension method.” On the basis of that method, they hoped to use archaeological remains, particularly tools and “means of production,” to reconstruct the modes of production and the social and economic formations about which Marx had written. In the early 1930s, however, the young Muscovites lost ground to archaeologists from Leningrad who promoted the stadial theory, inspired by the works of the linguist Nikolai Marr.10 Particularly influential was Marr’s idea that as a consequence of radical transformations, a language could go through “dialectical leaps” or revolutions, and turn into a completely different language, at the same time as the associated social and economic formation changed as well. The archaeological variant of that theory maintained that with the change in mode of production came not only a change in material culture, but also in ethnic identity. This was the basis for a thorough critique of diffusionist and migrationist ideas used at that same time in Western Europe for explaining changes in material culture.11 By the mid-1930s, but especially after the war, the abandonment of the idea of a world revolution and the adoption of an increasingly nationalist discourse led to a gradual shift in emphasis from social to ethnic topics. As a consequence, the stadial theory was abandoned when Stalin repudiated Marrism in 1950.12 After Stalin’s death, Nikita Khrushchev condemned his perversion of Marxist-Leninist ideals and insisted upon the restoration of the “true” Marxist doctrine. To archaeologists, that meant a return to social and economic topics of research. Despite the apparent revival of Marxist tenets, however, no attempt was made to turn archaeology into a Marxist science, as in the 1920s. In the 1950s, Marxism in Soviet archaeology consisted of little more than obligatory citations from Marx, Engels, and Lenin, often with no connection whatsoever to one’s subject or the methodology employed in one’s work.13 Meanwhile, however, the research agenda in satellite countries was tied to the new cultural policies promoted by the

24 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Communist regimes and to the predominantly Marxist philosophy, which had inspired them. For example, the conclusion of the First Congress of Yugoslav archaeologists (1950) was that “archaeology as a social-historic discipline has to be directed into research of material and spiritual culture entirely on the basis of historical materialism.”14 Economic and social issues were to be preferred to any of the traditional topics of historical inquiry, especially political and church history.15 In reality, in the satellite countries, with the notable exception of Poland, Marxism was also treated superficially. In order to publish in the late 1940s and early 1950s, archaeologists had to cite the “classics of Marxism-Leninism,” but much like in the Soviet Union, citations rarely had anything to do with the topic or the methodology of research.16 Most, if not all, archaeologists were actually quite skeptical about the new theoretical orientation. In Romania, at least, archaeologists even expressed, albeit privately, anti-Soviet or even anti-­ Russian sentiments, for they had been educated before the war and had embraced nationalist and anti-Soviet ideas. To be sure, there were attempts in the late 1940s to implement Marr’s ideas in satellite countries, but before anything could be seriously done in that direction, Stalin condemned Marrism, while “old-school” archaeologists felt vindicated in their skepticism.17 Ten years later, even the obligatory citations from the “classics of Marxism-Leninism” began to fade away, as ethnicity became the main topic of research in the satellite countries. Recent studies have shown that the cultural-historical paradigm adopted before the war was never abandoned in those countries, not even at the time of the greatest pressure to turn archaeology into a Marxist science. The true impact of Marxism on archaeology has been a matter of recent debate, especially in Poland and Romania. In both cases, the conclusion seems to be that, far from causing a paradigm change, Marxism remained a superficial phenomenon in both archaeological interpretation and archaeological practice.18 The earliest excavations on sites dated to the Middle Ages were carried out in Russia in the nineteenth century. Slavic archaeology emerged as a special, separate discipline in the context of Russian pan-Slavism and nationalism, as the first archaeologists interested in the medieval period began searching for the remains of medieval Russians and early Slavs.19 The political and social turmoil of the early twentieth century—World War I, the Bolshevik revolution, and the civil war—slowed down the development of Slavic archaeology and prevented its institutionalization. The anti-nationalist ideology of the Bolshevik regime further contributed to

  CHAPTER 2: ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER COMMUNISM 

25

the isolation of the subdiscipline, as Slavic archaeology was perceived as supporting and promoting Russian nationalist claims that had been largely responsible for the backwardness of non-Slavic peoples in the Russian Empire. Similarly, Pan-Slavism was now condemned as the ideology of Russian imperialism. Those were primarily the reasons for which the study of Russian and Slavic history, languages, ethnography, and archaeology was pushed aside, and those who still manifested interest in such endeavors were branded as chauvinists.20 Things changed radically in the mid-1930s together with Stalin’s rehabilitation of the Russian nationalist discourse in response to Nazi propaganda and ideas about the cultural and political inferiority of Slavic peoples. Suddenly, the ethnogenesis of the Slavs (particularly that of the Eastern Slavs), the identification of their Urheimat and their lifestyle, as well as the rise of towns and of the medieval state in Rus’ became hot issues for the Soviet propaganda. Soviet historians and archaeologists were now prompted to concentrate their research on those topics. The revival of Slavic studies continued after World War II, when it took on new ideological dimensions.21 Most importantly, the discovery of Slavic remains in territories recently occupied by the Red Army in East Central and Southeastern Europe played a major role in the ideological justification of that occupation and the promotion of the Soviet myth of friendship between all socialist countries. Medieval and especially Slavic archaeology remained key components of the Soviet discourse despite the fact that, shortly after Stalin’s death in 1953, its ideological manipulation diminished considerably. In most satellite countries, medieval archaeology, especially the study of the Slavs, emerged only after World War II. The Communist regimes that had just been established with Soviet support required archaeologists to redirect their efforts toward the study of Slavic material culture. Such an insistence upon what had not until then been a topic of scholarly interest is often interpreted as an attempt to please the Soviets, but in some cases it also responded to local problems. For example, in Yugoslavia, an emphasis on the (early) Slavic past was meant to consolidate the unity of the six republics in the federation.22 In Poland, the Slavic theme served a different purpose, as it was associated with a very strong anti-German sentiment combined with the desire to justify the occupation, after World War II, of territories that had until then been German. Anti-German feelings were in fact the main reason for launching in the late 1940s a grandiose program of archaeological research dedicated entirely to the rise of the Polish state

26 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

and its Christianization, both regarded as major blocks against German expansion.23 The celebration in 1966 of the millennial anniversary of the Polish state prompted more research programs and greatly contributed to the professionalization of medieval archaeology in Poland.24 In Bulgaria, Slavic archaeology served yet another purpose. Before World War II, many Bulgarian historians had denied the participation of Slavs in the Bulgarian ethnogenesis. The development of Slavic archaeology was meant to counter that tendency and to prove, once and for all, that Bulgarians were Slavs and friends with the Soviet Union. Much like in Poland, the anniversary in 1981 of 1300 years of Bulgarian statehood caused large state investments in archaeological research and a flurry of publications dedicated to medieval archaeology.25 Despite the ideological pressure, the implementation of a Slavic agenda in medieval archaeology often met the stiff resistance of local archaeologists. In Romania, for example, the profoundly anti-Soviet sentiments of most senior archaeologists prevented them from responding favorably to the directives of the Communist regime. Moreover, beginning with the late 1950s, such sentiments were promoted even inside the Romanian Communist party, eager to revive the nationalist discourse and to mark by such means its supposed autonomy from the Soviet Union.26 The situation in neighboring Hungary was not very different. While Soviet archaeologists were happy to learn that the first Slavic sites had been explored archaeologically in Hungary after the country’s “liberation” by the Red Army, they were also concerned that the interpretation of the finds was somewhat superficial. Soon, however, serious disagreements emerged between Soviet and Hungarian archaeologists about the ethnic attribution of some archaeological finds, which the latter regarded as specific to large areas in Eastern Europe, and not just to the Slavs.27 Even in Czechoslovakia—a Slavic country—the anti-Soviet sentiment after the Prague Spring made the local Communist regime wary of any attempt to manipulate archaeology politically. As a consequence, more than in any other satellite country, funding for the discipline dropped considerably.28

Summary The background to the image of a rapidly developing research in archaeology under the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe was its perception as a discipline of great political and ideological potential. In both the Soviet Union and the satellite countries, considerable state investments

  CHAPTER 2: ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER COMMUNISM 

27

were made in archaeology with no parallels either in the previous period or elsewhere in Europe. The institutional centralization, often through the creation of specialized institutes or research and studies, went hand in hand with the reorganization of the network of regional museums, all of which were regarded as key institutions for political propaganda. In some cases, national museums of history were given the foremost task of planning archaeological excavations across the country, particularly in relation to development and major building projects (such as reservoirs or large industrial centers). In other cases, leading universities (such as those of Leningrad or Prague) ran their own campaigns of archaeological excavations on sites transformed into “schools of archaeology.” The model of Soviet archaeology, a paradigmatic change implemented for a brief while in the 1920s, was exported after World War II, if only temporarily and partially, to some of the satellite countries. However, at that time in the Soviet Union, Marxism had ceased to inspire archaeological research. With the exception of citations from the “classics of Marxism-Leninism,” few archaeologists seriously engaged in a Marxist interpretation of the archaeological evidence and even fewer applied Marxist principles to the archaeological practice. This situation is best illustrated by developments in medieval archaeology, a subfield that came into being only after World War II, and largely as a consequence of the insistence of the Communist regimes, especially in the satellite countries, on the need to study the Slavic material culture. Slavic Studies, in general, have been almost abolished in the Soviet Union, but topics such as the Slavic ethnogenesis became important after Stalin’s rehabilitation of the Russian nationalist discourse in response to the Nazi propaganda. After the war, Slavic archaeology became a key component of the Soviet discourse meant to justify the occupation of the Eastern, Southeastern and East Central parts of the European continent by the Red Army. The ideological manipulation of medieval archaeology, and especially of the research on the early Slavs, is also evident at the local level, in each one of the satellite countries. While Slavic archaeology was promoted in Yugoslavia, in order to advance the idea of South Slavic unity in the federation, in Poland, it served to justify the occupation of territories until then belonging to Germany. In both Romania and Hungary, Slavic archaeology developed with a great degree of resistance and even opposition from senior archaeologists, many of whom entertained anti-Soviet sentiments. More than any other subfield of archaeology, medieval archaeology under the Communist regimes was therefore prone to political manipulation.

28 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Notes 1. Gleb S. Lebedev, Istoriia otechestvennoi arkheologii, 1700–1917 gg. (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 1992), p. 421, and V.  I. Guliaev, “Vvdenie,” in Institut arkheologii: istoriia i sovremennost’. Sbornik nauchnykh biografii, edited by V.  I. Guliaev (Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2000), p. 3, maintain that the Academy was the successor of the Imperial Archaeology Commission. However, the Academy was initially not a purely archaeological institution, since it employed art historians, philologists, architects, ethnographers, and anthropologists. In other words, the initial purpose of the Academy was not just archaeological research, but also heritage preservation and management, as well as the theory of archaeology, ethnography, or art history. 2. A.  D. Priakhin, Istoriia sovetskoi arkheologii (1917-seredina 30kh g.) (Voronezh: Izdatel’stvo Voronezhskogo universiteta, 1986), pp.  12–14 and 145–55; Lebedev, Istoriia, pp. 418–27; Guliaev, “Vvedenie,” pp. 3–23; Nadezhda I.  Platonova, Istoriia arkheologicheskoi mysli v Rossii. Vtoraia polovina XIX-pervaia tret’ XX veka (St. Petersburg: Nestor Istoriia, 2010), pp.  215–53; Klein, Soviet Archaeology, pp.  3–17; P.  G. Gaidukov, I.V. Belozerova, S.V. Kuz’minykh, “Iz istorii Instituta arkheologii RAN v 1920–1940-e gody,” in Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by N.A. Makarov (Moskva: IA RAN, 2019), pp. 11–25. Although it was initially designed to be the central institution of archaeological research in the Soviet Union, during the 1920s and 1930s, the Academy for the History of Material Culture gradually lost ground to ethnography and anthropology museums activating under the aegis of the Academy of Sciences, to the Association of Orientalists, and even to universities, such as that in Leningrad, that were capable of running their own campaigns of archaeological excavations (Priakhin, Istoriia, pp.  18–23). For archaeology in Soviet universities, see Lev S. Klein and I. L. Tikhonov, „The beginnings of university archaeology in Russia,” in Die Anfänge der ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie als akademisches Fach (1890–1930) im europäischen Vergleich. Internationale Tagung an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin vom 13.–16. März, edited by Johan Callmer, Michael Meyer, Ruth Struwe and Claudia Theune (Rahden: Marie Leidorf, 2006), pp.  197–207. For the University of Leningrad as a center of archaeological research, see I.  L. Tikhonov, Arkheologiia v Sankt-­ Petersburgskom universitete. Istoriograficheskie ocherki (St. Petersburg: St. Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2003); Gleb S. Lebedev, “Peterburgskaia shkola Rossiiskoi arkheologii,” in Ladoga i istoki russkoi gosudarstvennosti i kul’tury. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchno-prakticheskaia konferenciia provedena v Staroi Ladoge Leningradskoi oblasti pod egidoi Organizacii obăedinennykh

  CHAPTER 2: ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER COMMUNISM 

29

nacii po voprosam obrazovaniia, nauki i kul’tury, 30 iuniia-2 iuliia 2003 g., edited by Anatolii N.  Kirpichnikov (St. Petersburg: Vesti, 2003), pp.  142–56. For the institutionalization of archaeology in the Soviet republics, see the literature cited in Iurie Stamati, The Slavic Dossier. Medieval Archaeology in the Soviet Republic of Moldova: Between State Propaganda and Scholarly Endeavor (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2019), pp. 247–50. 3. Ludomir R. Lozny, “Sickle, hammer, and trowel: theory and practice of archaeology under Communism,” in Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R.  Lozny (Cham: Springer, 2016), pp.  11 and 42–45. For Poland, see Jacek Lech, “Between captivity and freedom: Polish archaeology in the 20th century,” Archaeologia Polona 35–36 (1997–1998), 59–60, 61–65, and 78–84; Sarunas Milisauskas, “Observations on Polish archaeology 1945–1995,” Archaeologia Polona 35–36 (1997–1998), 233. For Romania, see Stamati, “Two chapters,” p. 82. 4. Douglass W.  Bailey, “Bulgarian archaeology. Ideology, sociopolitics and the exotic,” in Archaeology under Fire. Nationalism, Politics, and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, edited by Lynn Meskell (London/New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 96; Lolita Nikolova and Diana Gergova, “Contemporary Bulgarian archaeology as a social practice in the later twentieth to early twenty-first century,” in Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny (Cham: Springer, 2016), p. 179. 5. V. S. Titov and István Erdélyi, “Sovremennaia organizacionnaia struktura arkheologii v Vengerskoi Narodnoi Respublike,” Sovetskaia arkheologiia (1973), no. 3, 249–56; V. S. Titov, “Vvedenie,” in Arkheologiia Vengrii. Konec II tysiacheletiia do n. e.- I tysiacheletiia n. e., edited by V. S. Titov and István Erdélyi (Moscow: Nauka, 1986), pp.  7–36; László Török, “The Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1958–1999,” Antaeus 25 (2002), 17; László Bartosiewicz, “Archaeology in Hungary, 1948–1989,” in Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R.  Lozny (Cham: Springer, 2016), pp.  195–233, here 202. A special committee (Ásatási Bizottság) was created to plan and to finance archaeological excavations. 6. Ion Nestor, “Despre cercetările şi săpăturile arheologice executate în 1948 în regiunile extracarpatice ale Republicii Populare Romîne,” Studii. Revista ̆ de ştiint ̧a ̆ şi filosofie 1 (1949), 152–59; Damaschin Mioc, “Institutul de istorie şi arheologie—Cluj,” in Enciclopedia istoriografiei româneşti, edited by Ştefan Ştefănescu (Bucharest: Editura ştiinti̧ fică şi enciclopedică, 1978), pp.  366–67; Mircea Babeş, “Marile etape ale dezvoltării arheologiei în

30 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

România,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 32 (1981), no. 3, 319–30; Vasile Chirică and Dan Aparaschivei, Institutul de Arheologie Iaşi (Iaşi: Helios, 2004), p. 7. 7. Iurii V. Kukharenko, Arkheologiia Pol’shi (Moscow: Nauka, 1969), p. 217; Günter Mangelsdorf, “Zur Lage der Mittelalterarchäologie in Ostdeutschland, Polen und Tschechien,” Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 25–26 (1997), 45; Milisauskas, “Observations,” p. 129; Jerzy Ga ̨ssowski, “Archaeology and Marxism in Poland: a personal account,” in Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R.  Lozny (Cham: Springer, 2016), pp. 101–21, here 110–11. 8. Kukharenko, Arkheologiia, pp. 218–19; Titov and Erdélyi, “Sovremennaia organizacionnaia struktura,” pp. 253–56; Ioan Opriş, Istoria muzeelor din România (Bucharest: Mouseion, 1994); Lech, “Between captivity and freedom,” pp. 61–65; Aurelia Duţu, “Scurt istoric al muzeelor şi colecţiilor din România,” in Muzee şi colect ̧ii din România, edited by Irina Oberländer-­ Târnoveanu and Aurelia Duţu (Bucharest: Institutul de Istorie Culturală, 2009), pp. 6–12; Lozny, “Sickle, hammer,” p. 45. 9. Bartosiewicz, “Archaeology in Hungary,” pp. 215–16 and 220; Ga ̨ssowski, “Archaeology and Marxism,” p.  105; Lozny, “Sickle, hammer,” p.  21; Nikolova and Gergova, “Contemporary Bulgarian archaeology,” p.  182; Iurie Stamati, “‘Long live Romanian Soviet friendship!’ An exploration of the relationship between archaeologists from USSR and the People’s/ Socialist Republic of Romania,” Ephemeris Napocensis 26 (2016), 235–52. 10. S. N. Bykovskii, “Klassovaia sushchnost’ burzhuaznoi arkheologii,” introduction to G. Khudiakov, Dorevolucionnaia russkaia arkheologiia na sluzhbe ekspluatatorskikh klassov (Leningrad: GAIMK, 1933), p.  13; Khudiakov, Dorevolucionnaia russkaia arkheologiia, pp. 84–87; Aleksandr A. Formozov, “Arkheologiia i ideologiia (20–30-e gody),” Voprosy filosofii (1993), no. 2, 70–82. For Nikolai Marr’s theories and Marxism, see Gisela Bruche-Schulz, “Marr, Marx and linguistics in the Soviet Union,” Historiographia Linguistica 20 (1993), nos. 2–3, 455–72; Yuri Slezkine, “N.  Ia. Marr and the national origins of Soviet ethnogenetics,” Slavic Review 55 (1996), no. 4, 826–62; Vladimir M.  Alpatov, Istoriia odnogo mifa. Marr i marrizm (Moscow: Nauka, 2011), pp. 168–90. 11. William Y.  Adams, “On migration and diffusion as rival paradigms,” in Diffusion and Migration: Their Roles in Cultural Development, edited by P. G. Duke, J. Ebert, G. Langemann and A. P. Buchner (Calgary: University of Calgary, 1978), pp. 1–5; Jack A. Lucas, “The significance of diffusion in German and Austrian historical ethnology,” in Diffusion and Migration: Their Roles in Cultural Development, edited by P.  G. Duke, J.  Ebert,

  CHAPTER 2: ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER COMMUNISM 

31

G. Langemann and A. P. Buchner (Calgary: University of Calgary, 1978), pp. 30–44. 12. Mikhail I. Artamonov, “Trudy tovarishcha Stalina po voprosam iazykoznaniia i sovetskaia arkheologiia,” Sovetskaia arkheologiia 15 (1951), 7–16; Aleksandr D. Udal’cov (ed.), Protiv vul’garizacii marksizma v arkheologii (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1953); Priakhin, Istoriia, pp.  131–40; Lev S. Klein, Istoriia arkheologicheskoi mysli, vol. 2 (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 2011), pp. 3–21. 13. Klein, Istoriia, pp. 21–22; Lev S. Klein, Fenomen sovetskoi arkheologii (St. Petersburg: FARN, 1993), pp.  24–28 and 70–78; Lev S.  Klein, Trudno byt’ Kleinom. Avtobiografiia v monologakh i dialogakh (St. Petersburg: Nestor-­Istoriia, 2008), pp. 300–10. 14. Božidar Slapšak and Predrag Novaković, “Is there national archaeology without nationalism? Archaeological tradition in Slovenia,” in Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Timothy C. Champion (Boulder/San Francisco: Westview Press, 1996), pp. 256–93, here 286–87 with n. 50; Predrag Novaković, “Archaeology in five states. A peculiarity or just another story at the crossroads of ‘Mitteleuropa’ and the Balkans: a case study of Slovene archaeology,” in Archäologien Europas. Geschichte, Methoden und Theorien, edited by Peter F.  Biehl, Alexander Gramsch and Arkadiusz Marciniak (Münster: Waxmann, 2002), pp.  323–52, here 342; Monika Milosavljević, Osvit arheologije. Geneza kulturno-­istorijskog pristupa u arheologiji Srbije (Belgrade: Dosjie studio, 2020), p. 124. For the First Congress of the Yugoslav archaeologists, see Josip Korošec, “Prvo posvetovanje jugoslovanskih arheologov,” Zgodovinski c ̌asopis 4 (1950), 212–15. 15. Florin Curta, “Medieval archaeology in South-Eastern Europe,” in Reflections: 50 Years of Medieval Archaeology, 1957–2007, edited by Roberta Gilchrist and Andrew Reynolds (London: Maney Publishing, 2009), p. 192. The evidence for that was derived first and foremost from the excavation of cemetery sites, the first archaeological sites to be published as monographs. Cemeteries were preferred because of the firm belief that the analysis of grave goods would produce conclusions about social structures, which could in turn serve for the writing of the new social history. See Josip Korošec, Staroslovenska grobišc ̌a v Severni Sloveniji (Celje: Tiskarna družbe Sv. Mohorja, 1947); Jozo Kastelić, Slovanska nekropola na Bledu. Arheološko in antropološko poroc ̌ilo za leto 1948 (Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti, 1950); Josip Korošec, Staroslovansko grobišc ̌e na Ptujskem gradu (Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 1950); Franjo Ivaniček, Staroslavenska nekropola u Ptuju (Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 1951); Ján Eisner,

32 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Devínska Nová Ves. Slovanské pohr ̌ebište ̌ (Bratislava: Nákladem Slovanskej Akadémie Vied a Umení, 1952); Jerzy Da ̨mbski, Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzysko w Końskich (Wrocław: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955); Vilém Hrubý, Staré Me ̌sto. Velkomoravské pohrě ̌bište ̌ “Na Valách” (Prague: Nakladelství Č eskoslovenske Akademie Věd, 1955); Michał. Godycki, Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzysko na Ostrowie Lednickim (Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk, 1956); Leszek Sarama, Leszek. Wczesnos ́redniowieczne cmentarzysko w Samborcu (Wrocław: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1956); Elemér Zalotay, Gellértegyházai Árpádkori temető (Budapest: Magyar Némzeti Múzeum, 1957). 16. Bartosiewicz, “Archaeology in Hungary,” p. 215; Ga ̨ssowski, “Archaeology and Marxism,” pp.  104 and 111; Lozny, “Sickle, hammer,” pp.  41–42; Milisauskas, “Historical observations,” pp.  125–27; Evžen Neustupný, “Czech archaeology under Communism,” in Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny (Cham: Springer, 2016), 151–66, here 155; Nikolova and Gergova, “Contemporary Bulgarian archaeology,” p. 180. 17. Andrzej Abramowicz, Historia archeologii polskiej. XIX i XX wiek (Warsaw/Łódź: Ossolineum, 1991), pp 148–49; Stamati, “Two chapters,” pp. 83–84; Bartosiewicz, “Archaeology in Hungary,” p. 215; Milisauskas, “Historical observations,” pp. 130–31. 18. For Poland, see Paul M. Barford, “Paradigms lost: Polish archaeology and post-War politics,” Archaeologia Polona 31 (1993), 257–70; Barford, “Marksizm”; Stanisław Tabaczyński, “A future for the Marxist paradigm in Central European archaeology? The Polish case,” in Whither archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evzen Neustupny, edited by Martin Kuna and Natalie Venclová (Prague: Institute of Archaeology, 1995), pp.  69–81; Lech, “Małowierni” and “Between captivity and freedom,” pp. 84–97; Zbigniew Kobyliński, “Theoretical orientations in archaeology in Poland (1945–1995),” in Theory and Practice of Archaeological Research, edited by Witold Hensel, Stanisław Tabaczyński and Przemysław Urbańczyk, vol. 3 (Warsaw: Scientia, 1998), pp. 225–58; Przemysław Urbańczyk, “Political circumstances reflected in post-war Polish archaeology,” Public Archaeology 1 (2000), 49–56; Paul M. Barford, “Reflections on J. Lech’s vision of the history of ‘Polish’ archaeology,” Archaeologia Polona 40 (2002), 171–84; Jacek Lech, “On Polish archaeology in the 20th century: remarks and polemic,” Archaeologia Polona 40 (2002), 185–252; Stanisław Tabaczyński, “L’école des Annales, la ‘nouvelle histoire’ et l’archéologie polonaise,” in Archéologie, edited by Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski (Warsaw/Paris: Polska Akademia Nauk. Stacja Naukowa, 2003), pp.  14–17; Milisauskas, „Historical observations,” pp.  223–27. For Romania, see Mircea Anghelinu, Evoluţia gândirii teoretice în arheologia din România. Concepte

  CHAPTER 2: ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER COMMUNISM 

33

şi modele aplicate în preistorie (Târgovişte: Cetatea de Scaun, 2003), pp. 155–256; Dragoman and Oanţă-Marghitu, “Archaeology”; Anghelinu, “Failed revolution”; Stamati, “Two chapters,” pp. 83–85. 19. Lebedev, Istoriia, pp. 62–172 and 247–52; S. P. Shchavelev, Istorik russkoi zemli. Zhizn’ i trudy D.  Ia. Samokvasova (Kursk: Izdatel’stvo Kurskogo medicynskogo Universiteta, 1998); A. N. Golotvin, “D. Ia. Samokvasov i razvitie slaviano-russkoi arkheologii,” Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 2 (2007), no. 2, 173–78; Lebedev, Istoriia, pp. 62–172 and 247–52; Lev S. Klein, Istoriia rossiiskoi arkheologii: ucheniia, shkoly i lichnosti (St. Petersburg: Evraziia, 2014), pp. 329–59 and 504–24. For the role of the Czech archaeologist Č enek (Vikentyi) Chvojka, see also G.  M. Shovkoplias, “Vikentiy V’iacheslavovych Khvoyka—vidatnyi ukrains’kyi arkheolog,” in Vikentiy V’iacheslavovych Khvoyka ta iogo vnesok u vitchyznianu arkheologiiu (do 150-richchia vid dnia narodzhennia). Tematichnyi zbirnyk naukovykh prats’, edited by N.  G. Kovtaniuk (Kiev: Natsional’nyi muzei istorii Ukrainy, 2000), pp. 4–25; Vitalyi K. Koziuba, “Fotografii ta maliunki rozkopok V. V. Khvoyky 1907–1908 rr. v sadybi M.  M. Petrovs’kogo u Kyevi,” in Naukovo-­doslidnyts’ka ta prosvitnits’ka diial’nist’ Vikentiia Khvoyky do 160-richchia z dnia narozhdennia. Materialy naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii s. Khalep’ia, 19 liutogo 2010 roku (Trypillia: Kyivs’koi oblasnoi derzhavnoi administratsii KZKOR “Kyivs’kyi oblasnyi arkheologichnyi muzei”, 2010), pp.  59–78; Florin Curta, “With brotherly love: the Czech beginnings of medieval archaeology in Bulgaria and Ukraine,” in Manufacturing Middle Ages. Entangled History of Medievalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe, edited by Patrick J. Geary and Gábor Klaniczay (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), pp. 388–92. 20. Viktor A.  Shnirel’man, “Zlokliucheniia odnoi nauki: etnogeneticheskie issledovaniia is stalinskaia nacional’naia politika,” Etnograficheskoe obozrenie (1993), no. 3, 54; Iu. V. Krivosheev and A. Iu. Dvornichenko, “Izgnanie nauki: rossiskaia istoriografiia v 20kh-nachale 30kh godov XX veka,” Otechestvennaia istoriia (1994), no. 3, 146–53; A.  N. Gorianov, “Slavianskaia vzaimnost’ v traktovke sovetskoi istoriografii 1920–1930kh godov,” in Slavianskaia ideia: istoriia i sovremennost’, edited by V.  A. D’iakov (Moscow: Logos, 1998), pp.  147–59; E.  P. Aksenova, “Slavianskaia ideia i sovetskoe slavianovedenie pered Vtoroi mirovoi voiny,” in Slavianskaia ideia: istoriia i sovremennost’, edited by V. A. D’iakov (Moscow: Logos, 1998), pp.  160–73; E.  P. Aksenova, Ocherki iz istorii otechestvennogo slavianovedeniia 1930e gody (Moscow: Institut slavianovedeniia RAN, 2000); M.  A. Robinson, Sud’ba akademicheskoi elity. Otechestvennoe slavianovedenie, 1917-nachalo 1930kh godov (Moscow: Indrik, 2004).

34 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

21. N. G. Bruevich, “O plane nauchno-issledovatel’skikh rabot Akademii nauk na 1946 god,” in Obshchee sobranie Akademii nauk SSSR 15–19 ­ianvaria 1946 goda (Moscow/Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akdaemii Nauk SSSR, 1946), pp. 137–38; N. Voronin, “Razvitie slaviano-russkoi arkheologii v SSSR,” Slaviane 7 (1948), 25–30; Boris A.  Rybakov, “Mesto slaviano-­ russkoi arkheologii v sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauke,” Sovetskaia arkheologiia (1957), no. 4, 58; Shnirel’man, “Zlokliucheniia,” pp. 58–68; Viktor A. Shnirel’man, “From internationalism to nationalism: forgotten pages of Soviet archaeology in the 1930s and 1940s,” in Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by Philip Kohl and Clare Fawcett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp.  129–38; Viktor A.  Shnirel’man, “The faces of nationalist archaeology in Russia,” in Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Timothy C.  Champion (Boulder/San Francisco: Westview Press, 1996), pp.  218–42, here 233–36; Florin Curta, “From Kossinna to Bromley: ethnogenesis in Slavic archaeology,” in On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Andrew Gillett (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), pp. 207–10. 22. Lozny, “Sickle, hammer,” pp. 49–50. See also Piotr Węcowski, “Między nauka ̨ a ideologia ̨, między historia ̨ a archeologia ̨. Kierownictwo Badań nad pocza ̨tkami państwa polskiego (1949–1953),” in Marxismus a medievistika: spolec ̌né osudy? edited by Martin Nodl and Piotr Węcowski (Prague: Filosofia, 2020), pp. 59–100. 23. Such feelings fed on the anti-German discourse developed in the nineteenth century in reaction to claims in German historiography that Slavic people were politically and culturally inferior. It was in response to such claims that Polish and Czech intellectuals contributed to the ideology of Pan-Slavism, particularly to its political program of liberating all Slavic peoples from German, as well as Ottoman oppression. German historians were now accused of Germanizing the history of territories that had been Polish since times immemorial. Since the nationalist discourse of the nineteenth-­century historiography was adopted by the Nazi regime, after World War II Polish historians and archaeologists rehashed the old ideas of their nineteenth-­century predecessors. See Lech, “Between captivity and freedom,” pp.  43–44, 61, 63, 65–71, and 97–98; Milisauskas, “Observations,” p.  225; Danuta Piotrowska, “Biskupin 1933–1996: archaeology, politics, and nationalism,” Archaeologia Polona 35–36 (1997–1998), 255–85; Przemysław Urbańczyk, “Medieval archaeology in Polish historic-political discourse,” in Politik und Wissenschaft in der prähistorischen Archäologie. Perspektiven aus Sachsen, Böhmen und Schlesien, edited by Judith Schachtmann, Michael Strobel and Thomas Widera (Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2009), pp.  237–49, here 243–47; Andrzej

  CHAPTER 2: ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER COMMUNISM 

35

Buko, “Early medieval archaeology in Poland: the beginnings and development stages,” Post-­classical Archaeologies 2 (2012), 361–72; Ga ̨ssowski, “Archaeology and Marxism,” pp.  103–04 and 115–16; Milisauskas, “Historical observations,” pp.  126–28 and 131–32. For the claims of German archaeologists that Slavic peoples were inferior and in need to be civilized by Germans, see Volker Klimetzek, “Lothar Zotz im Spiegel seiner Veröffentlichungen,” in Politik und Wissenschaft in der prähistorischen Archäologie. Perspektiven aus Sachsen, Böhmen und Schlesien, edited by Judith Schachtmann, Michael Strobel and Thomas Widera (Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2009), pp.  99–109. For the influence of German upon Polish archaeology, see also Sławomir Kadrow, “The German influence on Polish archaeology,” in A History of Central European Archaeology. Theory, Methods, and Politics, edited by Alexander Gramsch and Ulrike Sommer (Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2011), pp.  125–42. For the use of Slavic archaeology as justification for the occupation of formerly German territories, see Zbigniew Kobyliński and Grażyna Rutkowska, “Propagandist use of history and archaeology in justification of Polish rights to the ‘recovered territories’ after World War II,” Archaeologia Polona 43 (2005), 51–124. 24. Mangelsdorf, “Zur Lage,” p. 45. 25. Bailey, “Bulgarian archaeology,” p. 93; Jerzy Ga ̨ssowski, “Introduction to archaeology of the Communist era,” in Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R.  Lozny (Cham: Springer, 2016), p.  4; Nikolova and Gergova, “Contemporary Bulgarian archaeology,” pp. 181–83. For the problem of the Bulgarian ethnogenesis and the contribution of the Slavs, see Diana Mishkova, “Differentiation in entanglement. Debates on antiquity, ethnogenesis, and identity in nineteenth-century Bulgaria,” in Multiple Antiquities—Multiple Modernities. Ancient Histories in Nineteenth Century European Cultures, edited by Gábor Klaniczay, Michael Werner and Ottó Gecser (Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, 2011), pp. 213–45; Stefan Dechev, “Who are the Bulgarians? ‘Race’, science and politics in fin-de-­ siècle Bulgaria,” in We, the People. Politics of National Peculiarities in South-­East Europe, edited by Diana Mishkova (Budapest: CEU Press, 2013), pp. 3–29; Stefan Dechev, “Between Slavs and Old Bulgars: ‘ancestors’, ‘race’ and identity in late nineteenth-century Bulgaria,” in Manufacturing Middle Ages. Entangled History of Medievalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe, edited by Patrick J. Geary and Gábor Klaniczay (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), pp. 347–76. 26. Perhaps encouraged by Pan-Slavism, many non-Romanian scholars have meanwhile taken some peculiar aspects of the Romanian medieval civilization, such as the use of Old Church Slavonic in church and state administration, as well as the large number of Slavic loans in the Romanian

36 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

language as an indication of the Slavic origin of the Romanians. By contrast, with very few exceptions, Romanian authors have always emphasized their Roman origins and presented their people as a “Latin island in a Slavic sea.” The vehemence of replies against those who treated Romanians as Slavs and the denunciation of Pan-Slavist projects as little more than a cover for Russian imperialism are good indicators of such attitudes. Shortly before and after 1900, a number of significant studies appeared about the Slavic elements in Romanian culture. However, the territorial disputes between Romania and the Soviet Union and the rise in the 1930s of the far-right movement in Romania brought back the old anti-Slavic discourse. In the context of the territorial disputes with Hungary in the 1940s, Romanian archaeologists first manifested an interest in the study of medieval settlements that were known from written sources to have been inhabited by a mixed, Slavic-­Romanian population. See Florin Curta, “The changing image of the Early Slavs in the Rumanian historiography and archaeological literature. A critical survey,” Südost-Forschungen 53 (1994), 235–76; Lucian Boia, Istorie şi mit în conştiint ̦a românească (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1997), pp.  46 and 83–120; Iurie Stamati, “Les Slaves et la genèse des Roumains et de leurs états selon la tradition historiographique russe, de la Chronique Voskresenskaja à Lev Berg,” in The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them. Studies in Honor of Victor Spinei on his 70th Birthday, edited by Florin Curta and Bogdan-Petru Maleon (Iași: Editura Universităt ̦ii ”Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 2013), pp. 779–94; Stamati, “Two chapters,” pp. 85–90; Iurie Stamati, “Pourquoi les Roumains ne sont-ils pas devenus un peuple slave? Essai sur la place des Slaves médiévaux dans l’historiographie nationale roumaine (XVIIe siècles-­début du XXe siècle),” Ethnologies 37 (2017), no. 2, 53–80. 27. V. S. Titov, “2500 let proshlogo Karpato-Dunaiskogo basseina v zerkale vengerskoi arkheologii (Vmesto vvedeniia),” in Arkheologiia Vengrii. Konec II tysiacheletiia do n. e.—I tysiacheletiia n. e., edited by V. S. Titov and István Erdélyi (Moscow: Nauka, 1986), pp. 30–34. It is important to note, however, that of archaeologists in all satellite countries, those in Hungary benefited the most from cooperation with Soviet archaeologists in the context of the search for the Magyar Urheimat in the steppe lands. The earliest excavations of sites attributed to Finno-Ugrian populations were carried out by Soviet-Hungarian teams of archaeologists (Bartosiewicz, “Archaeology in Hungary,” p. 210). 28. Neustupný, “Czech archaeology,” p. 159.

Chapter 3: A Woman’s Place Is in Slavic Archaeology: Irina Rusanova

There were women in Russian archaeology long before the Bolshevik takeover, but not many.1 In pre-Bolshevik Russia, prominent figures of women archaeologists appear only behind their husbands. A good example in that respect is L.  Stempovskaia. Very little is known about her, except that between 1896 and 1910, together with her husband, she excavated no less than 412 burial mounds dated between the Bronze Ages and the late Middle Ages in the environs of Tiraspol (now in the Republic of Moldova), on the left bank of the Lower Dniester and on the southwestern periphery of the Russian empire (Fig.  1). Her husband, Ioili Stempovskii, was the supervisor of the local prison hospital. By 1899, his wife was director of excavations, which she carried out in a very thorough fashion, as indicated by the surviving documentation. Nonetheless, for a very long while, the excavations of the burial mounds in the region of Tiraspol were attributed exclusively to Ioili Stempovskii.2 Ekaterina Melnik-Antonovich (1859–1942) has a somewhat better reputation. The daughter of a doctor in the province of Poltava, she enrolled, at the young age of 18, in the higher education courses for women organized by the Imperial University in Kiev. She studied archaeology with the renowned historian, archaeologist, and ethnologist Vladimir A. Antonovich (1834–1908), whom she eventually married. It is through him, and at his intervention that she became an archaeologist in 1888 at the museum of the Kievan university. First as assistant to her husband, then as an

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6_4

37

38 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Fig. 1  Principal sites mentioned in the text

independent archaeologist, Melnik-Antonovich carried out excavations on several sites in the Ukraine. In 1893, because of the remarkable results she was able to obtain, Melnik-Antonovich was offered membership in the prestigious Society for Archaeology in Moscow, an exclusively male organization.3 The cofounder and first president of that society was Count Aleksei Uvarov (1824–1884). The most often cited name of a woman archaeologist in imperial Russia is that of his wife, Praskovia Uvarova (1840–1925). She was the inspiration for Princess Ekaterina (“Kitty”) Shcherbatskaya in Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, published in 1878. Uvarova had a true passion for archaeology, and gladly accompanied her

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

39

husband on expeditions across the Russian Empire, where she was often his substitute as director of excavations, when necessary. Although initially not a member of the Society for Archaeology in Moscow, Uvarova acted as its secretary during the 20 years (1864–1884) of her husband’s term as president. In that capacity, she coordinated the organization of archaeological conferences, presided over many organization committees, maintained correspondence with participants, and was responsible for conference programs. At her husband’s death, she also became the president of the society.4 Melnik-Antonovich was actually elected member during Countess Uvarova’s term as president. Her prestige at that time went beyond the boundaries of the Russian Empire. Uvarova became a member of the Association of French Antiquarians in 1892 and an honorary member of the University of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, in the Russian enclave in the Baltic region) in 1896. Without any special studies dedicated to gender in Soviet archaeology, it is difficult to measure the change that the Bolshevik revolution brought to the position of women in the discipline. A quick way to gauge that change, however, may be to look at articles published in Sovetskaia Arkheologiia, the leading Soviet journal in the field. In 1937, out of 29 articles, five were signed by women, while in 1950, six out of 17 articles published in the journal were by women archaeologists. The volume for 1968 has 40 authors, ten of whom were female, a ratio maintained for the volume published in 1989 (11 out of 43 authors).5 It may well be that in the 1930s, the presence of a woman on an archaeological site (either as director of excavation or as a team member) was still unusual. After the war, however, the situation changed radically, despite entrenched misogyny.6 There are several names of prominent women archaeologists, but in his recent history of Russian archaeology, Lev Klein mentions only one—Tatiana Passek.7 Judging by the standards he set for his own book (to include leading archaeologists who played a key role in the development of Soviet and Russian archaeology), the names of at least three women are remarkable by their absence. Maria E. Foss (1899–1955) led excavations in northern and central Russia and trained many members of the postwar generation of Soviet archaeologists. She also had a key role in the theoretical discussions taking place in Soviet archaeology in the late 1940s and early 1950s.8 Equally important is the name of Svetlana Pletneva (1926–2008), the leading Soviet specialist in the archaeology of the medieval nomads. After 1988, Pletneva was also the editor-in-chief of Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (which turned in 1992 into Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia). That

40 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

she got no mention in Klein’s book is most likely because of the deep-­ seated feeling of dislike that they had for each other.9 The third name inexplicably left out of Klein’s history of Soviet archaeology is Irina Rusanova (1929–1998). She was one of the most important Soviet specialists in Slavic archaeology. Her works, criticized by some and admired by others, are still influential.10 This is particularly true about her classification of the handmade pottery attributed to the early Slavs.11 Her scholarly reputation was so strongly attached to that classification (and to a concern with pottery, in general) that during a polemical discussion, her former professor and dissertation adviser, Petr Tret’iakov (1909–1976) called her gorshkoved (a specialist in pots). Despite the slightly derogatory meaning of that word, Rusanova was apparently quite proud to have earned that reputation (Fig.  2).12 The recognition of her merits in that respect survived her and explains the relatively large number of articles (particularly obituaries) written about Irina Rusanova.

Fig. 2  Irina Rusanova and the two granddaughters of Boris Timoshchuk sorting out and marking the ceramic material resulting excavations of the Subcarpathian expedition in Zbruch (near Chernivtsi, now in Ukraine), 1988. Photo by Tat’iana Timoshchuk, courtesy of Igor Gavritukhin

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

41

She was born in Moscow in a family that faced serious difficulties during the first years of Soviet power. Olga Rusanova, her mother, was the scion of an old noble family, who had been thrown out of the university because of that. Her father, Petr Schastnev, was from a family of Greek priests that had settled in Russia in the eighteenth century. Irina Rusanova’s grandfather was a priest who vehemently opposed the Living Church, the institution created by the NKVD (Narodnyi Komissariat Vnutrennykh Del) (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs)) to undermine the Church’s opposition to the Soviet regime. He was arrested, jailed, and deported for six years, and died in 1931, before the second arrest.13 This family background can certainly explain why Irina Rusanova never became a member either of the Komsomol (the youth organization controlled by the Soviet regime) or of the Communist party. According to the testimony of her doctoral student, Igor Gavritukhin, she loathed Communism, although she naturally never spoke about that.14 If so, it is important to note that both her parents eventually managed to become accomplished professionals. Olga Rusanova was a very successful teacher of mathematics, while Petr Schastnev obtained his doctorate and later became a renowned author of geography textbooks. Their daughter was initially drawn toward mathematics and enrolled for one year at the university with that major of study. However, she quickly abandoned that path, and in 1948 became a student in history at the University of Moscow. She was apparently stepping into her father’s footsteps, as he had briefly been student in history after the Bolshevik revolution. He had to abandon history when financial difficulties intervened. Irina’s own choice of career may have also been influenced by a dear family friend, the prominent Soviet historian Mikhail Tikhomirov (1893–1965), a member of the Academy of Sciences and a world-­renowned specialist in the history of medieval Russia.15 Most students in history who wanted to avoid the politicization of their beloved discipline chose archaeology as a specialty.16 Irina Rusanova was one of them. Her choice of Slavic archaeology explains why, only five years after starting the study of history, she was admitted to doctoral studies at the Institute for the History of Material Culture (later renamed Institute of Archaeology) in Moscow. Her research topic was to be the burial mounds attributed to the Derevlians, a Slavic tribe mentioned in the Russian Primary Chronicle. The adviser of that dissertation was Petr Tret’iakov, at that time the head of the ethnogenesis sector at the Institute for the History of Material Culture and professor at the Academy of Social Sciences attached to the Central Committee of the Communist party. Tret’iakov had an impeccable record by Soviet standards and a formidable

42 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

reputation, as he had convinced the famous Australian archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe to adopt Marxism as an explanatory paradigm.17 However, during Rusanova’s doctoral studies, Tret’iakov was mostly busy with the administration of the Institute of Slavic Studies, of which he became the director in 1951.18 He therefore had little to no influence upon Rusanova’s training. Instead, she was profoundly influenced by Iurii Kukharenko (1919–1980), whom she once called her “friend and adviser.”19 Ten years her senior, but a decade younger than Tret’iakov, Kukharenko was an archaeologist at the Institute for the History of Material Culture involved in research in the northern part of Ukraine and southern part of Belarus, a region known as Polesie. He was the first to identify in that region the ceramic remains that he attributed to the early Slavs. He compared them to those known as the Prague type and dated to the sixth and seventh centuries.20 Kukharenko represented a younger generation of Soviet archaeologists who were willing to make some room for diffusionism and migration.21 While working on her dissertation for the title of candidate in science, Rusanova began, largely under the influence of Kukharenko, to shift her research interests to the early Slavs and the Prague-type pottery.22 Following Kukharenko, she also focused on Polesie. She excavated and then published a small settlement site at Korchak near Zhytomyr.23 Unlike Kukharenko, she seems to have been attracted also by the study of pre-­ Christian beliefs, especially by what she regarded as the earliest Slavic sanctuaries.24 Her dissertation for the title of “doctor in science” was therefore dedicated to the study of the “Slavic antiquities” of the sixth and seventh century, defended and then published as a book in 1976.25 The most original part of that book, and the one for which Rusanova gained international recognition, is the idea of applying a method of pottery classification that would deal simultaneously with such obvious problems as size variation and asymmetry. Her method consists of a number of measurements made from scale drawings of vessels, which are then used to derive shape variables, viewed as ratios between pairs of numerical values for those measurements. Applying simple clustering algorithms, such as the Robinson coefficient of agreement to the matrix of shape variables, Rusanova thus aimed at identifying “classes” of vessels.26 She believed, in other words, that behind those classes were mental templates, combinations of technological, functional, cognitive, and cultural factors, which in her eyes were specific to the early Slavs, and only to them. Rusanova’s method stood in sharp contrast to the highly impressionistic methods of pottery analysis

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

43

until then used by Soviet archaeologists. But her introduction of mathematical methods of analysis was not unique and must be seen in the context of a general interest in the application of statistics to archaeology, which became apparent in Soviet archaeology during the de-Stalinization years of the early Brezhnev era (beginning with the mid-1960s).27 To Lev Klein, Rusanova was a student of Boris Rybakov (1908–2001), who had control of all the archaeology in the country through his position of director of the Institute of Archaeology (formerly Institute for the History of Material Culture) in Moscow.28 Rybakov, whom Klein describes as “a respected, prestigious, talented, brilliant dilettante,” had a great, but often negative influence on archaeology in the Soviet Union, more through his position of power than his work.29 Although elegantly written, his works had little if any scholarly value, despite the fact that many nonspecialists (and some specialists as well) were eager to follow his theories. What made Rybakov invulnerable was the fact that he struck the pose of the official voice of Soviet historiography, the man whom the party trusted. His Russian nationalism and declared Slavophilia encouraged the popularity of his ideas about the ancient and autochthonous character of the Slavic and Rus’ civilizations, as well as the noble origin of the Russian nation. Rybakov had also an authoritarian personality, and took revenge on anyone who dared to contradict him.30 Some even suggest that Kukharenko died because of Rybakov, after a stroke caused by a violent confrontation surrounding the problems and questions of Slavic archaeology.31 It is therefore surprising that Lev Klein believed Rybakov to have been Rusanova’s professor. No other author confirms this information. While Rusanova does cite Rybakov in her works, her opinions about the origin of the Slavs were very different from those of her director at the Institute of Archaeology. Unlike Rybakov, Rusanova did not believe in the Slavic character of the Chernyakhov culture dated between the third and the fifth centuries, and in doing so she distanced herself from the camps that had formed since the 1930s in Soviet archaeology. Ever since the early 1940s, Rybakov had been the leader of one of those camps, by maintaining that the Chernyakhov culture represented the early Slavs.32 Without ever challenging Rybakov directly, Rusanova had serious doubts about Slavs in the Chernyakhov culture.33 Nonetheless, no opposition to Rybakov could go unpunished.34 According to Anna Khoroshkevich, it was basically because of that that Rusanova’s first student, Valerii B.  Perkhavko, had to abandon the field of archaeology, when Rybakov

44 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

refused to hire him in the Institute of Moscow.35 Igor Gavritukhin, however, maintains that, on the contrary, Rybakov offered his support to Rusanova, as he recognized the international renown of her work.36 Rybakov disagreed with the conclusions of Rusanova’s dissertation, but promised to support her. Indeed, when, in the early 1980s, Rusanova’s research interests shifted one more time to the study of Slavic pre-­Christian beliefs, Rybakov—himself involved in that direction of research—welcomed and supported his younger colleague’s endeavors (although by 1987, he was no longer the director of the Institute of Archaeology).37 At that time, Rusanova already had many enemies and knew very well that Rybakov’s benevolence, if not also support was a key advantage. It is therefore possible that Rybakov’s benevolent attitude toward Rusanova has led Klein into believing that she had been his student. In the mid-1970s, shortly before defending her dissertation for the title of “doctor in science,” Rusanova gained another important ally in the person of the Ukrainian archaeologist Boris A. Timoshchuk (1919–2003). When the two first met in 1971 to carry out rescue excavations on the site of Kodyn in northern Bukovina (near Chernivtsi, next to the Ukrainian border with Romania), Timoshchuk was teaching at a local university in Chernivtsi and worked at the local branch of the Institute of History of the Academy of Science in Ukraine.38 They were similarly minded in terms of the origin and history of the early Slavs, and had a similar understanding of the role of their archaeological research in a border region of the Soviet Union.39 They eventually married each other (Fig.  3), and in the mid-­1980s, Timoshchuk was able to move to the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow.40 At that time, his wife was already the director of the archaeological expedition to Subcarpathian Ukraine (Fig.  4). When Erast Symonovich died in 1983, Rusanova took over the job of editor for the last major collection of studies on the early Slavs that was put together under the Soviet regime but published only after its demise.41 Her only, but obstinate rival during this period of time was her colleague, Valentin V.  Sedov (1924–2004). Rusanova and Sedov were engaged for a long time in what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called “the struggle for obtaining and maintaining the monopoly of scientific authority.”42 In the 1980s, in addition to his work at Izborsk, Sedov’s research focused on the early Slavs, particularly on their presence in the northwestern parts of Russia. His reputation in the field of Slavic archaeology relied on a then recently published monograph on the eastern Slavs.43 Sedov paid attention to aspects that Rusanova had neglected, such as

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

45

Fig. 3  Irina Rusanova and Boris Timoschuk, on the day of their marriage ceremony in Moscow, November 3, 1981. Photo by Tat’iana Timoshchuk, courtesy of Igor Gavritukhin

burial customs.44 Moreover, he did not hesitate to extrapolate conclusions drawn on the basis of his studies in northwestern Rus’ to the Polesie, a region practically abandoned by archaeologists after Rusanova had moved to Subcarpathian Ukraine.45 Nonetheless, he carefully peppered his studies with neutral, if not mildly positive remarks about Rusanova’s work.46 By 1990, however, Sedov began marking the differences between himself and Rusanova, even when such differences were barely visible.47 According to Igor Gavritukhin, at that time, the confrontations between Sedov and Rusanova were “quite bad,” particularly during meetings at the Institute

46 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Fig. 4  Irina Rusanova (sitting, on the right), next to Boris Timoshchuk, and surrounded by participants in the Subcarpathian archaeological expedition of the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow at Zbruch (1987). Standing, from left to right: Vasilii Kuza, Iurii Boliavskii, Valeriia Tumanova, Marina Iagodinskaia, and Igor Gavritukhin. Photo from the archive of Iurii V. Boliavskii, courtesy of Igor Gavritukhin

or in editorial committees, when at stake was the recommendation of manuscripts for publication.48 Many describe Sedov as a strong personality, who asked much both from himself and from others, but was fierce and dismissive when defending his position.49 Similarly, Rusanova is remembered as an uncompromising and peevish person, whose anger could get the best of her.50 It is not difficult to imagine the clash between the two, but there may be more to the story than just incompatible personalities. At stake may well have been the different social origins. Rusanova’s parents and grandparents were intellectuals, while Sedov grew up with both parents working in a textile factory near Moscow.51 Sedov’s working-class roots and distinguished service in World War II made him much more eligible than Rusanova for leading Soviet delegations to international conferences and congresses, although his scholarly output was by no means superior to Rusanova’s. While Rusanova remained an

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

47

archaeologist throughout her entire life, Sedov had several important administrative and political positions and received much more and higher recognition than Rusanova.52 By contrast, as Igor Gavritukhin put it, “she did not like either the administrative work, or the politics.”53

Summary Irina Rusanova is one of the most influential scholars in the field of Slavic archaeology. Her reputation rests largely on her method of pottery classification, which she applied to handmade pottery dated to the sixth and seventh centuries and attributed to the early Slavs either as the Prague or the Prague-Korchak type. Even though she was not the first Soviet archaeologist to use mathematical methods of analysis, hers was a most original approach to pottery classification. Because of that, Rusanova quickly gained worldwide recognition as a top-notch specialist in Slavic archaeology. Although a student of Petr Tret’iakov, an advocate of autochthonism (i.e., of the theory according to which the early Slavs were native to the territory of the Soviet Union), Rusanova boldly extended her conclusions to the analysis of assemblages from settlement sites excavated in other parts of Eastern Europe from Bulgaria to Eastern Germany. Her approach to the Slavic ethnogenesis was profoundly influenced by Iurii Kukharenko, who introduced her to sites in the Polesie that turned out to be fundamental for her work on Slavic pottery. Kukharenko belonged to a generation of Soviet archaeologists who were willing to abandon the ideas of Soviet archaeology and make some room for diffusionism and migration, and Rusanova’s notion of Slavic migration is aligned to Kukharenko’s ideas. Unlike Boris Rybakov, the director of the Institute of Archaeology in which she was hired, she rejected the idea that the bearers of the fourth-­ century Chernyakhov culture were Slavs, but believed that the early Slavs had arrived to the territory of the Soviet Union from the lands farther to the west, in modern Poland. Although she never challenged Rybakov directly, he blocked access to a position in the Institute of Archaeology for Rusanova’s first student, Valerii Perkhavko, who eventually had to abandon the field of archaeology altogether. By the mid-1980s, Rusanova nonetheless was able to introduce to the Institute another man—her husband, Boris Timoshchuk. Only a few years later, however, she was facing the opposition, if not outright hostility, of her colleague, Valentin Sedov, who was also a specialist in Slavic archaeology. Sedov shared many of Rusanova’s ideas, including her migrationist position, but shortly after

48 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

1990, he began to mark his distance from her theories, especially from her method of pottery analysis, while emphasizing aspects that she had neglected in her work, particularly burial customs. One can hardly compare the scholarly output of Kukharenko, Rybakov, and Timoshchuk with that of Irina Rusanova, for they were all older than her and of a much different intellectual profile. Sedov, however, was both from the same generation and truly her peer. Even though their contributions to Slavic archaeology are clearly comparable, Sedov obtained much greater recognition, both in the Soviet Union and from abroad. While throughout her career Rusanova was simply an archaeologist, with no state prizes of recognition, Sedov became a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and of the Academy of Latvia and was awarded state prizes as a recognition of his scholarship. The careful study of the scholarly careers of Irina Rusanova and Valentin Sedov reveals clearly different trajectories, which are largely to be explained politically. Moreover, the current lionization of Sedov has largely obscured and marginalized the contribution of the first female archaeologist in the Soviet Union to study the early Slavs.

Notes 1. Scholars writing about the history of archaeology in Russia have nothing to say about women and their contribution to the transformation of the discipline into a respected branch of academic activity. See Aleksandr A. Formozov, Ocherki po istorii russkoi arkheologii (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1961); Lebedev, Istoriia; Priakhin, Istoriia; Platonova, Istoriia. With the exception of Countess Praskovia Uvarova, the “discovery” of women archaeologists in pre-Bolshevik Russia is quite recent. See V.  G. Aksareeva, “Gendernyi vzgliad na memuary Praskov’i Sergeevny Uvarovoi,” Vestnik Udmurtskogo Universiteta (2009), no. 2, 138–47; Irina Iakimova, “Zhinki v arkheologichnyi nautsi Ukrainy v drugyi polovyni XIX-u kintsi 30-kh rr. XX st.: bioistoriografichnyi aspect,” Visnyk Dnipropetrovs’kogo universitetu. Seriia “Istoriia ta arkheologiia” 22 (2014), 153–59; Irina Iakimova, “Zhinki-amatori v Ukrains’kyi arkheologichnyi nautsi (1800–1917 rr.),” Materialy i doslidzhennia z arkheologii Prykarpattia I Volyni 9 (2015), 34–39; Irina Iakimova, “Zhinkaarkheolog – poiava novoi identichnosti,” Visnyk Dnipropetrovs’kogo universitetu. Seriia “Istoriia ta arkheologiia” 23 (2015), 213–21. 2. I. V. Fabritius, Arkheologicheskaia karta Prichernomor’ia Ukrainskoi SSSR (Kiev: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Ukrainskoi SSR, 1951), p.  15; A.  O. Dobroliubskii, Kochevniki Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ia v

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

49

epokhu srednevekov’ia (Kiev Naukova Dumka, 1986), p.  11; Nicolae Chetraru, Din istoria arheologiei Moldovei (Chişinău: Ştiint ̦a, 1994), pp. 92–93. 3. Iakimova, “Zhinka-arkheolog,” pp. 218–20. 4. Excluding women from the society was Count Uvarov’s idea. In her memoirs, Countess Uvarova explained her election as president in terms of the uncertain future of the society, after her husband’s death: “if I were a bad president, at least that could be blamed on a weak and unskilled woman.” See Praskovia S. Uvarova, Byloe, davno proshedshie shchastlivye dni (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo im. Sabashnikovykh, 2005), p.  132; Aksareeva, “Gendernyi vzgliad,” p. 143. 5. An almost equal number of male and female authors appear in volume 28 for 1958 (15 out of 36 authors are women archaeologists). However, volume 11 for 1949 has no female authors at all. 6. Georgii B. Fedorov, Brushchatka. Dokumental’nye povesti i rasskazy (Moscow: LIBR, 1997), p.  85 provides anecdotal evidence for that. According to Fedorov, his professor, Artemii V.  Arcikhovskii (1902–1978)—a leading archaeologist of the Soviet era—avoided using the word for “woman” as much as possible. When, in 1938, Arcikhovskii invited Fedorov and one of his colleagues to an end-of-campaign party, he warned them that in attendance would be several directors of excavations, “all men, except one of them, who is nonetheless worthy.” 7. Klein, Istoriia rossiiskoi arkheologii, vol. 1, pp. 324–26. By contrast, there are 59 biographic vignettes of male archaeologists in Klein’s book. In addition to Passek, Klein also mentions Countess Praskovia Uvarova, but only in relation to her husband, Count Aleksei Uvarov. A specialist in Neolithic, Passek was director of excavations for many years in the Ukraine and in Moldova. See Olga S.  Sveshnikova, “Tatiana Passek: the Soviet Union’s most successful female archaeologist,” Antiquity 88 (2014), no. 340, available online at https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/sveshnikova340 (visit of January 7, 2019); T. N. Mishina, “T. S. Passek (1903–1968),” in Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A.  Makarov (Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019), pp. 275–78. 8. Lev S.  Klein, Arkheologicheskaia tipologiia (Moscow: Nauka, 1991), pp. 146–50; Klein, Soviet Archaeology, p. 108; S. V. Oshibkina, ”O znachenii trudov M.  E. Foss,” in Drevnosti Oki, edited by G.  F. Poliakova (Moscow: Gosudartsvennyi istoricheskii muzei, 1994), pp.  173–78; Aleksandr A. Formozov, Chelovek i nauka. Iz zapisei arkheologa (Moscow: Znak, 2005), pp. 162–63 and 167; E. A. Kashina and M. M. Iakushina, “M. E. Foss i Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei: muzeinaia deiatel’nost’ issledovatel’nicy po materialam lichnogo arkhiva,” Ural’skii istoricheskii vestnik 48 (2015), no. 3, 37–43.

50 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

9. Klein, Trudno byt’ Kleinom, pp. 220–22; Klein, Soviet Archaeology, p. 169. For Pletneva’s life and activity, see Valerii S.  Flerov, “S.  A. Pletneva (1926–2008),” in Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A.  Makarov (Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019), pp. 279–81. 10. Stamati, The Slavic Dossier, p.  200; Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba  - arkheologiia,” pp.  196–98, 200 and 202; Igor O.  Gavritukhin, “Predislovie. Ob avtorakh etoi knigi,” in Irina P.  Rusanova and Boris A.  Timoshchuk, Iazycheskie sviatilishcha drevnikh slavian, 2nd edition (Moscow: Ladoga-100, 2007), pp. 9–11. 11. Klein, Arkheologicheskaia tipologiia, pp. 26–28; Svetlana A. Pletneva and Tatiana I.  Makarova, “Pamiati Iriny Petrovny Rusanovoi,” Stratum+ (2001–2002), no. 5, 11; Svetlana A.  Pletneva, “Pamiati Iriny Petrovny Rusanovoi (1929–1998),” Rossiiskaia arkheologiia (1999), no. 2, 248; Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba – arkheologiia,” pp. 197–98. 12. Igor O. Gavritukhin, “I. P. Rusanova (1929–1998),” in Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A. Makarov (Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019), p. 282. The slightly derogatory meaning of gorshkoved derives from the ambiguity of the Russian word gorshok, which may refer both to a vessel designed for cooking, storing, or transporting food, and to a chamber (or pee) pot. 13. Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba – arkheologiia,” pp. 193–94. 14. Igor Gavritukhin, e-mail of September 19, 2018 to Iurie Stamati. See also Gavritukhin, “I. P. Rusanova,” p. 282. 15. Valerii V. Kovelia, “M. N. Tikhomirov i ego nauchnoe nasledie. Razvitie nauchnykh koncepcii i vleianie politiko-ideologicheskogo faktora,” Ph. D. dissertation for “candidate in the historical science,” Institute of History (St. Petersburg, 2016); Pletneva, “Pamiati,’ p.  247; Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba – arkheologiia,” pp. 191 and 194. 16. Stamati, The Slavic Dossier, p. 73. 17. Vere Gordon Childe, Scotland Before the Scots (London: Methuen, 1946), p. 6. 18. Evgenii A. Shmidt, “K 60-letiiu Petra Nikolaevicha Tret’iakova,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1969), no. 4, 123; E.  A. Goriunov, “K 75-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Petra Nikolaevicha Tret’iakova,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1984), no. 2, 270; Klein, Istoriia, vol. 2, pp. 238–53. 19. Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba – arkheologiia,” pp. 195 and 201. The two have met even before Rusanova began her doctoral studies with Tret’iakov. Some of the earliest excavations that Rusanova directed apparently took place while she was still a student in history, a rare situation that Kukharenko made possible.

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

51

20. Iurii V. Kukharenko, “Slavianskie drevnosti V-IX vekov na territorii Pripiatskogo Poles’ia,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 57 (1955), 33–38; Iurii V. Kukharenko, “O pamiatnikakh ranneslavianskogo vremeni na Poles’e USSR,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN USSR 4 (1955), 48; Iurii V. Kukharenko, Srednevekovye pamiatniki Poles’ia (Moscow: Nauka, 1961); Iurii V. Kukharenko, “Razvedki Polesskogo otriada,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1978 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1979), p. 440. Kukharenko has first excavated the stronghold in Khotamel (Belarus), which would play an important role in Rusanova’s establishing a firm chronology for her classification of the early Slavic pottery. See Iurii V. Kukharenko, “Raskopki na gorodishche i selishche Khotomel,” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 68 (1957), 90–97. In her first publication (“Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletii n.e. na territorii drevlian,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia [1958], no. 4, 38), Irina Rusanova acknowledged Kukharenko as the first archaeologist who studied the early Slavs on the territory of the Soviet Union. See also Irina P. Rusanova, “Pamiati Iuriia Vladimirovicha Kukharenko,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1981), no. 2, 318. To be sure, Kukharenko first called the handmade pottery of Polesie the “Zhitomir type,” which he viewed as a local variant of the general Prague type attributed to the early Slavs. Later, however, he abandoned the idea of a single Prague type for all early Slavs: Iurii V. Kukharenko, “Pamiatniki prazhskogo tipa na territorii Pridneprov’ia,” Slavia Antiqua 7 (1960), 112. 21. According to Klein, Soviet Archaeology, p. 54, along with Valentin V. Sedov, Kukharenko was a “sub-diffusionist” or “sub-migrationist” in that he “ascribed particular importance to migration and influence in history.” Tret’iakov was an autochthonist, for he believed that the origin of the Slavs went back to the prehistoric cultures identified on the territory of the Soviet Union. Kukharenko and, like him, Sedov believed that the Slavs had come to that territory from the lands farther to the west, in what is now Poland. See Petr N. Tret’iakov, Vostochnoslavianskie plemena (Moscow Nauka, 1953); Kukharenko, Srednevekovye pamiatniki; Valentin V. Sedov, Proiskhozhdenie i ranniaia istoriia slavian (Moscow: Nauka, 1979). 22. The title of “candidate in science” was the first step of the Soviet-era doctoral degree. To earn it, the candidate had to pass a number of examinations in dialectic and historical materialism, a foreign language, and his/ her own specialty. In addition, the candidate had to defend a dissertation. The final title (“doctor in science”) was obtained with another dissertation and the recognition meanwhile obtained in the respective field of study. Sometimes the title of “doctor in science” was awarded without any dissertation, only on the basis of remarkable scholarly contributions.

52 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Moreover, the Communist party monitored and manipulated the procedures for the granting of both titles. See B. S. Rozov, “Uchenie zvaniia i stepeni,” in Bol’shaia sovetskaia enciklopediia, vol. 27, edited by A.  M. Prokhorov (Moscow: Sovetskaia enciklopediia, 1977), p.  157; M. N. Volkov, “Doktor nauk,” in Bol’shaia sovetskaia enciklopediia, vol. 8, edited by A.  M. Prokhorov (Moscow: Sovetskaia enciklopediia, 1972), p. 403; M. N. Volkov, “Kandidat nauk,” in Bol’shaia sovetskaia enciklopediia, vol. 11, edited by A. M. Prokhorov (Moscow: Sovetskaia enciklopediia, 1973), pp.  324–25; M.  N. Volkov and V.  G. Panov, “Kandidatskii minimum,” in Bol’shaia sovetskaia enciklopediia, vol. 11, edited by A.  M. Prokhorov (Moscow: Sovetskaia enciklopediia, 1973), p. 325. For those titles in archaeology, see Aleksandr A. Formozov, Russkie arkheologi v period totalitarizma. Istoriograficheskie ocherki (Moscow: Znak, 2006), pp. 244–56. 23. Irina P. Rusanova, “Poselenie u s. Korchaka na r. Tetereve,” in Slaviane nakanune obrazovaniia Kievskoi Rusi, edited by Boris A.  Rybakov (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963), pp. 39–50. The pottery found at Korchak soon came to represent the entire class of finds in the region. See Irina P. Rusanova, “Keramika ranneslavianskikh poselenii Zhitomirshchiny,” Archeologické rozhledy 20 (1968), 576–82; Irina P. Rusanova, “O keramike rannesrednevekovykh pamiatnikov Verkhnego i Srednego Podneprov’ia,” in Slaviane i Rus’. Sbornik statei. K shestdesiatiletiiu akad. B. A. Rybakova, edited by E. I. Krupnov, Viktor I. Buganov, Svetlana A.  Pletneva, Irina P.  Rusanova and G.  F. Solov’eva (Moscow: Nauka, 1968), pp. 143–50. By 1970, the “Korchak type” has replaced the “Prague type” as the standard name for the early Slavic pottery. See Irina P. Rusanova, “Karta raspostraneniia pamiatnikov tipa Korchak (VI-VII vv. n. e.),” in Drevnie slaviane i ikh sosedi, edited by Iurii V. Kukharenko and Petr N. Tret’iakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1970), pp. 93–96. It is perhaps no accident that following Rusanova’s first publications on the “Slavic antiquities” of Polesie, Kukharenko stopped publishing anything on the archaeology of the region. From 1969 to 1979, there are no publications of Iurii Kukharenko on any topic of medieval archaeology (that may have also been a consequence of his serious heart disease). 24. Irina P.  Rusanova, “Iazycheskoe svialitishche na r. Gnilopiat’ pod Zhitomirom,” in Kul’tura drevnei Rusi. Posviashchaetsia 40-letiiu nauchnoi deiatel’nost Nikolaia Nikolaevicha Voronina, edited by A. L. Mongait (Moscow: Nauka, 1966), pp. 233–37. 25. Irina P. Rusanova, Slavianskie drevnosti VI-VII vv. Kultura prazhskogo tipa (Moscow Nauka, 1976). This was Rusanova’s second book. Her dissertation for the title of “candidate in science” was published as Slavianskie

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

53

drevnosti VI-IX vv. mezhdu Dneprom i zapadnym Bugom (Moscow: Nauka, 1973). 26. Rusanova, Slavianskie drevnosti VI-VII vv., pp. 10–11. 27. Klein, Fenomen, pp. 24–25; Iliia E. Liubchanskii, “Keramicheskii kompleks i formal’no-statisticheskie metody ego obrabotki,” Vestnik Cheliabinskogo Gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriia (2005), no. 1, 127–32. The first to employ statistical methods for the analysis of ceramic morphology was not Irina Rusanova, but Vladimir F.  Gening, “Programma statisticheskoi obrabotki keramiki iz arkheologicheskikh raskopok,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1973), no. 1, 114–35. 28. Klein, Arkheologicheskaia tipologiia, p. 26. 29. Klein, Soviet Archaeology, p.  265. For an inexplicably rosier picture of Rybakov, see Albina A.  Medynceva, “B.  A. Rybakov (1908–2001),” in Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A.  Makarov (Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019), pp. 285–87. 30. A. V. Chernecov, “Krupnyi uchenyi, nepovtorimaia lichnost. K 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia akademika B. A. Rybakova,” Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk 78 (2008), no. 6, 538–43; Lev S. Klein, “Akademik Rybakov i partiinaia liniia,” Troickii variant 73 (2011), 14; Klein, Istoriia, vol. 2, pp.  192–218; Aleksandr M.  Nekrich, Otreshis’ ot strakha. Vospominaniia istorika (London: Overseas Publications Interchange, 1979), p.  176; S. S. Dmitriev, “Nachal puti v drevniuiu Rus’,” Novaia i noveishiia istoriia 3 (1988), 223–25; Svetlana A. Pletneva, T. V. Nikolaeva, R. I. Goriacheva, I. M. Zareckaia, and G. T. Serova, Boris Aleksandrovich Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1978); Fedorov, Bruschatka, pp. 76–77; Stamati, The Slavic Dossier, pp. 75–77. 31. To be sure, Kukharenko had been Rybakov’s former, talented, and very promising student, which may explain why relations between the two of them deteriorated so rapidly after Kukharenko earned his degree. See Formozov, Chelovek i nauka, pp.  164–65; Fedorov, Bruschatka, p.  77; Anna L. Khoroshkevich, “Rossiiskaia vlast’, fundamental’naia nauka i budushchee strany (A. A. Formozov. Russkie arkheologi v period totalitarizma. Istoriograficheskie ocherki),” Otechestvennye zapiski 20 (2004), no. 5, available online at http://www.strana-­oz.ru/2004/5/rossiyskaya-­ vlast-­fundamentalnaya-­nauka-­i-­budushchee-­strany-­a-­a-­formozov-­r usskie-­ arheologi-­v-­period-­totalitarizma-­istoriograficheskie-­ocherki (visit of January 7, 2020). 32. Boris A.  Rybakov, “Ranniaia kul’tura vostochnykh slavian,” Istoricheskii zhurnal 11–12 (1943), 73–80; Boris A. Rybakov and Erast A. Symonovich, “Ot redaktora,” in Po sledam drevnikh slavianskikh plemen, edited by Petr N. Tret’iakov (Leningrad: Nauka, 1982), pp. 3–4.

54 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

33. Irina P.  Rusanova, review of Ion C.  Vynokur, Istoriia ta kul’tura cherniakhivs’kikh plemen Dnistro-Dniprovs’kogo mezhirichchia II-V st. n. e., Kiev, 1972, Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1975), no. 4, 301–04. 34. For Georgii Fedorov, another victim of Rybakov’s vengeful personality, see Stamati, The Slavic Dossier, pp. 75–77. 35. Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba – arkheologiia,” p. 201. 36. Igor Gavritukhin, e-mail of October 4, 2018 to Iurie Stamati; Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba – arkheologiia,” pp. 196 and 198. 37. Boris O. Timoshchuk and Irina P. Rusanova, “Slavianskie sviatilishcha na Srednem Dnestre i v basseine Pruta,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1983), no. 4, 161–73; Irina P.  Rusanova and Boris O.  Timoshchuk, “Slavianskie gorodishcha-­sviatilishcha i iazycheskii khram,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1982 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1984), pp.  325–26; Irina P.  Rusanova and Boris O.  Timoshchuk, “Zbruchskoe sviatilishche (predvaritel’noe soobshchenie),” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1986), no. 4, 90–99; Boris O.  Timoshchuk and Irina P.  Rusanova, “Vtoroe Zbruchkoe (Krutilovskoe) sviatilishche (po materialam raskopok 1985 g.),” in Drevnosti slavian i Rusi, edited by Boris O.  Timoshchuk (Moscow: Nauka, 1988), pp. 78–91; Irina P. Rusanova, “Kultovye mesta i iazycheskie sviatilishcha slavian VI–XIII,” Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia 4 (1992), 50–67; Irina P. Rusanova and Boris O. Timoshchuk, Iazycheskie sviatilishche drevnikh slavian (Moscow: Nauchno-issledovanyi arkheologicheskii centr “ARkhE”, 1993). Rybakov’s own preoccupation with things pagan may be dated about the same time as Rusanova’s and developed in parallel with her research. See Boris A. Rybakov, “Sviatovit-rod,” in Liber Iosepho Kostrzewski octogenario a veneratoribus dicatus, edited by Konrad Jażdżewski (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1968), pp. 390–94; Boris A. Rybakov, Iazychestvo drevnikh slavian. (Moscow: Nauka, 1981); Boris A. Rybakov, Iazychestvo drevnei Rusi (Moscow: Nauka, 1987); Boris A. Rybakov, Le paganisme des anciens Slaves (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994). It is important to note that the only other archaeologist in the Soviet Union whose research on pre-Christian beliefs in Russia predated and seriously rivaled that of both Rusanova and Rybakov was Valentin V.  Sedov: Valentin V.  Sedov, “Drevnerusskoe iazycheskoe sviatilishche v Peryni,” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 50 (1953), 92–103; Valentin V. Sedov, “Iazycheskaia bratchina v drevnem Novgorode,” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 65 (1956), 138–41; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Iazycheskie sviatilishcha smolenskikh krivichei,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 87 (1962), 57–64; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Pagan sanctuaries and idols of the Eastern

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

55

Slavs,” Slavica Gandensia 7–8 (1980–1981), 69–85; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Kul’t kamnia v iazychestve vostochnykh slavian,” Balcanoslavica 13–15 (1986–1988), 33–47. After 1990, however, Sedov stopped writing anything on Slavic paganism and focused almost exclusively on the Slavic ethnogenesis. 38. In both capacities, Timoshchuk was involved in the efforts of the Soviet historiography to reply to Romanian claims to Bukovina based on the idea that the earliest inhabitants of that province had been the Dacians (the ancestors of the Romanians) and not the Slavs. During the late 1950s, Romanian historians returned to a nationalist approach to the history of the Romanian lands. By 1960, some openly denounced the illegal occupation of Bukovina and Bessarabia. Both territories had been snatched by the Soviet Union as a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. The Soviet justification for the occupation of Bessarabia was that that territory was inhabited primarily by Ukrainians, while northern Bukovina had to be occupied as compensation for the sufferings of those Ukrainians under the exploitative regime of the Romanian bourgeoisie (Stamati, The Slavic Dossier, p. 7 with n. 13). 39. Boris O.  Timoshchuk and Irina P.  Rusanova, “Raskopki slavianskogo poseleniia Kodyn,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1974 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1975), pp. 363–65; Irina P. Rusanova and Boris O.  Timoshchuk, Drevnerusskoe Podnestrov’e. Istorikokraevedcheskii ocherki (Uzhhorod: Karpaty, 1981); Irina P. Rusanova and Boris O.  Timoshchuk, “Issledovanie slavianskikh poselenii VIII-X vv. v Chernovickoi oblasti,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1981 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), pp. 313–14; Irina P. Rusanova and Boris O.  Timoshchuk, Kodyn, slavianskie poseleniia V-VIII vv. na r. Prut (Moscow: Nauka, 1984). 40. Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba  – arkheologiia,” pp.  200–06; Gavritukhin, “Predislovie,” pp.  5–16; Pletneva and Makarova, “Pamiati,” p.  12; Pletneva, “Pamiati,” pp. 248–49. Rusanova had no children, but her husband had a son and a daughter from a previous marriage (Igor Gavritukhin, e-mails of September 19, 2018 and October 4, 2018, both to Iurie Stamati). 41. Irina P. Rusanova and Erast A. Symonovich (eds.), Slaviane i ikh sosedi v konce I tysiacheletiia do n.e.-pervoi polovine I tysiacheletiia n. e. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993). For this collection and Rusanova’s role, see Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba  – arkheologiia,” pp.  200 and 204. Erast A. Symonovich (1919–1983) was a Russian archaeologist specializing in the study of the fourth-century Chernyakhov culture. Unlike Rusanova, he believed firmly that that culture represented the early Slavs.

56 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

42. Pierre Bourdieu, “La spécificité du champ scientifique et les conditions sociales du progrès de la raison,” Sociologie et sociétés 7 (1975), 91–2; Pierre Bourdieu, Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie clinique du champ scientifique (Paris: INRA Editions, 1997), p. 17. 43. Valentin V.  Sedov, Vostochnye slaviane v VI-XIII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1982). See also Valentin V.  Sedov, “Origine de la branche du nord des Slaves orientaux,” in Studia nad etnogeneza ̨ Słowian i kultura ̨ Europy wczesnosredniowiecznej. ́ Praca zbiorowa, edited by Gerard Labuda and Stanisław Tabaczyński, vol. 1 (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/Gdańsk/Łódż: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1987), pp. 161–65; Valentin V. Sedov, “Pervaia volna slavianskogo osvoeniia Severo-Zapada,” Arkheologiia i istoriia Pskova i Pskovskoi zemli (1987), 46–48; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Formirovanie vostochnoslavianskoi narodnosti,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 198 (1987), 10–15; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Nachalo slavianskogo osvoeniia territorii Novgorodskoi zemli,” in Istoriia i kul’tura drevnerusskogo goroda, edited by German A. Fedorov-Davydov, E.  A. Ryvina and Aleksandr S.  Khoroshev (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1989), pp.  12–17; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Etnogenez slavian po arkheologicheskim dannym. Fakty i gipotezy,” in VI Mezhdunarodnyi kongress slavianskoi arkheologii, g. Prilep, Iugoslaviia, 1990 g. Tezisy dokladov, podgotovlennykh sovetskimi issledovateliami, edited by Valentin V.  Sedov (Moscow: Nauka, 1990), pp.  80–86; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Etnogenez slavian po arkheologicheskim dannym,” in Slavianskaia arkheologiia 1990. Etnogenez, rasselenie i dukhovnaia kul’tura slavian, edited by Valentin V. Sedov and Aleksei V. Chernecov (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), pp. 34–55; Valentin V. Sedov, “Stanovlenie i etnogenez slavian (po dannym arkheologii i gidronimii),” in Istoriia, kul’tura, etnografiia i fol’klor slavianskikh narodov. XI Mezhdunarodnyi sa ̆ezd slavistov, Bratislava, sentiabr’ 1993 g. Doklady rossiiskoi delegacii, edited by Gennadii G.  Litavrin (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), pp.  119–30; Valentin V.  Sedov, Slaviane v drevnosti (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii Rossiskoi Akademii Nauk, 1994); Valentin V. Sedov, Slaviane v ranem srednovekov’e (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 1995). For Sedov’s contribution to the problem of the Slavic ethnogenesis, see Florin Curta, Slavs in the Making. History, Linguistics, and Archaeology in Eastern Europe (ca. 500 - ca. 700) (London/New York: Routledge, 2020), pp. 31–32 and 217. 44. Valentin V.  Sedov, “Pogrebal’nye pamiatniki slavian v V-VII vv.,” Arkheologiia i istoriia Pskova i Pskovskoi zemli (1982), 39–40; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Pogrebal’nyi obriad slavian v nachale srednevekov’ia,” in Konferenciia “Balto-slavianskie etnokul’turnye i arkheologicheskie drevnosti pogrebal’nyi obriad”. Tezisy dokladov, edited by V.  V. Ivanov and L.  G. Nevskaia (Moscow: Institut slavianovedeniia i balkanistiki, 1985),

  CHAPTER 3: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN SLAVIC ARCHAEOLOGY… 

57

pp.  76–78; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Pogrebal’nyi obriad slavian v nachale srednevekov’ia,” In Issledovaniia v oblasti balto-slavianskoi dukhovnoi kul’tury. Pogrebal’nyi obriad, edited by Viacheslav V.  Ivanov and L. G. Nevskaia (Moscow: Nauka, 1990), pp. 170–82. 45. Valentin V.  Sedov, “Pripiatskoe Poles’e v slavianskom etnogeneze po arkheologicheskim dannym,” in Poles’e i etnogenez slavian. Predvaritel’nye materialy i tezisy konferencii, edited by Nikita I. Tolstoi (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), pp. 22–24 is critical of the idea that Polesie was the Slavic Urheimat. He also had a different approach to the problem of Slavic paganism: Valentin V. Sedov, “Teoreticheskie problemy rekonstrukcii drevneishei slavianskoi dukhovnoi kul’ture. Otvety na voprosy (zavershenie diskussii),” Sovetskaia Etnografiia (1984), no. 4, 67–69. 46. Valentin V.  Sedov, “Dregovichi,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1963), no. 3, 116 and 120–21; Valentin V. Sedov, “Rannie kurgany viatichei,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 135 (1973), 16; Valentin V. Sedov, “Slaviane srednego Podneprov’ia (po dannym paleoantropologii),” Sovetskaia Etnografiia (1974), no. 1, 20; Sedov, Proiskhozhdenie, pp. 101, 103, 104, 108 and 116; Sedov, Vostochnye slaviane, pp. 12, 13, 16, 19, 54, 55, 90, 91, 96, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 112, 123, 126, 259 and 263; Valentin V. Sedov, “Problema proiskhozhdeniia i nachal’noi istorii slavian,” Slaviano-russkie drevnosti 1 (1988), 14. 47. Although both Rusanova and Sedov were advocates of the idea that the Slavs had come to the Russian lands from the territory of Poland and the Przeworsk culture, Valentin V.  Sedov, “Problema etnogeneza slavian v arkheologicheskoi literature 1979–1985 gg.,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 195 (1989), 4 criticizes Rusanova for just that. In a paper on the “Slavic world” presented at the 12th international congress on Slavic studies, which took place in Cracow in 1998 (the year in which Rusanova died), Sedov cited his own work but did not mention Rusanova’s at all. See Valentin V. Sedov, “Slavianskii mir nakanune raspada iazykovoi obshchnosti,” in Slavianskie literatury, kul’tura i fol’klor slavianskikh narodov. XII mezhdunarodnyi săezd slavistov (Krakov, 1998). Doklady rossiiskoi delegacii, edited by Sergei V.  Nikol’skii (Moscow: Nasledie, 1998), pp.  277–86. For the striking similarity between Sedov and Rusanova’s ideas about the origin of the Slavs and the ethnic interpretation of the archaeological record, see Maksim I.  Zhikh, “Valentin Vasilevich Sedov. Stranicy zhizni i tvorchestva slavianskogo podvizhnika. Chast II.  Problema slavianskogo etnogeneza v rabotakh V.  V. Sedova,” Rusin (2013), no. 1, 111, 114 and 117. According to Igor Gavritukhin (e-mail of September 19, 2018 to Iurie Stamati), both Sedov and Rusanova used to pick a fight over minor details.

58 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

48. Igor Gavritukhin, e-mails of September 19, 2018 and October 4, 2018, both to Iurie Stamati. 49. S. Prokop’eva, “Eto byl ochen’ sre’eznyi orientir v nashei zhizni. Pskovskie kollegi vspominaiut V. V. Sedova,” Pskovskaia guberniia Online 38 (2004), no. 208, available online at http://gubernia.pskovregion.org/number_208/07.php (visit of January 7, 2020). 50. Pletneva, “Pamiati,” p. 246; Igor Gavritukhin, e-mail of October 4, 2018 to Iurie Stamati. Gavritukhin, “I.  P. Rusanova,” p.  282 describes her as “stern on the outside.” 51. Like Rusanova, Sedov’s life and career have received much scholarly attention: Aleksei V. Chernecov, “Valentin Vasil’evich Sedov,” Rossiiskaia arkheologiia (2004), no. 4, 5–7; Nikolai A.  Makarov and A.  R. Artem’ev, “Valentin Vasil’evich Sedov,” in Vostochnaia Evropa v srednevekov’e. K 80-letiiu Valentina Vasil’evicha Sedova, edited by Nikolai A.  Makarov, Aleksei V.  Chernecov and Nikolai V.  Lopatin (Moscow: Nauka, 2004), pp.  3–13; Vlasta E.  Rodinkova, Valentin Vasil’evich Sedov (Moscow: Nauka, 2004); V.  I. Zav’ialov, “Pamiati Valentina Vasil’evicha Sedova (1924–2004),” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii RAN 218 (2005), 2–5; Sergei V. Beleckii and Ol’ga A. Shcheglova, “Svetloi pamiati Marii Vladimirovny i Valentina Vasil’evicha Sedovykh,” Stratum+ (2005–2009), no. 5, 11–17; Maksim I. Zhikh, “Valentin Vasilevich Sedov. Stranicy zhizni i tvorchestva slavianskogo podvizhnika. Chast 1,” Rusin (2012), no. 4, 131–65; Nikolai A. Makarov, “V. V. Sedov (1924–2004),” in Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A. Makarov (Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019), pp. 288–90. An entire volume of Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii RAN (for 2015) is dedicated to Sedov. 52. Sedov was a member of the International Council of Monuments and Sites (1980–1993), and the chair of the Russian committee of that council in 1992–1993. He was a member of the editorial board of Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (later Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia) and editor-in-chief of both Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia and Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii (Zhikh, “Valentin Vasilevich Sedov. Stranicy zhizni i tvorchestva slavianskogo podvizhnika. Chast 1,” pp. 135–36). Awarded the Order of the Red Star and the medal “For Valor in Battle” for his service in World War II, Sedov became a corresponding member (1997) and then full member (2003) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He was also elected member in the Academy of Latvia (1994). In addition, he received the USSR State Prize in Science (1984) and the State Prize of the Russian Federation (2004). 53. Igor Gavritukhin, e-mail of September 19, 2018 to Iurie Stamati.

Chapter 4: Under the Glass Ceiling: Zhivka Văzharova and Maria Comşa

Few archaeologists in Eastern Europe had more influence on the development of medieval archaeology than the Bulgarian Zhivka Văzharova (1916–1991) and the Romanian Maria Comşa (1928–2002). Although Comşa was 12 years younger than her Bulgarian colleague, their careers are strikingly similar, especially when taking into consideration education, research interests, and the struggle to succeed professionally.1 Văzharova and Comşa were among the first archaeologists in their respective countries to obtain doctoral degrees in the Soviet Union, and they had a crucial contribution to the development of Slavic archaeology.2 Both got their doctoral degrees from the State University “M.  V. Lomonosov” in Moscow, shortly after the Communist regimes were established in Romania and Bulgaria, respectively—Văzharova between 1947 and 1952, and Comşa between 1952 and 1956 (Fig.  1). Despite later attempts to blacken their reputations, both archaeologists produced works comparable in many respects to those of their male contemporaries. Both had strong personalities and were very ambitious and seem to have taken advantage of the official discourse concerning the equality between women and men under Communism when gaining a position of authority in a scholarly discipline until then reserved for men. That both chose the archaeology of the (early) Slavs as their primary specialty speaks volumes about the disciplinary configuration of medieval archaeology in its infancy. Before Văzharova and Comşa, no archaeologist, either in Romania or in Bulgaria, had dedicated as much energy and time to the study of the Slavs. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6_5

59

60 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Fig. 1  Maria Comşa, shortly after her doctoral studies in Moscow (1957). (Source: “Colect ̦ia bibliografică Eugen şi Maria Comşa” (https://comsa.cimec. ro/, visit of January 7, 2020))

It is perhaps no accident that both scholars started with studies in philology, Slavic in the case of Zhivka Văzharova (at the University of Sofia, between 1941 and 1945) and classical and Romanian in that of Maria Comşa (“Victor Babeş” University in Cluj between 1949 and 1951).3 In the mid-twentieth century, philology was still perceived as the key discipline for the study of history, since the emphasis in the historiography of both Bulgaria and Romania had until then been on written sources. But the opportunities offered by the newly installed, Communist regimes radically changed the careers of both young women. Zhivka Văzharova was most likely recommended (possibly by her professor Stoian Romanski, a reputed Slavist and ethnographer) for graduate studies in Soviet Russia because of her “healthy” social origin and the political activity of her father.4 She studied Slavic archaeology and ethnology in Moscow under the supervision of Petr Tret’iakov and wrote a dissertation on the medieval origins of the Bulgarian agricultural tools. Despite the apparently neutral and economically anchored theme, this was a dissertation about the

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

61

Bulgarian ethnogenesis, in which the emphasis was placed very strongly on the Slavs.5 Maria Comşa arrived in Moscow in the year in which Văzharova left.6 She probably studied archaeology with Boris Rybakov, and her dissertation was about the medieval pottery from sixth- to twelfth-­ century sites in Romania. Hers was also an investigation into the Slavic contribution to ethnogenesis, in that case of the Romanians.7 To both women, the doctoral studies in the Soviet Union guaranteed success in their new profession. Immediately upon returning from Moscow, Zhivka Văzharova was hired in the Institute of Bulgarian History and appointed at the helm of the Archaeological Institute (1953–1956).8 She had gained considerable prestige among Soviet and Bulgarian archaeologists simply by earning her doctoral degree in Moscow. As a consequence, she was co-opted in the Bulgarian-Soviet-Romanian joint expedition to Popina (near Silistra, northern Bulgaria; Fig. 2), along with such senior scholars as Krăstiu Miiatev, Mikhail Artamonov, Gheorghe Ştefan, and Iurii Kukharenko.9 To be sure, Văzharova’s ties with the USSR

Fig. 2  Principal sites mentioned in the text

62 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

were stronger than Comşa’s and may have been of a rather personal character. The first single-author monograph that she published in her country was not a work of archaeology, but a book about Russian scholars and the antiquities of Bulgaria.10 Maria Comşa, the freshly minted Ph.D. from Moscow, was immediately hired in the recently reorganized Institute of Archaeology in Bucharest, where only two years later, she became the director of the medieval section.11 Unlike her, Văzharova went again to the USSR in 1957 to work as senior associate in the Hermitage Museum of Leningrad, which at that time was under the direction of Mikhail Artamonov. She returned to Bulgaria in 1960, when, at the age of 44, she became senior researcher in the Archaeological Institute with Museum in Sofia. At that same time, Maria Comşa received the much coveted task of writing the chapter on the Slavs in the new treatise of Romanian history commissioned by the Communist Party and published by the Academy of the People’s Republic of Romania.12 At only 32 years of age, she must have enjoyed an enormous amount of trust from the party leadership, the members of which regarded her as the expert in matters of Slavic archaeology in Romania.13 Despite such promising beginnings, Maria Comşa and Zhivka Văzharova never reached to the top of the academic careers in their respective countries. Maria Comşa’s position of director of the medieval section in the Institute of Archaeology was the highest in her academic life. Beginning with the late 1960s, her works began to be regarded with great suspicion, as she turned into an “agent” of Soviet influence upon Romanian archaeology. Apparently, such a change of attitude coincides with the ideological turn of the Romanian Communist Party that adopted a line of greater autonomy from the Soviet Union, which was marked, among other things, by an abrupt return, ever since the mid-1950s, to a nationalist discourse supported by Romanian historians. The key element of that new attitude was a minimization, if not outright rejection, of the contribution of the Slavs to the Romanian ethnogenesis and national history. To be sure, in certain respects, Maria Comşa’s position on matters Slavic was quite similar to that of the Soviet historiography. In the early 1960s, she maintained that the early Slavs had settled on the territory of Romania as early as the first half of the sixth century. She insisted upon the idea that the Slavs responsible for the seventh- to eighth-century material culture in Moldavia were the Antes, the ancestors of Russians and Ukrainians.14 Beginning with 1964, she often wrote about the political

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

63

and military hegemony that the early Slavs supposedly exercised in the Romanian lands during the sixth and seventh centuries, although she also insisted that the early Slavs were a peaceful, sedentary population.15 It is not difficult to recognize the political implications of such conclusions. However, it would be a gross mistake to regard Maria Comşa as a Soviet agent planted inside the Romanian school of medieval archaeology. Several of her ideas were in fact the opposite of what, at that time, passed for acceptable in Soviet archaeology, and some directly attacked the ideas of prominent Soviet archaeologists. Moreover, it was Maria Comşa who influenced the ideas of Soviet archaeologists, and not the other way around.16 For all her associations with the question of the early Slavs in Romania, by 1960, Maria Comşa had started excavations at Bucov (on the northern outskirts of Ploieşti, southern Romania), the site at the center of her later theories about the “Romanian medieval civilization.”17 It is likely that Comşa understood the direction of the political change after Nicolae Ceauşescu’s implementation of nationalist Communism, following the Prague Spring of 1968. In that year, she was already writing about Slavs living side by side with the native, Romanian population, which had supposedly exercised a civilizing influence upon them.18 The political and ideological changes taking place in the mid-1960s are therefore not sufficient to explain what happened to Maria Comşa after that. In the 1960s, Comşa engaged in a bitter polemic in the pages of the journal of the Institute of Archaeology, Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche. Her opponent was Ion Nestor (1905–1974), one of the leading archaeologists in Communist Romania at that time, and a professor at the University of Bucharest (1946–1974). A prominent prehistorian, Nestor began in the 1950s to tackle the problem of the early Slavs in Romanian history, no doubt in relation to his excavations on the site of the large cremation cemetery at Sărata Monteoru (near Buzău, to the northeast from Bucharest), which he first attributed to the Slavs.19 In Romanian historiography, Nestor is commonly presented as the leader of the resistance against the infiltration of Romanian archaeology by Soviet theories under the pressure of the Communist regime. Until his death, Nestor indeed promoted the idea that the Slavs had played a minor role in the history of Romania. According to the files of the secret police (Securitate), a conflict exploded in 1960 and 1961 between Nestor and Comşa. Nestor, at that time 55 years old, apparently promised his 32-year-old female colleague that he would eventually destroy her career as scholar.20

64 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Given the archival evidence, as well as many oral testimonies, there can be little doubt that Nestor was militantly resisting the pressures of the proSoviet regime onto the Romanian school of archaeology. However, it is equally true that Nestor also fiercely defended his position in the Romanian academe. In other words, Nestor engaged seriously in much the same confrontation that characterized the relations between Valentin Sedov and Irina Rusanova a few decades later, in the Soviet Union. Maria Comşa’s career started only after her doctoral studies in Moscow, in 1956. At that time, Nestor was the director of the section for prehistory in the recently created Institute of Archaeology in Bucharest, a professor at the university, and a corresponding member of the Romanian Academy. The agents of the secret police, some of his own students, and the archaeological folklore all describe Nestor as a brilliant professor. Nonetheless, many of those sources insist upon his authoritarian attitudes, jealously defending his own position of power against younger colleagues. It must have been difficult for him to accept the challenge of a female archaeologist, more than 20 years younger than him.21 The struggle for monopoly of scientific authority may also explain the derailment of Zhivka Văzharova’s career. To be sure, unlike Comşa, Văzharova maintained a much stronger position, at least as director of the medieval section in the Institute of Archaeology in Sofia (1974–1981).22 However, much like the Romanian archaeologist, she was confronted with hostility and even denigration, both on a professional and on a personal level. Some have accused her of lack of professionalism, others of gross mistakes in excavation technique and publications.23 During her career, Văzharova’s opponents were such prominent archaeologists as Atanas Milchev (1915–2002), Stancho Vaklinov (1921–1978), and Dimităr Ovcharov (1931–2013). According to some sources, the conflict with the former erupted in 1954, when Văzharova was appointed deputy director of the Bulgarian-Soviet-Romanian excavations in Popina. Milchev, who had returned in 1950 with a doctoral degree from Leningrad, was at that time an associate professor in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Sofia. He had, in other words, a position of higher ranking than Văzharova’s.24 Nonetheless, in her list of participants in the excavations in Popina, Văzharova omitted the doctoral title for Atanas Milchev.25 During the following years, Văzharova consolidated her position of scientific authority and turned the region around Popina into her own archaeological fief. The results of the excavations carried out at Dzhedzhovi lozia between 1957 and 1961 were published as her first archaeological

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

65

monograph.26 Milchev used the opportunity to write a scathing review of the book in retaliation: “Every archaeologist studying the early Middle Ages may expect to find in this book a response to the crucial questions about the origin and the nature of the Old Bulgarian culture. Unfortunately, not only is there no answer in this work to any of those questions, but on the contrary, Zh[ivka] V[ă]zharova, with her obscure line of arguments, her artificial construction of peculiar, outdated theories that do not conform either to the written or to the archaeological data, draws absurd conclusions that can only confuse the reader.”27 When accusing Bulgarian archaeologists of privileging the Bulgars over the Slavs, Văzharova is clearly not aware either of the archaeology of Pliska and Preslav, or of Milchev’s own work. She therefore does not know that Slavic settlements have been found in the Outer Town at Pliska. She is also a bad archaeologist: her occupation phases (called “culture I” and “culture II”) are concocted out of thin air, not based on stratigraphic observations. Although claiming that the distinction between the two phases is based on the analysis of pottery, Văzharova in fact preassigns the ceramic remains to one of the two phases on the basis of the manufacture (hand- or wheel-made), not of stratigraphy.28 By privileging the Slavic element over the ancient and Byzantine culture, Văzharova (inadvertently) denies the Marxist interpretation of the social and economic development of Slavic society.29 The excavations carried out at Garvan between 1964 and 1980 brought to light the largest early medieval settlement so far known from northern Bulgaria.30 The cremation cemeteries discovered in Popina and Garvan formed the basis of the first monograph on mortuary archaeology of the early Middle Ages in Bulgaria.31 By contrast, the earliest excavations that Atanas Milchev could carry out in the region of Silistra—Văzharova’s fief—cannot be dated before 1967, and were restricted to the site of Nova Cherna.32 By the late 1960s, the rivalry between the two Bulgarian scholars had turned into a triangular debate surrounding the Bulgarian ethnogenesis. Together with her older colleague, Sonia Georgieva (1922–1988), Văzharova stressed the predominant role of the Slavs using arguments that were not that different from those adopted by Maria Comşa in Romania at about the same time.33 Atanas Milchev, without necessarily denying the contribution of the Slavs to the Bulgarian ethnogenesis, insisted that upon entry into the northern Balkans, the Slavs were welcomed by the Thracian population, to whom the Slavs were not invaders, but allies against a common enemy—the Roman Empire. The civilizing influence of the (non-­ Romanized) Thracian population upon the Slavs—an idea eerily

66 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

reminiscent of Nestor’s views in neighboring Romania—thus constituted the basis for the early Bulgarian culture and statehood.34 A third position began to take shape shortly before and after 1960, which placed the emphasis squarely on the Bulgars.35 Unlike Văzharova, who regarded the Bulgars as quintessential nomads civilized by the Slavs, this position made Pliska and Preslav the key sites of medieval archaeology and effectively silenced all other explanations for the rise of early medieval Bulgaria and the Bulgarian ethnogenesis.36 To be sure, Văzharova was never regarded as a Soviet agent in Bulgarian archaeology, perhaps because her own adversary, Atanas Milchev, had been educated in the Soviet Union as well.37 Moreover, much like Comşa, Văzharova’s interpretations were at odds with those of prominent Soviet archaeologists. For example, Irina Rusanova, the leading Soviet scholar in the archaeology of the early Slavs during the 1970s openly criticized Văzharova for her interpretation of the site at Popina and rejected the early dates she had advanced for the Slavic pottery found there.38 However, while following the publication of her first monograph in 1965, Văzharova remained a simple archaeologist, one year earlier, without any significant list of publications, Milchev was promoted full professor at the University of Sofia in 1964. Soon after that, he also became the head of the archaeology department at that university, all without any scholarly achievements.39 Meanwhile, Văzharova was painstakingly gathering material for her monograph on early medieval cemeteries in Bulgaria, the publication of which made it possible for her to be appointed a professor in 1977. While her only female graduate student was Liudmila Doncheva-Petkova, Văzharova was the doctoral adviser for Stanislav Stanilov, who had graduated from the University of Veliko Tărnovo as a student of Stancho Vaklinov. When the latter became a full professor at the University of Veliko Tărnovo (the second major university in Bulgaria) in 1965, he had no book as a single author.40 Nonetheless, Vaklinov was appointed president of the university in Veliko Tărnovo in 1966.41 Dimităr Ovcharov, after working for several museums in Bulgaria, was hired in the Institute Archaeology in 1974, the same year in which Văzharova became director of the medieval archaeology section. He replaced her in that position in 1983, and eight years later became the director of the institute.42 While she was slowly outflanked by men with better political connections, and eventually marginalized, Văzharova’s work became simply irrelevant. To be sure, in the late 1980s, her interpretation of such sites as Popina, Dzhedzhovi Lozia, and Garvan became the subject of heated

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

67

debates in the Institute of Archaeology in Sofia. Văzharova’s former doctoral student, Stanislav Stanilov published a review of her monograph of Garvan, which was the last criticism of Văzharova’s work before her death.43 Stanilov pointed out faulty excavation techniques (that left large areas unexplored, thus encumbering a social interpretation of the settlement), a substandard publication of finds (e.g., plans without scale, as well as contradictions between text and illustrations), theoretical weaknesses (deriving from Văzharova’s exclusive reliance on Mikhail Artamonov’s outdated work), inadequate language (most evident in Văzharova’s use of Russian instead of Bulgarian words), inappropriate polemics (attacks against Stefka Angelova, Atanas Milchev’s student), and serious errors of interpretation (largely because of wrong analogies and the misunderstanding of the archaeological literature). He even noted that citations from Karl Marx were no substitute for solid arguments.44 However, his remarks concerned very specific details of a particular book, not the whole of Văzharova’s activity and scholarly output. To this day, there has been no attempt at reassessing her contribution to the development of medieval archaeology in Bulgaria.45 The same is true for Maria Comşa in Romania, whose monograph on Bucov, the site she interpreted as emblematic for the Romanian medieval civilization, was received coldly by her colleagues.46 Much like Văzharova, Maria Comşa’s work has been largely ignored until very recently, when the first attempts were made at reevaluation.47 It is therefore not easy to assess the possibility that misogyny, along with efforts to establish scientific authority, was at work in the development of the academic careers of those two female archaeologists. However, there seems to be little doubt that the first women entering the profession were confronted with strong stereotypes and were most likely chosen by the Communist regimes for training in the USSR not as Soviet agents in the local schools of archaeology, but as instruments for breaking the patriarchal character of the prewar organization of those schools. Despite the brutal imposition of modernization in the postwar society of both Bulgaria and Romania, in the eyes of their male colleagues Zhivka Văzharova and Maria Comşa still confirmed the idea that a female archaeologist working among men, away from home and the supervision of males—fathers, brothers, and husbands—was socially provocative (Fig.  3). Even more serious was the provocation when that woman challenged the position of power and scientific authority of a male colleague, often of an older age. It

68 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Fig. 3  Maria Comşa in 1957 visiting the newly discovered rock-cut church at Murfatlar (near Constant ̦a, Romania), together with a group of archaeologists. From left to right: Emil Condurachi, Maria Comşa, Radu Florescu, Ion Barnea, unknown, Constantin Nicolăescu-Plopşor. (Source: “Colect ̦ia bibliografică Eugen şi Maria Comşa” (https://comsa.cimec.ro/, visit of January 7, 2020))

is perhaps no accident that in the only biographical note written so far on Zhivka Văzharova, her female student Liudmila Doncheva-Petkova describes her as a “complex, contradictory, and interesting figure: direct, rigorous, and ascetic” (Fig. 4). She worked under “Spartan conditions,” spending entire days on the excavation or walking long distances in field surveys, often without any day off and on simple or just little food.48 Such comments are an excellent illustration of what Stephanie Moser called the “disciplinary culture,” particularly the idea that archaeology is primarily fieldwork demanding strength and experience, and the ability to work under tough conditions. However, those comments were made by a

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

69

Fig. 4  Zhivka Văzharova at the central railroad station in Sofia, to meet the Soviet delegates to the 1976 Soviet-Bulgarian archaeological meeting. Photo taken by Valerii Flerov. Courtesy of Evgeniia Komatarova-Balinova

female about another female archaeologist that lived and worked in a Communist country, the legislation of which had established from the very beginning the equality of men and women.

70 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Summary The comparison between Zhivka Văzharova and Maria Comşa is threepronged, and the resulting image is one of considerable complexity. At the beginning of their careers, the lives of these two women archaeologists were quite similar, despite their different social backgrounds. Both earned their doctoral degrees from the State University “M. V. Lomonosov” in Moscow. They were among the first archaeologists from their respective countries to be sent for graduate studies to the Soviet Union. Both have been recommended for such studies by powerful men, but with the goal in mind of challenging, if not altogether breaking the patriarchal character of the prewar organization of the local schools of archaeology. With the PhD from Moscow in hand, each one of these two women archaeologists obtained immediate employment and even promotion upon return to Bucharest and Sofia, respectively. Both women specialized in Slavic archaeology, a completely new subfield in both Romania and Bulgaria. Comşa and Văzharova led excavations on a number of key sites and engaged in critical debates regarding the role of the Slavs in the Romanian and Bulgarian ethnogeneses, in both cases facing much opposition from senior, male scholars. Unlike Irina Rusanova, neither Maria Comşa, nor Zhivka Văzharova privileged any category of archaeological evidence, such as the pottery, even though much of the initial discussion of Slavs in archaeology was based on the ceramic material from settlement and, to a lesser degree, cemetery sites. Despite being educated in the Soviet Union and dealing with the early Slavs, neither Comşa, nor Văzharova acted as advocates of the Soviet school of archaeology in their respective countries. By the late 1960s, Comşa gained the bad reputation of being a Soviet agent in the Romanian archaeology, but that was less because of what she did or wrote, and more the result of her conflict with Ion Nestor, the senior archaeologist dealing with the Middle Ages, and a corresponding member of the Romanian Academy. Văzharova, on the other hand, gradually lost ground to three male rivals—Atanas Milchev, Stancho Vaklinov, and Dimităr Ovcharov. Those conflicts defined the subsequent career paths of both women, and greatly contributed to their academic isolation. However, the rivalry between male and female archaeologists is best understood as a struggle for the monopoly of scientific authority, much in the same terms as the conflict between Sedov and Rusanova in the Soviet Union.

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

71

Different in the case of Maria Comşa and, to a lesser degree, in that of Zhivka Văzharova, is how much older the male competitor was than his female rival. In other words, as a consequence of a probably deliberate personnel policy, the 55-year-old Ion Nestor saw his career threatened by a female colleague, who was more than 20 years younger, but seemed to gather both the accolades of Soviet archaeologists and, more importantly, the support of the Romanian Communist leaders. None of the men who challenged the scientific authority of Zhivka Văzharova was that much older than her, but they all managed to climb socially and politically faster. While Comşa freely engaged in polemics with the much older Ion Nestor, Văzharova was both attacked in book reviews (to which she never responded) and bypassed for promotion by her male colleagues. Eventually, even Văzharova’s former student, Stanislav Stanilov, joined this line of attack, despite the fear and respect that his former mentor inspired until the very end of her career. Văzharova is remembered to this day as hard working, resilient, and capable of surviving many days on campaigns with little or no food—all qualities commonly associated with men in the disciplinary culture of archaeology. Confronted with hostility and denigration, both Maria Comşa and Zhivka Văzharova found refuge in their own work, which they obstinately continued despite all criticism. Văzharova trained a couple of graduate students, but Comşa had no disciples. Because of that, the image of each woman in Bulgaria and Romania, respectively, still awaits a serious reevaluation. Parallel to a reassessment of their contributions to Slavic archaeology, one will need to scrutinize how they gained scholarly recognition and the way in which their reputation was tarnished. In the process of understanding the lives and works of the first women archaeologists working in medieval archaeology, one cannot avoid the topic of the disciplinary culture: in Romania and Bulgaria, a woman had to be more (and better) than a man in order to be accepted as archaeologist. It is very likely that responsible for the academic marginalization of both Văzharova and Comşa during the later years of their lives was more the disciplinary culture than their respective scholarly output.

72 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Notes 1. The similarities are even more remarkable when one considers the stark differences in social background. Zhivka Văzharova was born in Kyustendil (western Bulgaria) in the family of a local teacher, Nikola Văzharov, who, in 1920, became the first Communist mayor of Bulgaria. He was the head of what is otherwise known as the “Commune of Kyustendil,” perhaps because of being short-lived—from January to June 1920, when Văzharov resigned. Because of his involvement in the September Uprising of 1923, which was organized by the Bulgarian Communists to overthrow the new government of Alexander Cankov (1923–1926), which was established after the coup d’état of June 1923, Văzharov was put under house arrest in Dupnica. His daughter was only seven years old at that time, but Zhivka Văzharova inherited from her father the passion for political activism. She was a member of the National Student Union (BONS), and of the Union of the Working Youth (RMS), both controlled by the Bulgarian Communist Party. During her studies at the University of Sofia, she was known as a true Communist. See Liudmila Doncheva-Petkova, “Zhivka Văzharova—zhivot i tvorcheska deinost,” Prinosi ka ̆m bal̆ garskata arkheologiia 5 (2009), 5 and 10; Ivan Venedikov, Poznaite gi po delata im. Bălgarskata inteligenciia v moite spomeni (Sofia: Izdatelska kăshta “Khristo Botev”, 1993), p.  335. For Nikola Văzharov, see http://probuzhdane.blogspot. com/2014/01/blog-­post_30.html (visit of January 7, 2020). Nothing comparable exists in the biography of Maria Comşa. Born Mărioara (“little Maria”) in Rogoz (near Oradea, in northwestern Romania), she was the daughter of a tailor named Maria and of a Greek-Catholic railroad worker named Petru Chişvasi (Alexandra Comşa, e-mails of July 12 and 17, 2018 to Florin Curta). Nothing is known about the political inclinations or activities of Mărioara’s father, nor is his position known towards the abolition of the Greek-Catholic Church by the Communist regime (1948) and the subsequent persecution of Greek Catholics who did not convert to Orthodoxy. His daughter, who signed her name Maria, had no political position until much later in her life. 2. Maria Comşa was not the first woman archaeologist of Romania. A specialist in Neolithic and Eneolithic, Hortensia Dumitrescu (1901–1982) was a fellow of the Romanian School in Rome, and earned a doctoral degree in history from the University of Bucharest, with a dissertation on the Bronze Age of Picenum (1930). Three decades later, she became the first woman archaeologist in Romania to obtain the title of “doctor docent” (the Romanian phrase for habilitation). A few years before the arrest of her husband, who had been an active member of the Iron Guard (he then spent three years in the Romanian gulag), Hortensia Dumitrescu became

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

73

vice-­director of the Museum of National Antiquities in the early 1950s. She had no other position in the later Institute of Archaeology named after the Romanian archaeologist Vasile Pârvan, who first hired her in 1925. See Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu, “Hortensia Dumitrescu, 1901–1982,” Dacia 27 (1983), nos. 1–2, 195–96; Pavel Mirea, “Doamne ale arheologiei româneşti în jud. Teleorman,” Muzeul Judet ̦ean Teleorman 3 (2014), no. 2, 17. Maria Comşa belonged to the second generation of women archaeologists in Romania, born between the mid-1920s and the mid-1930s, along with Eugenia Zaharia, Alexandrina D.  Alexandrescu, Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu, and Ligia Bârzu. See Nona Palincaş, “Public patriarchy in contemporary Romanian archaeology and the image of women in the Romanian Neolithic and Bronze Age,” Studii de preistorie 5 (2008), 163. 3. Following her university studies, Zhivka Văzharova worked as assistant in the National Ethnographic Museum in Sofia (Doncheva-Petkova, “Zhivka Văzharova,” p. 5). Maria Comşa was only 23 years old when graduating from the University of Cluj, two years younger than Văzharova when she started her own university studies. During her studies in Cluj, Comşa worked as librarian at the Institute of Classical Studies in Cluj, and participated in archaeological excavations on Roman-age sites under the direction of Constantin Daicoviciu (1898–1973). After graduation, she worked as museum curator in the History Museum of Oradea (1951–1952). She was responsible for the organization of the permanent exhibit in that museum, as well as for the organization of the museums in Valea lui Mihai and Beiuş. See Ştefan Olteanu, “Maria Comşa, 1928–2002,” ThracoDacica 23 (2002), nos. 1–2, 324; Bogdan Ciupercă, “Maria Comșa și arheologia mileniului I de la Curbura Carpat ̦ilor,” in Arheologia mileniului I p. Chr. IV. Nomazi și autohtoni în mileniul I p. Chr., edited by Bogdan Ciupercă (Brăila: Istros, 2015), p. 19. 4. That much results from the testimony of Venedikov, Poznaite gi po delata im, pp. 335–36, who nonetheless believed that instrumental in Văzharova’s advancement had been the director of the National Museum of Ethnography, Khristo Vakarelski (1896–1979), and the director of the Archaeological Institute, Krăstiu Miiatev (1892–1966). Be that as it may, a delegation of prominent Soviet archaeologists and ethnographers (Artemii V. Arcikhovskii, Boris A. Rybakov, Vladislav I. Ravdonikas, S. A. Tokarev, and P. D. Bogatyrev) led by Petr Tret’iakov came to Sofia in January 1946 to start a joint Soviet-­Bulgarian project of archaeological and ethnographic research in Bulgaria. The whole point of the visit was to direct the Bulgarian school of archaeology firmly on the path of studying the (early) Slavs. It was most likely at that moment that Zhivka Văzharova was recommended to Tret’iakov, along with her older colleague, Atanas Milchev (who, like her, had been a member of the National Student Union and the Union of

74 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

the Working Youth). She was to become an ethnographer, he—an archaeologist. We wish to thank Dr. Rumiana Koleva (“St. Kliment Okhridski” University in Sofia) for clarifying the details of the 1946 visit of the Soviet delegation. 5. Zhivka Văzharova, O proiskhozhdenii bolgarskikh pakhotnykh orudii. K voprosu ob etnogeneze bolgarskogo naroda (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1956). Nothing is known about Văzharova’s sojourn in the Soviet Union. There are no records of her participation in any archaeological excavations (especially those carried out at the time by the members of the Volga-Don expedition in anticipation of the building of the Cimliansk reservoir). Nor is there any evidence of contacts with prominent scholars studying the early Slavs in the 1950s, such as Ivan Liapushkin, Irina Rusanova, or Valentin Sedov. 6. She married in 1955 the Romanian archaeologist Eugen Comşa (1923–2008), a specialist in Neolithic archaeology and a native of Chişinău (at that time Kishinev, within the Soviet Republic of Moldova, created after World War II within the region of eastern Romania occupied by the Soviet troops). Eugen Comşa had been the teaching assistant of Ion Nestor in the Department of History at the University of Bucharest (1949–1952). By 1950, he had been hired at the National Museum of Antiquities (which in 1956 was reorganized as the Institute of Archaeology). He met Maria while both participated in excavations on the key Roman and Byzantine site at Dinogetia (now Garvăn, across the Danube from Galaţi), the first site from which Romanian archaeologists under Communism expected to extract the evidence of the role of the Slavs in Romanian history (Curta, “The changing image,” p. 238). Maria and Eugen Comşa had two daughters, one of whom, Alexandra Comşa, is an antropologist. See Alexandra Comşa, “Introduction. Eugen Comşa,” in Western-Pontic Culture and Ambience and Pattern. In Memory of Eugen Comşa, edited by Lolita Nikolova, Marco Merlini, and Alexandra Comşa (Warsaw/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017), pp. xiv-xvi, here xv (also available at https://www. iianthropology.org/eugencomsa.html, visit of January 7, 2020). 7. Maria Comşa, “Nekotorye istoricheskie vyvody v sviazi s neskol’kimi arkheologicheskimi pamiatnikami VI–XII vv. n. e. na territorii RNR,” Dacia 1 (1957), 309–27. For Rybakov as the possible adviser of Comşa’s dissertation, see Iurie Stamati, “Mariia Komsha, ili kak otnosheniia mezhdu dvumia ‘bratskimi’ stranami povliiali na kar’eru arkheologa,” Stratum+ (2020), no. 5, 18. It remains unclear why, unlike Văzharova, Comşa could not publish her dissertation in Soviet Russia as a book, but only as an article (in Russian) in the main archaeological journal in Romania. 8. Doncheva-Petkova, « Zhivka Văzharova,” p. 5.

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

75

9. Her prominent position results also from the fact that she was the coeditor of the first publication of the excavation results: Zhivka Văzharova, Stefan Ivancy, and Petăr Boev (eds.), Slaviano-bălgarskoto selishte krai selo Popina, Silistrensko (Sofia: Izdanie na Bălgarskata akademiia na naukite, 1956). In that same year, her dissertation was published in the Soviet Union, in addition to an article on the early medieval pottery found in Popina: Zhivka Văzharova, “Ranneslavianskaia keramika iz sela Popina,” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 63 (1956), 142–49. 10. Zhivka Văzharova, Ruskite ucheni i ba ̆lgarskite starini. Izsledvane, materiali i dokumenti (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademiia na Naukite, 1960). As Doncheva-Petkova, “Zhivka Văzharova,” p. 5 notes, the volume is rather a collection of documents (primarily private correspondence between Russian and Bulgarian scholars), with historical introduction and notes. One year later, Văzharova returned to the topic with a paper on the relations between the Czech-born Bulgarian archaeologist Karel Škorpil and Russian scholars of his lifetime. This is in fact the first scholarly piece on the history of Bulgarian archaeology published by a Bulgarian archaeologist. See Zhivka Văzharova, “Vrăzkite na Karel Shkorpil s ruskite ucheni,” in Izsledvaniia v pamet na Karel Shkorpil, edited by Krăstiu Miiatev and Vasil Mikov (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1961), pp. 63–71. 11. Ciupercă, “Maria Comșa,” p. 20. 12. Maria Comşa, “Slavii,” in Istoria Romîniei, edited by Constantin Daicoviciu, Emil Condurachi, Ion Nestor and Gheorghe Ştefan, vol. 1 (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RPR, 1960), pp. 728–54. 13. Stamati, “Two chapters,” p. 82. For a while, Maria Comşa was the secretary of the Communist Party organization in the Institute of Archaeology in Bucharest. She was co-opted in the editorial boards of both journals published by the Institute (Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche and Dacia). The year 1960 seems to have been crucial for her career, despite the fact that she had given birth to her first child in 1959 (her second child was born in 1963). Following her participation in the congress in Hamburg (1958), she became in 1960 a member of the permanent council of the International Union of Pre- and Protohistorical Studies, no doubt at the recommendation of the Romanian Academy and its Communist patrons. One year later (and only five years since her return from Moscow), Maria Comşa became a member of the Association of Slavic Studies in Romania, and she was sent as a key member of the Romanian delegation at the international congress on Slavic Studies in Sofia (1963), the congress of anthropology and ethnography in Moscow (1964), and the first international congress on Slavic archaeology in Warsaw (1965). By 1966, she was a

76 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

member of the Romanian National Committee for the International Association of Southeast European Studies. See Ciupercă, “Maria Comșa,” p. 20. 14. Curta, “The changing image,” pp. 241 and 243. 15. Curta, “The changing image,” p. 268. 16. Stamati, “Two chapters,” p. 90, and “Long live,” p. 239. 17. Maria Chişvasi-Comşa, “Săpăturile de la Bucov (r. şi reg. Ploieşti),” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 6 (1960), 567–78; Maria Comşa, “Sur l’origine et l’évolution de la civilisation de la population romane et ensuite protoroumaine aux VI-e-X-e siècles sur le territoire de la Roumanie,” Dacia 12 (1968), 355–80; Maria Comşa, Cultura materiala ̆ veche româneasca ̆ (Aşezările din secolele VIII-X de la Bucov-Ploieşti) (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1978). The site was discovered by Ion Nestor, but completely excavated by Maria Comşa between 1959 and 1966. Even more interesting and, to a large extent, understudied aspect of Comşa’s ideas is the fact that she believed that the archaeological evidence dated to the eighth and ninth centuries supported the idea of a Bulgar domination over the southern part of Romania during the early Middle Ages, an idea that was in direct contradiction not only with the mainstream theories of Romanian archaeologists, but also with the fundamental tenets of such Bulgarian archaeologists as Zhivka Văzharova, who favored Slavs over Bulgars as the key factor in Bulgarian ethnogenesis. See Maria Comşa, “Die bulgarische Herrschaft nördlich der Donau während des IX. und X.  Jhs. im Lichte der archäologische Forschung,” Dacia 4 (1960), 395–422. 18. Maria Comşa, “L’influence romaine provinciale sur la civilisation slave l’époque de la formation des états,” Romanoslavica 16 (1968), 447–60; Maria Comşa, “Socio-economic organisation of the Dacoromanic and Slav population on the Lower Danube during the 6th and 7th centuries,” in Relations Between the Autochthonous Population and the Migratory Populations on the Territory of Romania, edited by Miron Constantinescu, Ştefan Pascu and Petre Diaconu (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1975), pp. 171–200. See also Curta, “The changing image,” p. 268. 19. (no author), “Şantierul Sărata-Monteoru,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 4 (1953), nos. 1–2, 86; Ion Nestor, “La nécropole slave d’époque ancienne de Sărata Monteoru,” Dacia 1 (1957), 289–95. Only Nestor’s prestige, and not the results of his excavations in Sărata Monteoru (which remain to this day unpublished) could explain his later appointment as vice-­president of the International Union of Slavic Archaeology created in 1965. 20. Stamati, “Two chapters,” p.  89. The years 1960 and 1961 were very important signposts in Nestor’s curriculum and list of publications, as illus-

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

77

trated by his survey of the achievements of Romanian archaeology under the Communist regime (“Principalele realizări ale arheologiei româneşti în anii regimului democrat-popular,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 11 [1960], no. 1, 7–23) and his fundamental work on the Slavs in Romania (“L’établissement des Slaves en Roumanie à la lumière de quelques découvertes archéologiques récentes,” Dacia 5 [1961], 429–48). One year later, Nestor received the state award, the highest distinction offered by the Communist regime to scientists and scholars. 21. Stamati, “Two chapters,” pp. 89–90. 22. Rumiana Koleva, e-mail of April 7, 2016 to Florin Curta. Moreover, Văzharova was an authoritarian figure inspiring fear and respect (Doncheva-­ Petkova, “Zhivka Văzharova,” p. 10). According to Dimităr Angelov, who between 1971 and 1986 was the director of the Archaeological Institute with Museum in Sofia, in which Zhivka Văzharova was employed, the farther she was from him, the easier things got done. See Dimităr Angelov, Spomeni (Sofia: Paradigma, 2004), p. 158. 23. Doncheva-Petkova, “Zhivka Văzharova,” pp.  9–10; Angelov, Spomeni, p. 159; Evgeniia Komatarova-Balinova, “Issues and myths in the Bulgarian early medieval archaeology,” in Stepi Vostochnoi Evropy v srednie veka. Sbornik pamiati Svetlany Aleksandrovny Pletnevoi, edited by I. L. Kyzlasov (Moscow: Avtorskaia kniga, 2016), pp. 258–88, here 262. Since Văzharova never married, and lived alone in her father’s house at 12, Struga Street in Sofia, rumors had it that she had fallen in love with Mikhail Artamonov (at that time a married man) during her visit to Leningrad in 1957–1959. 24. Rumiana Koleva, e-mail of April 7, 2016 to Florin Curta. Koleva suggests that another reason for this rivalry may have been that at the time, the official policy in Communist Bulgaria was that the task of the University of Sofia was to teach, while research was the responsibility of the Academy of Sciences and its affiliated institutes, such as the Institute of Archaeology. 25. Văzharova, Ivancy, and Boev, Slaviano-bălgarskoto selishte, p. 11 with n. 1. However, both Dimităr P.  Dimitrov and Zhivka Văzharova’s names are accompanied by titles. 26. Zhivka Văzharova, Slavianski i slavianobălgarski selishta v ba ̆lgarskite zemi ot kraia na VI-XI vek (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1965). 27. Atanas Milchev, Review of Zhivka N.  Văzharova, Slavianski i slavianoba ̆lgarski selishta v bălgarskite zemi VI-XI v. (Sofia, 1965), Arkheologiia 7 (1965), no. 3, 67. 28. Milchev, Review, pp. 68 and 69. 29. Milchev, Review, p. 70. To call the Bulgarian culture the culture of nomads is to revive the fascist theses of Géza Fehér and Bogdan Filov.

78 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

30. Zhivka Văzharova, Srednovekovnoto selishte s. Garvan, Silistrenski okrăg (VI-XI v.) (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1986). 31. Zhivka Văzharova, Slaviani i prabălgari po danni na nekropolite ot VI-XI v. na teritoriiata na Bălgariia (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1976). 32. Atanas Milchev and Stefka Angelova, “Razkopki i prouchvaniia v m. ‘Kaleto’ pri s. Nova Cherna, Silistrenski okrăg, prez 1967 g.,” Arkheologiia 11 (1969), no. 3, 31–48. For a critique of Milchev’s interpretation of the site, see Chavdar Kirilov, “Nabliudeniia vărkhu khronologiiata i kharaktera na kăsnoantichnoto i srednovekovnoto selishte v m. ‘Kaleto’ krai s. Nova Cherna, obsht. Tutrakan, obl. Silistra,” in Sbornik v pamet na akademik D. P. Dimitrov, edited by Kostadin Rabadzhiev, Khristo Popov, Margarit Damianov and Veselka Kacarova (Sofia: Sofiiski Universitet “Sv. Kliment Okhridski”, Istoricheski fakultet, Katedra Arkheologiia, 2013), pp. 602–15. It seems that Milchev was able to obtain access to Nova Cherna only because the site had a Roman occupation phase. For the various changes in Văzharova’s interpretation of the Dzhedzhovi lozia site in response to Milchev’s excavations in Nova Cherna, see Florin Curta, “Pots, Slavs, and ‘imagined communities’: Slavic archaeology and the history of the early Slavs,” European Journal of Archaeology 4 (2001), no. 3, 373. There is clear evidence that beyond that scholarly tit-for-tat, the two archaeologists competed territorially for scientific fiefs. Until 1967, Milchev’s excavations pertaining to medieval archaeology were restricted to Pliska, a site to which Văzharova had access only after 1970. For Milchev’s excavations at Pliska, see Stefka Angelova, “Profesor Atanas Milchev na 80 godini,” in Sbornik izsledvaniia v chest na profesor Atanas Milchev, edited by Stefka Angelova, Zlatozara Gocheva, and Tatiana Stefanova (Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Okhridski”, 2002), p. 8. 33. Sonia Georgieva, “K voprosu o material’noi kul’ture slavian i prabolgar na Nizhnem Dunae,” in Izsledvaniia v chest na Marin S. Drinov, edited by Aleksandăr Burmov, Dimităr Angelov and Ivan Duichev (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1960), pp. 357–68; Sonia Georgieva-­ Kazandzhieva, “K voprosu o material’noi kul’ture slavian i prabolgar na Nizhnem Dunae,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1961), no. 2, 96–102; Zhivka Văzharova, “Slavianite na iug ot Dunava (po arkheologicheski danni),” Arkheologiia 6 (1964), no. 2, 23–33; Zhivka Văzharova, “Slaviani i prabălgari (tiurko-bălgari) v svetlinata na arkheologicheskite danni,” Arkheologiia 13 (1971), no. 1, 1–23. 34. Atanas Milchev, “Zur Frage der materiellen Kultur und Kunst der Slawen und Protobulgaren in den bulgarischen Ländern während des frühen Mittelalters (VI.-X.  Jh.),” in I.  Międżynarodowy Kongres archeologii słowiańskiej. Warszawa 14–18 IX 1965, edited by Witold Hensel, vol. 3

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

79

(Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1970), p.  36; Atanas Milchev, “Der Einfluss der Slawen auf die Feudalisierung von Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert,” in Studien zum 7. Jahrhundert in Byzanz. Probleme der Herausbildung des Feudalismus, edited by Helga Köpstein and Friedhelm Winkelmann (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976), p.  54; Atanas Milchev, “Materialna i dukhovna kultura v bălgarskite zemi prez rannoto srednovekovieto—VI-X v.,” in Vtori mezhdunaroden kongres po bălgaristika, Sofiia, 23 mai-3 iuni 1986 g. Dokladi 6: Ba ̆lgarskite zemi v drevnostta Bălgariia prez srednovekovieto, edited by Khristo Khristov, Pantelei Zarev, Vladimir Georgiev et al. (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1987), pp.  448–93. As Boian Dumanov, “Klasovite osnovi na drevnotrakiiskiia element v bălgarskata narodnost i opoziciiata na arkheolozite,” in Săprotivata sreshtu komunisticheskiia rezhim v Bălgariia (1944–1989). Sbornik dokladi ot nauchna konferenciia 23–24.03.2012. Nov Ba ̆lgarski universitet (Sofia: Nov Bălgarski universitet, 2012), pp. 209–11 suggests, Milchev’s position was essentially Marrist, aligned with the ideas that, shortly after World War II, Nikolai S. Derzhavin promoted in the Soviet Union. According to Boian Dumanov, “The idea about ‘trinity’ in formation of Bulgarian nation: Communist perspective and resistance,” in Politichka istorija Slovena izmedu̵ mita i ̵ stvarnosti. Zbornik radova sa medunarodne nauchne konferencije odrzhane 15. novembra 2019. godine, edited by Sanja Suljagić (Belgrade: Institut za političke studije, 2019), p. 102, the “Thracian fiction” was nothing but a “manifestation of retrograde Stalinism.” 35. “Bulgars” refers here to the presumably Turkic-speaking nomads that migrated to the northern Balkans in the late seventh century. They are typically distinguished as such from “Bulgarians,” the name given to the population from that same region after the conversion of Prince Boris to Christianity in the 860s. See Stancho Stanchev, “Novyi pamiatnik rannei bolgarskoi kul’tury (k voprosu o prabolgarakh),” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 27 (1957), 107–32; Stancho Stanchev, “Slaviani i prabălgari v starobălgarskata kultura,” Arkheologiia 4 (1962), no. 4, 1–6; Stancho Vaklinov, “L’ancienne civilisation bulgare au IX-e-X-e s. Aspects de sa formation,” Preslav. Sbornik 2 (1976), 12–25; Stancho Vaklinov, Formirane na staroba ̆lgarskata kultura, VI-XI vek (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1977); Dimităr Ovcharov, “Prabălgarite v bălgarskata istoriia i kultura (VII–IX v.),” Vekove (1979), no. 4, 28–37; Dimităr Angelov and Dimităr Ovcharov, “Slawen, Protobulgaren und das Volk der Bulgaren,” in Welt der Slawen. Geschichte, Gesellschaft, Kultur, edited by Joachim Herrmann (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1986), pp. 57–80. For the political circumstances in which the third position gained ground, see Florin Curta, “Medieval archaeology in South-Eastern Europe,” in

80 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Reflections: 50 Years of Medieval Archaeology, 1957–2007, edited by Roberta Gilchrist and Andrew Reynolds (London: Maney Publishing, 2009), p. 201. 36. It is important to note that, like Soviet archaeologists, Zhivka Văzharova attributed to the Bulgar nomads the pottery dated to the eighth century and found on a number of cemetery sites in northeastern Bulgaria. She quickly embraced Mikhail Artamonov’s influential suggestion that that pottery was of a Saltovo-Mayaki tradition and thus related to assemblages in the Soviet Union attributed at that time to the Khazars. See Zhivka Văzharova, “The Slavs south of the Danube,” in I.  Międżynarodowy Kongres archeologii słowiańskiej. Warszawa 14–18 IX 1965, edited by Witold Hensel, vol. 3 (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow: Wydawnictvo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1970), pp.  117–18; Zhivka Văzharova, “Selishta i nekropoli (kraia na VI–XI v.),” Arkheologiia 16 (1974), no. 3, 18. For the influence of Artamonov’s ideas upon Bulgarian archaeologists, see also Komatarova-Balinova, “Issues and myths,” pp. 265–66. For a devastating critique of Văzharova’s idea of nomadic Bulgars adopted and transformed by her student, Liudmila Doncheva-Petkova, see Evgeniia KomatarovaBalinova, “‘Prabălgarite’ pri Balchik i nomadite v poleto na ‘prabălgarskata’ arkheologiia,” Prinosi kăm ba ̆lgarskata arkheologiia 8 (2018), 47–92. 37. Unlike Văzharova, Milchev militantly promoted not only Marxist archaeology, but also Stalin’s ideas: “Za marksistko-leninska arkheologicheska nauka,” in Păr va nauchna arkheologicheska sesiia (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1951), pp. 262–75; “Problemite na bălgarskoto ezikoznanie v svetlinata na Stalinovoto uchenie za ezika,” in Problemite na bălgarskoto ezikoznanie v svetlinata na stalinskoto uchenie za ezika. Nauchna sesiia na Istoriko-­ filologicheskiia fakultet, posvetena na truda na I. V. Stalin “Marksizmăt i va ̆prosite na ezikoznanieto”, săstoiala se na 4 I 5 dekemvri 1950 god (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1951), pp. 152–57; “Postizheniiata na săvetskata arkheologicheska nauka za 40 godini,” in Sbornik po sluchai 40 godini ot Oktomvriiskata socialisticheska revoliuciia (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1955), pp.  182–92. For Milchev’s promotion of Marr’s ideas, see Venedikov, Poznaite gi po delata im, pp. 339–42. Between 1954 and 1956, Milchev was the director of the Museum of Bulgarian-Soviet Friendship in Sofia. See Petăr Cholov, Bălgarski istorici. Biografichno-bibliografski spravochnik (Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov”, 1999), p.  183; Dumanov, “The idea,” p. 97 with n. 12. 38. Rusanova, Slavianskie drevnosti VI-VII vv., pp.  188–95. According to Angelov, Spomeni, p.  160, Văzharova’s relations were also tense with Svetlana Pletneva, who led a Soviet team participating in excavations in Pliska between 1977 and 1980. See Svetlana A. Pletneva, “Stratigraficheskie issledovaniia v drevnei bolgarskoi stolice—Pliske,” in Problemy izucheniia

  CHAPTER 4: UNDER THE GLASS CEILING: ZHIVKA VĂ ZHAROVA AND MARIA… 

81

drevnikh poselenii v arkheologii. Sociologicheskii aspekt, edited by V. I. Guliaev and G. E. Afanas’ev (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1990), pp. 99–127. 39. Cholov, Bălgarski istorici, p.  183; Angelova, “Profesor Atanas Milchev,” p. 7. According to Dumanov, “The idea,” p. 97 n. 12, “having reached 46 without a single monograph, he became a Professor.” 40. He had published two books as coauthor: Stancho Stanchev and Stefan Ivanov, Nekropola ̆t do Novi Pazar (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1958); Stancho Stanchev and Magdalina Stancheva, Boianskiiat pomenik (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1963). His first, single-author books appeared only in 1966—Veliki Preslav. Istoricheski ocherk (Sofia: Narodna prosveta, 1966) and Madara, Pliska i Preslav (Sofia: Narodna prosveta, 1966). Those were works of vulgarization, though, not scholarly monographs, for one was 92, and the other 60 pages long, with no notes. For Vaklinov’s bibliography, see Rasho Rashev, “Bibliografiia na trudovete na prof. d-r Stancho Vaklinov za perioda 1943–1981,” in Sbornik v pamet na prof. Stancho Vaklinov, edited by Vasil Giuzelev (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1984), pp. 246–49. Văzharova was also the doctoral adviser for Radoslav Vasilev. 41. Cholov, Ba ̆lgarski istorici, p. 43. 42. Zhivko Aladzhov, “Dimităr Savov Ovcharov na 65 zhodini i 40 godini tvorcheska deinost,” Arkheologiia 38 (1996), nos. 2–3, 95–96; Cholov, Ba ̆lgarski istorici, p. 208. Zhivka Văzharova retired in 1989, a few months before the collapse of the Communist regime. She was 73 years old at that time. 43. Stanislav Stanilov, Review of Zhivka Văzharova, Srednovekovnoto selishte s. Garvan, Silistrenski okrăg (VI-XI v.) (Sofia, 1986), Arkheologiia 31 (1989), no. 2, 62–66. Another critique of Zhivka Văzharova’s interpretations was published soon after her death: Rumiana Koleva, “Za datiraneto na slavianskata grupa ‘Popina-Garvan’ v severoiztochna Bălgariia i severna Dobrudzha,” Godishnik na Sofiiskiia Universitet “Kliment Ohridski”. Istoricheski Fakultet 84–85 (1992), 163–82. 44. Stanilov, Review, p.  65, in relation to Văzharova’s remarks on the social organization of the community in Garvan. 45. Văzharova’s is not a unique case. According to Komatarova-Balinova, “Issues and myths,” p. 268, there “are still very few Bulgarian authors who dare to re-evaluate the works already published.” 46. Petre Diaconu, Review of “Cultura materială veche românească (Aşezările din secolele VIII-X de la Bucov-Ploieşti)” by Maria Comşa, Bucureşti 1978, Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche şi arheologie 30 (1979), no. 3,

82 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

469–71. Diaconu accused Comşa of faulty excavation techniques, errors of dating, and mistakes in publication—all charges leveled at Văzharova as well. For the political implications of Comşa’s ideas, see Madgearu, “The Dridu culture.” 47. Stamati, The Slavic Dossier, pp. 168–73; Stamati, “Mariia Komsha”; Florin Curta, “Marksizm v trudakh Marii Komsha,” Stratum+ (2020), no. 5, 29–41. The entire issue no. 5 of the 2020 volume of the journal Stratum+ is dedicated to Maria Comşa. 48. Doncheva-Petkova, “Zhivka Văzharova,” p. 10. According to Venedikov, Poznaite gi po delata im, p. 337, Văzharova worked with “an iron discipline.” Angelov, Spomeni, p. 159, while noting that Văzharova was a lonely person, recognizes that she worked tirelessly, “with zeal and love,” especially in the field. According to him, Văzharova was “very strong.” This is remarkable, because “tireless” is also an attribute Dimităr Angelov used for another female archaeologist, Violeta Nesheva (a specialist in the archaeology of the medieval town of Melnik). However, in that case, he also added that Nesheva’s was a typical example of “female weakness: a sense of urgency verging on panic, and excessive emotions” (Angelov, Spomeni, p. 155).

Chapter 5: Reaching Through the Glass Ceiling: Ágnes Cs. Sós and Helena Zoll-­Adamikowa

At a quick glimpse, the “strugglingly hard life” of Ágnes Cs. Sós (1925–1993) had nothing in common with that of Helena Zoll-­ Adamikowa (1931–2000).1 Sós was born in Budapest in the family of the director of the Hungarian National Milk Cooperative center, the largest dairy company in the country.2 Although born in Poznań into the family of an agricultural engineer, Helena Zoll-Adamikowa was the scion of a noble family of German origin with strong roots in Lesser Poland, particularly in Cracow.3 To be sure, much like Comşa, neither Sós, nor Zoll-­ Adamikowa were the first women archaeologists in their respective countries. Zsófia Torma (1832–1899) was the first in Hungary and one of the earliest in Europe. She was the second woman to deliver a talk at a European congress of archaeology, and corresponded with Heinrich Schliemann, Friedrich Lindenschmidt, Paul Reinecke, and John Lubbock.4 About her, Flóris Rómer (1815–1889), the “father of Hungarian archaeology,” who was at that time a professor of archaeology in Budapest, wrote that “it’s pity she’s not a man!”5 Almost a century separates Zsófia Torma from the second most important woman archaeologist in Hungary. Ida Kutzián (1918–2001), a Polish-born Hungarian, who specialized in the study of Neolithic societies, and first applied Childe’s concept of diffusion to explain the spread of the early Neolithic Körös/Criş culture.6 The first women archaeologists in Poland earned their doctoral degrees in the interwar period—Aleksandra Karpińska (1882–1953) from the University © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6_6

83

84 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

of Poznań in 1924, Zofia Podkowińska (1894–1975) from the University of Warsaw in 1928, and Helena Cehak-Hołubowicz (1902–1979) from the University of Lwów (now Lviv, in Ukraine) in 1930.7 Unlike Văzharova, both Sós and Zoll-Adamikowa studied archaeology—Sós in the Faculty of Humanities at the Eötvös Loránd University, from which she obtained her diploma in Museum Studies in 1950 (specializing in the archaeology of the Migration Period), and Zoll-Adamikowa in the Faculty of the Humanities at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, from which she obtained a degree in the History of Material Culture in 1953. However, following their studies, their careers moved to institutionally different directions. Sós was immediately hired by the Hungarian National Museum, where she continued to work for the rest of her life, first as research associate (1950–1964), then as senior researcher (1964–1993) (Fig.  1).8 During her studies in Cracow, Zoll-Adamikowa worked as research assistant at the Archaeological Museum of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences (1950–1953). After graduation, she was employed as assistant researcher in the Archaeological Unit of the Royal Castle at Wawel (1955–1962), and from 1962 until her death at the Institute for the History of Material Culture in Cracow.9 Sós married an economist (Ödön Csemiczky) in 1952, and a son was born to them two years later, who is now a famous Hungarian composer.10 Zoll married a sports coach (Zdzisław Adamik) in 1959, and their daughter, Maria, graduated from the University School of Physical Education (AWF) in Cracow.11 Unlike Maria Comşa, who gave up her maiden name (Chişvasi) after 1960, both Sós and Zoll kept their maiden names, combined with those of their respective husbands, until the end of their lives.12 But those lives took very different paths. From the very beginning of her career, Sós participated in numerous salvage excavations, which in the 1950s were typically carried out by the Hungarian National Museum, instead of county museums, as was the case later. In that capacity, she excavated the Avar-age cemeteries in Üllő, Oroszlány, Kecel, Pókaszepetk, Szigetszentmiklós-Háros, and Dunaszekcső (Fig. 2).13 She was on a salvage excavation site in 1959, during the last major outbreak of poliomyelitis in Cold-War Hungary that immediately followed the large-scale immunization with the Sabin live virus vaccine. She got infected from a worker, but when the first symptoms appeared, she ignored them and continued to work. When finally getting back to Budapest, it was too late, as the doctors struggled for a long while to recognize the disease (typically

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

85

Fig. 1  Ágnes Cs. Sós among Hungarian archaeologists in Brno-Líšeň, Czechoslovakia, October 31, 1955. From left to right: László Barkóczi, Mária Alföldi, Ágnes Cs. Sós, Edit Thomas, Ida Kutzián, unknown, Ilona Kovrig, László Vertes. The original photograph was owned by Éva Garam and is now in the archive of the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest. Courtesy of Ágnes Ritoók

associated with children, not adults, since Sós was a 34-year-old woman).14 “Long months followed, with unimaginable torments and suffering. Her will, her perseverance, and willingness to live ultimately prevailed.” She was paralyzed on both legs, and lived the rest of her life with crutches, but continued fieldwork and led excavations on several sites.15 During that same time, Zoll-Adamikowa worked to obtain the equivalent to an M.A. in Polish archaeology in 1955 at the Faculty of the Humanities at the “Adam Mickiewicz” University of Poznań. Four years later, she was on a fellowship at the University of London.16 Under Witold Hensel’s supervision, she earned her PhD in 1968 with a dissertation on the Slavic cremations in Poland, which was published less than a decade later.17 She was habilitated in 1989 with two works, one on the analysis of

86 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Fig. 2  Principal sites mentioned in the text

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

87

the early medieval inhumation cemeteries of Lesser Poland, the other on the reasons for, and the forms in which inhumation came to replace cremation among the Baltic Slavs.18 She became a professor of humanities in 2000, a few months before her death. Her research focused on three main fields: the mortuary archaeology of the early medieval Slavs; the problems of the early medieval strongholds in the region of Cracow (particularly the stronghold at Stradów); the typology and chronology of specific early medieval artifacts. Her earliest publications show her interest in barrows, primarily those excavated in Kornatka and Guciów.19 She visited Romania and had first-hand knowledge of the materials from Slavic cemeteries there, including those of the barrow cemeteries excavated in Someşeni and Nuşfalău (near Cluj and Zalău, respectively).20 Like Sós, Zoll-Adamikowa also dealt with the Avar age.21 As a matter of fact, she was the first to deal systematically with the presence of Avar artifacts in Poland, which she interpreted as a cultural and possibly political influence from across the Carpathian Mountains.22 Besides Avar-age artifacts, Zoll-­ Adamikowa studied the silver jewelry in the Zawada Lanckorońska hoard, the publication of which is largely the result of her initiative and efforts.23 Perhaps more important for the topic of this book is the fact that Zoll-­Adamikowa was interested in the early Slavs. She regarded the pottery found in Złotniki, near Cracow as early Slavic long before the explosion of interest in the archaeology of the early Slavs in the 1990s.24 Although an archaeologist with very specific research interests, Zoll-Adamikowa participated in and led excavations on many sites, of which Stradów became associated with her name more than any other.25 Unlike Sós, Comşa, and Văzharova, Zoll-Adamikowa also participated in excavations outside her own country, in Spain in 1980 and in Yugoslavia in 1988.26 Sós’s career and fame are strongly associated with the site of Zalavár (near Keszthely, at the western end of Lake Balaton, western Hungary). The Hungarian Academy of Sciences began excavations there in 1951 with Géza Fehér (1890–1955) as director, and Ágnes Cs. Sós and Katalin B. Mikes as his assistants.27 Work on the site continued uninterrupted until 1954. After Fehér’s death in 1955, Sós became director. She completed the monograph of the excavations in 1958, published five years later.28 She was appointed director of renewed excavations in Zalavár in 1961, but responsible also for the entire area of the Zala valley.29 She also excavated cemeteries in Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, to the northeast from Zalavár.30 Between 1961 and 1963, she reopened the site at Zalavár-Récéskút, where the ninth-century basilica had been first unearthed by Aladár Radnóti

88 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

(1913–1972). Sós wanted to clarify the phases of occupation on the site, in an attempt to produce a solid archaeological basis for her reinterpretation of the monument.31 Between 1963 and 1965, she explored the socalled “inner fortress” in the southern part of Vársziget, which was believed at that time to be an eleventh-century fortification.32 After 1973, she explored the edge of the island on which the site is located, “in a Sisif-like effort of tedious work with highly detailed depth.”33 She also carried out rescue excavations on a number of satellite settlements around Zalavár, particularly sites on islands and on the shore of Lake Balaton. The plans for future excavations were considerably hampered by lack of funds. From 1987 onwards she was able to secure funds from the Little Balaton rescue fund and from the Soros Foundation.34 In the 1970s, almost two decades after contracting polio, under severe and harsh conditions, Sós excavated a ninth-century settlement, a small twelfth-century church, and the adjacent cemetery on the island of Kövecses, to the north from the main stronghold at Zalavár.35 She honed her survival skills to cope with inhospitable conditions on the neighboring Rezes island (to the west from Kövecses). Sós restarted excavations there in 1981 and quickly brought to light another ninth-century settlement with a cemetery. However, her most significant discoveries were made during the last years of her life: the “inner citadel” of the stronghold at Vársziget, a palatial compound, and the huge, three-aisled basilica, complete with an ambulatory and fragments of stained glass windows.36 She wanted to use those formidable discoveries as a source-base for her doctoral dissertation, and she was in fact working on the manuscript during the last months of her life.37 She had already been admitted to candidacy in 1966 with a thesis on the Slavic population in ninth-century Transdanubia. The defense of that thesis left a deep impression on many archaeologists in Hungary. Sós’s opponents were the historian György Györffy (1917–2000) and the archaeologist István Bóna (1930–2001), both of whom fundamentally disagreed with what they viewed as a pro- (if not even pan-)Slavic premise of Sós’s work.38 The profoundly hostile, but ideologically driven attitude of her opponents does not seem to have deterred Sós from advancing the idea of Pribina and Kocel as Slavic chieftains in Frankish service. She courageously defended her position against her opponents and argued that Pribina had chosen to settle in the valley of the river Zala, because of the presence in that area of a Slavic population, the origins of which went back to the Avar age.39 The Slavs coexisted with the Avars, and later with the Hungarians.40 Sós believed Zalavár to have

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

89

been a “Slavic colony,” and insisted those were Western, not Southern Slavs, in other words that they were related to the population of the Moravian realm.41 The extraordinary success of her thesis defense brought Sós to the attention of scholars outside Hungary. The art historian Thomas von Bogyay (1909–1994) recommended the publication of the German translation of Sós’s thesis. His recommendation received the warm support of Joachim Werner (1909–1994), the leading German archaeologist at that time working on the early Middle Ages.42 Sós was elected a correspondent member of the German Archaeological Institute in 1966, and in that same year she became a permanent member of the council of the Union of Slavic Studies. In her own country, she received the Order of the Socialist Culture twice (in 1966 and 1981), the prize of the Ministry of Culture (1977), the Bálint Kuzsinszky Memorial Award (1977), and the Rómer Flóris memorial prize (1992).43 However, not everyone agreed with her. In the year in which Sós’s book was published in Germany, the Hungarian archaeologist and art historian Sándor Tóth (1940–2007) questioned her interpretation of the post structure found in Récéskút as the remains of two wooden churches predating the stone church (which she dated to the eleventh century).44 Béla Miklós Szőke accepted Tóth’s opinion and also rejected the idea that particular forms of burial were either Slavic or Frankish, thus undermining the very premise of culture history on which Sós’s interpretation of Zalavár as the center of Pribina’s power was based.45 The volume of the local journal, Zalai Gyűjtemény, in which Szőke’s article was published, was dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the excavations in Zalavár, and Sós had her own contribution to the volume.46 A recently appointed, senior research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Szőke was 26 years old in 1976, a quarter century younger than Sós. As a consequence, she seems to have been offended by his criticism. In a situation eerily symmetrical to that involving Nestor and Comşa in Romania, but with reversed positions, Sós subsequently prevented Szőke’s attempts to continue her excavations in Zalavár and its environs.47 He was able to carry out the first excavations on the site only after her death.48 At that time, Szőke remembered their first meeting as intimidating, for the physical suffering had turned Sós into a very tough woman, whose voice was hoarse from heavy smoking. Her cascading, biting humor not only kept her colleagues at a respectable distance, but was in fact a protective shield for a life of daily struggle. Archaeology liberated her,

90 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

made her truly happy, something that the many workers on her archaeological excavation sites could recognize instantly. The “Zalavár brigade” in fact became a second family to her, and Sós returned every year to that second home of hers.49 There is nothing comparable in Zoll-Adamikowa’s biography. To be sure, she is described in words similar to those employed by Béla Miklós Szőke—an indestructible woman, strong in both spiritual and physical terms, “ready to go with a heavy backpack to excavations at any time.”50 However, she was remembered as “spurting with energy with the mind full of new research ideas, always very mobile, she created around her an atmosphere of creative revival, which quickly invaded her surroundings” (Fig. 3).51 Like Sós, Zoll-Adamikowa became a corresponding member of

Fig. 3  Helena Zoll-Adamikowa (in the middle) surrounded by her colleagues in Igołomia, near Cracow (late 1960s), in front of the Pracownia Archeologiczne of the Institute of the History of Material Culture in Cracow. From left to right: Anna Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa, Stanisław Koziel, Kazimierz Godłowski, Jan Gurba (with glasses), Jan Machnik, Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, two unknown persons, Władysław Morawski, unknown person, Grażyna Zakrzewska, and Anna Kulczucka-Leciejewiczowa. Photograph from the archive of the Institute of Archaeology in Cracow. (Courtesy of Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski)

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

91

the German Archaeological Institute (1997), and received several awards in her own country—the Millennium Award in 1966, the Golden Medal of the Ministry of Culture and Art (1979), and Golden Cross of Merit (1994). Unlike Sós, she had students, who worked with her at Stradów.52 Zoll-Adamikowa was never confronted with the barrage of criticism that Sós met at the defense of her work for candidacy in 1965. On the contrary, Witold Hensel (1917–2008), her adviser for both the M.A. and the doctoral degrees, was one of her supporters. A key figure of Polish archaeology during the second half of the twentieth century, Hensel was the director of the Institute for the History of Material Culture between 1954 and 1990. During that time, he was able to navigate the troubled waters of academic and “real” politics in the Polish People’s Republic, and his administrative and scholarly abilities created room for the considerable growth of the institute and its branches in Łódź, Poznań, Cracow, and Wrocław.53 This was certainly the case of the branch in Cracow, where Zoll-Adamikowa became a key figure in the 1970s and 1980s. A powerful man, Hensel was not a member of the Polish United Workers’ Party, but of the Alliance of the Democrats (Stronnictwo Demokratyczne), a party aligned with the Communists.54 Nothing is known about his attitude toward the June 1976 protests or the creation of the Solidarity, but Helena Zoll-Adamikowa was an active member of the NSZZ Solidarność branch in the Polish Academy of Sciences.55 Witold Hensel, however, influenced her research agenda. Back in 1946, he had published an article calling for the thorough preparation of the “great anniversary” (in 1966), the millennium of the establishment of the Polish state, and the Christianization of Poland.56 The “Millennium idea,” which Hensel first put forward, is essentially why Zoll-Adamikowa, who specialized in the mortuary archaeology of the Slavs, paid so much attention to the transition from cremation to inhumation in the Polish lands, a change directly associated with the conversion to Christianity.57 Similarly, while there are no testimonies of Sós’s attitude toward the events of 1956 in Hungary, her preoccupation with the role of the (early) Slavs in Hungarian history was the result of political choices. To be sure, the five-year plan of Hungarian archaeology established in 1949 set clearly the task of studying “the problem of the Avar-Slavic-Hungarian relations” and therefore required “topographical and archaeological examinations of the Privina settlements (sic),” specifically of Zalavár.58 In charge with those excavations was Géza Fehér, who returned to Hungary in 1948 from Turkey, where he had gone in 1944 from Bulgaria.59 Although known in

92 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

the latter country as promoting the so-called Turanic idea (according to which the Turkic Bulgars played the crucial role in the Bulgarian ethnogenesis), and therefore condemned after the establishment of the Communist regime that placed the emphasis on the Slavic character of the Bulgarian nation and state, Fehér had long held socialist views, which endeared him to the new Communist regime, and made possible his hiring by the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest. Fehér wanted to study the role of the Slavs in Hungarian history, and the way they had influenced the formation of Hungarian society.60 On a more practical level, it may have been his experience in the archaeological excavation of quasi-­ urban sites, with masonry structures, palatial compounds, churches, and the like that recommended him for the job of excavating Zalavár. Be as it may, Sós considered herself “lucky” to have had the opportunity to work with Fehér during the last years of his life.61 To her, the problem of the Slavic contribution to the early Hungarian history was very important, but also “obscure.”62 She inherited Fehér’s research agenda, as well as the planned excavations in Zalavár and other neighboring sites. Like Zoll-­ Adamikowa, she received support from a much older man, but she carved her scholarly path independently, and managed to establish a position and prestige with no parallel either in Hungary or abroad. Similarly, in spite of the programmatic needs of the “Millennium idea” put forward by Witold Hensel, Zoll-Adamikowa became a renowned specialist in Slavic archaeology (and not just in the archaeology of early medieval Poland), and remains to this day the authority on all matters pertaining to Slavic mortuary archaeology.

Summary Although the comparison between Ágnes Cs. Sós and Helena Zoll-­ Adamikowa has produced results similar in many respects to those presented in “Chapter 4: Under the Glass Ceiling: Zhivka Văzharova and Maria Comşa” (on Maria Comşa and Zhivka Văzharova), there are also substantial differences. Sós was not a very tough woman because (or only because) of the disciplinary culture of archaeology, but first and foremost of the dramatic change that took place in the 34th year of her life. The salient features of her character became even more evident in the confrontation with her opponents at the defense of her doctoral dissertation, for she was actually going against the nationalist agenda of those who denied any role of the Slavs in the history of Hungary. That she won in that

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

93

confrontation is just as important as the fact that success brought her recognition outside Hungary, in a manner that has no parallel among archaeologists in that country. The recognition of her merits inside Hungary is comparable only to that that Valentin Sedov, and not Irina Rusanova, received in the Soviet Union and in post-Soviet Russia. Both Comşa and Sós won the debates of their respective days, but only Sós managed to use that victory to establish herself as a leading archaeologist in her own country, as well as abroad, commanding respect and even admiration. True, like Văzharova, she was confronted by a younger male archaeologist, who nonetheless had not been her student. No confrontation with any male archaeologists is known from the biography of Helena Zoll-Adamikowa. A much older male archaeologist appears at the beginnings of her career as well, much like in Comşa’s case. But unlike Nestor, Witold Hensel constantly supported his former student and may in fact have opened many opportunities for her, from the fellowship at the University of London in 1959 to the Millennium Award of 1966. Much like Sós, Zoll-Adamikowa was successful in establishing a very solid reputation as a leading archaeologist not just of Poland, but of Eastern Europe as a whole. But unlike Sós, she did so without having to face the opposition of any male archaeologists, either older or younger than her. Moreover, she managed to become a professor, albeit for a short period of her life, and had two students who continued her work at Stradów. Using similar institutional structures and the same political and ideological context, Ágnes Cs. Sós and Helena Zoll-Adamikowa succeeded where Maria Comşa and Zhivka Văzharova did not make it. Moreover, both Sós and Zoll-Adamikowa reached positions in the academic milieu of their respective countries to which Irina Rusanova could not reach. Their experiences as women archaeologists were indeed quite different from those of the other three from the Soviet Union, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Notes 1. The phrase “strugglingly hard life” is from Béla Miklós Szőke, “Cs. Sós Ágnes, 1925–1993,” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 120 (1993), 87. 2. (no author), “Sós Ágnes, Cs.,” in Névpont, available at http://www.nevpont.hu/view/11222 (visit of January 7, 2020). István Sós, Ágnes’s father, was the first director of the cooperative, which was established in 1922 following a Danish model, with the declared goal of reorganizing the network of dairy cooperatives that had been disrupted by World War I. The

94 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

cooperative was the main supplier of bottled milk, yoghurt, cheese, and other dairy products for the population of Budapest. See “Budapest tejipar története,” available at http://bptejipartortenete.blogspot. com/2014/10/az-­orszagos-­magyar-­tejszovetkezeti.html (visit of January 7, 2020). 3. The first known member of the family, Fryderyk Wilhelm Zoll (1762–1835) was born in Illingen, Baden-Württemberg, and moved to Galicia shortly before the second partition of Poland (1793). Later, the family moved to Podgórze, where Jósef Chrystian Zoll (1803–1872) became mayor. His son, Fryderyk Zoll (1834–1917), was a law professor, as well as the president of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow (1875–1877 and 1893–1894), a member of the National Parliament of Galicia (1883–1902) and of the Historical Society of Lemberg (now Lviv). He was knighted in 1906, which gave his descendants nobiliary status. See Andrzej Zoll, Zollowie. Opowiesć ́ rodzinna (Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2011), pp. 7–238. For the assimilation of the Zoll family into the Polish society of Cracow, see Paweł Plichta, “Rodzina wizytówka ̨ miasta. Przypadek Krakowa,” Pogranicze. Studia Społeczne 24 (2014), 104, 106–07, and 110. Helena’s father, Józef Zoll (1904–1966), was Fryderyk Zoll’s grandson. 4. Laura Coltofean, “Zsófia Torma: a pioneer of prehistoric archaeology in nineteenth-century Transylvania,” in Adalbert Cserni and his Contemporaries. The Pioneers of Archaeology in Alba Iulia and Beyond, edited by Csaba Szabó, Viorica Rusu-Bolindeţ, Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu and Mihai Gligor (Cluj-­Napoca: Mega, 2017), pp. 335 and 339; László Bartosiewicz, Dóra Mérai and Péter Csippán, “Dig up-dig in: practice and theory in Hungarian archaeology,” in Comparative Archaeologies. A Sociological view of the Science of the Past, edited by Ludomir R.  Lozny (New York: Springer, 2011), p. 285. 5. Coltofean, “Zsófia Torma,” p. 333. Like Zhivka Văzharova, Zsófia Torma never married. 6. Ida Kutzián, A Körös-kultúra (Budapest: Király Magyar Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetem Éremés régisétani Intézete, 1944). Like Sós, Kutzián married an economist (József Bognár). For her life and work, see also Bartosiewicz, Mérai and Csippán, “Dig up-dig in,” p. 287. 7. Andrzej Abramowicz, Historia archeologii polskiej. XIX i XX wiek (Warsaw/Łódź: Ossolineum, 1991), p.  108. According to Liliana Janik and Hanna Zawadzka, “Gender politics in Polish archaeology,” in Exacavating Women. A History of Women in European Archaeology, edited by Margarita Díaz-­Andreu and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen (London/New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 90, during World War I, all 20 students enrolled in the prehistory seminar at the University of Poznań were women. Mieczysława Sabina Ruxer (1891–1957), a PhD in classical archaeology

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

95

from the Jagiellonian University in Cracow (1922), obtained her habilitation from that same university in 1937. According to Janik and Zawadzka, “Gender politics,” p. 92, she was the only woman archaeologist to have a habilitation during the interwar period. 8. Szőke, “Cs. Sós Ágnes,” p. 87. 9. Senior assistant in 1962, adjunct in 1968, assistant professor in 1989, and full professor for a few months in 2000. See Maria Dekówna, “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamik (27.03.1931–8.09.2000),” Archeologia Polski 45 (2000), nos. 1–2, 141. 10. Miklós Csemiczky, the winner of the Erkel award in 1986, and of the Bartók-Pásztory Prize in 1996. See Rachel Beckles Wilson, “Csemiczky, Miklós,” in Grove Music Online, available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ gmo/9781561592630.article.45037 (visit of January 7, 2020). 11. Andrzej Żaki, “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa (1931–2000),” Sprawozdania archeologiczne 52 (2000), 492. 12. Adamikowa in Zoll’s name is the feminine form of her husband’s surname. Like other Hungarian female archaeologists (e.g., Ilona L. Kovrig, Ida B. Kutzián), Sós added “Cs.” to her name for Csemiczky, her husband’s last name. For Maria Comşa’s last use of her maiden name, see Maria Chişvasi-Comşa, “Cîteva date arheologice în legătură cu stăpînirea bulgară la nordul Dunării,” in Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu prilejul împlinirii a 60 ani (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RPR, 1960), pp. 69–81. 13. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Le deuxième cimetière avare d’Ullő,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6 (1956), 193–227; Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Das frühawarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Oroszlány,” Folia Archaeologica 10 (1958), 105–24; Ágnes Cs. Sós, A keceli avarkori temeto ̋k (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum/Történeti Múzeum, 1958); Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Újabb avar kori leletek Csepel-szigetről,” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 88 (1961), 32–51; Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Vorläufige Mitteilungen über die Ausgrabungen in Pókaszepetk,” Folia Archaeologica 14 (1962), 67–82; Ágnes Cs. Sós, “A dunaszekcsői avarkori temető,” Folia Archaeologica 18 (1966), 91–122. 14. For polio in Cold-War Hungary, see Dora Vargha, Polio Across the Iron Curtain. Hungary’s Cold War with an Epidemic (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018). Sós was most likely on the salvage excavation site in the Danube Bend region between Komárom and Visegrád, where a very large hydroelectric station and dam were about to be built (Török, “The Archaeological Institute,” p.  22; Bartosiewicz, “Archaeology in Hungary,” pp. 212–13). 15. Tibor Kemenczei, “Dr. Cs. Sós Ágnes, 1925–1993,” Folia Archaeologica 44 (1995), here 24.

96 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

16. Zenon Woźniak, “Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, 1931–2000,” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 35 (1999–2000), 292. 17. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. Wczesnos ́redniowieczne cmentarzyska ́ ciałopalne Słowian na terenie Polski. Zródła ­(Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/ Gdańsk Ossolineum, 1975); Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzyska ciałopalne Słowian na terenie Polski. Analiza. Wnioski. (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 1979). 18. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, Wczesnos ́redniowieczne cmentarzyska szkieletowe Małopolski. Analiza. (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1971); Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Przyczyny i formy recepcji rytuału szkieletowego u Słowian nadbałtyckich we wczesnym średniowieczu,” Przegla ̨d Archeologiczny 35 (1988), 183–229. 19. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Wczesnośredniowieczne kopce-mogiły na obszarze Karpat,” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 4 (1962), 133–57; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Czworoka ̨tne konstrukcje drewniane w kurhanach ciałopalnych z Kornatki, pow. Myślenice,” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 9 (1967), 141–55; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Ciałopalne kurhany wczesnośredniowieczne w Kornatce, pow. Myślenice, w świetle badań lat 1963–1965,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 19 (1968), 305–35; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Wyniki wstępnych badań wczesnośredniowiecznego zespołu osadniczego w Guciowie, pow. Zamość,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 26 (1974), 115–69. For excavations in Guciów, see Piotr N.  Kotowicz, “Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnośredniowiecznym ciałopalnym obrza ̨dkiem pogrzebowym na terenie województwa lubelskiego,” Archeologia Polski s ́rodkowowschodniej 7 (2005), 157. 20. Mihai Macrea, “Slavianskii mogil’nik v Someshen’,” Dacia 2 (1958), 351–70; Maria Comşa, “Kurganyi mogil’nik s truposozhzheniem v Nushfaleu,” Dacia 3 (1959), 525–34. For a re-assessment of the interpretations of those two cemeteries, see now Ioan Stanciu, “Über die slawischen Brandhügelgräber vom Typ Nuşfalău-Someşeni (Nordwesten Rumäniens),” Acta Musei Napocensis 36 (1999), 245–63. Zoll-Adamikowa reviewed Macrea’s article on Someşeni for Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 2 (1960), 264–66. She probably met Maria Comşa in 1970, during her visit in Romania. She later cited her works, but no information exists on the relations between the two archaeologists. 21. “Avar-age” refers to the period between ca. 570 and ca. 820, when the Carpathian Basin (the territory now within Hungary and parts of several, neighboring countries) was under the rule of the Avars. 22. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “W sprawie chronologii i sposobu publikacji okucia awarskiego z Dobrzenia Małego,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 42

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

97

(1990), 361–64; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Slawisch-awarische Grenzzone im Lichte der Grabfunde,” A Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Evkönyve 15 (1990), 97–102; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Zur Chronologie der awarenzeitlichen Funde aus Polen,” in Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum Frühmittelalter. Materialien des III internationalen Symposiums: Grundprobleme der frügeschichtlichen Entwicklung im ­nördlichen Mitteldonaugebiet. Kraków-Karniowice 3.-7. Dezember 1990, edited by Kazimierz Godłowski and Renata Madyda-Legutko (Cracow: Secesja, 1992), pp. 297–315; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Awarska ozdoba uprzęzẏ w Lubomi, woj. Katowice,” in Słowiańszczyzna w Europie s ́redniowiecznej, edited by Zofia Kurnatowska (Wrocław: Werk, 1996), pp. 263–67. 23. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, Maria Dekówna, and Elżbieta Maria Nosek, The Early Mediaeval Hoard from Zawada Lanckorońska (Upper Vistula River) (Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, 1999). The hoard is a unique collection of artifacts based on a combination of silver dress accessories (lunula pendants, earrings, and embossed beads) and glass beads. Both categories of artifacts have analogies in Moravia and Kievan Rus’, and were most likely used as a nonmonetary medium of exchange. Zoll-­ Adamikowa attributed the assemblage to trade along the early medieval route linking Kiev to Prague. 24. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Ślady wczesnosłowiańskiej chaty w Złotnikach pod Krakowem,” Symposiones 1 (1981), no. 1, 185–92; Helena Zoll-­ Adamikowa, ”Chata z praskim typem ceramiki ze Złotnik, woj. miejskie krakowskie,” Archeologia Polski 30 (1985), no. 1, 161–73. Zoll-Adamikowa was also a pioneer in the study of the burial customs of the earliest Slavs. See Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, ”W kwestii genezy słowiańskich praktyk pogrzebowych,” in Miscellanea archaeologica Thaddaeo Malinowski dedicata, edited by Franciszek Rożnowski (Słupsk/Poznań: Sorus, 1993), pp. 377–85. 25. Although trial excavations have been carried out on the site in 1903 and 1921, the systematic research of the early medieval stronghold began in 1956 and continued uninterrupted until 1963 under the direction of Stefan Nosek and Elżbieta Da ̨browska. See Elżbieta Da ̨browska and Jan Gromnicki, “Grodzisko wczesnośredniowieczne w miejscowości Stradów, pow. Kazimierza Wielka,” Wiadomos ́ci Archeologiczne 25 (1958), 367–70; Stefan Nosek, “Sprawozdanie z badań wykopaliskowych prowadzonych w latach 1958–1962 w Stradowie, pow. Kazimierza Wielka,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 16 (1964), 330–44. Zoll-Adamikowa started working on the materials from the stronghold in 1979, although she had until then dealt with the adjacent cemetery. See Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Wczesnośredniowieczne cmentarzysko szkieletowe na stan. VI w

98 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Stradowie, pow. Kazimierza Wielka,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 18 (1966), 258–70; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Archäologische Quellen aus dem Burgwallkomplex Stradów—Methoden und Perspektiven von Bearbeitung und Auswertung,” in Frühmittelalterliche Machtzentren in Mitteleuropa. Mehrjährige Grabungen und ihre Auswertung. Symposion Mikulc ̌ice, 5.-9. September 1994, edited by Č eněk Staňa and Lumír Poláček (Brno: Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik, 1996), pp. 69–83; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa and Marcin Wołoszyn, “Stan badań nad grodziskem w Stradowie,” in Stradów. Wczesnosredniowieczny ́ zespół osadniczy, edited by Andrzej Buko (Cracow: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2007), pp. 33–75; Helena Zoll-­ Adamikowa and Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, “Opis obiektów nieruchomych,” in Stradów. Wczesnos ́redniowieczny zespół osadniczy, edited by Andrzej Buko (Cracow: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2007), pp. 109–233. For the history of research at Stradów and Zoll-Adamikowa’s contribution, see also Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski and Piotr Włodarczyk, “Badania wielkich grodów zachodniomałopolskich przeprowadzone przez małopolskich archeologów Instytutu Historii Kultury Materialnej PAN: próba podsumowania oraz obecne perspektywy,” Przegla ̨d Archeologiczny 56 (2017), 173. 26. Dekówna, “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamik,” p. 143. 27. Ágnes Ritoók, “The Zalavár collection,” in Two Hundred Years’ History of the Hungarian National Museum and its Collections, edited by János Pintér (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2004), p. 68. The site at Vársziget had long been identified with Mosapurc mentioned in the ninth-­ century Conversio Bagaoariorum et Carantanorum, as the headquarters of Pribina, a Slavic duke in Frankish service. Although the first excavations took place in 1841, the archaeological study of the stronghold and its environs began only in the 1950s. See Béla Miklós Szőke, “Mosaburg/ Zalavár,” in Great Moravia and the Beginnings of Christianity, edited by Pavel Kour ̌il (Brno: Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2015), pp. 262–67. 28. Ágnes Cs. Sós, Die Ausgrabungen Géza Fehérs in Zalavár (Budapest: Akademiai kiadó, 1963). 29. Szőke, “Cs. Sós Ágnes,” p. 88. 30. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Keszthely-­ Fenékpuszta,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 13 (1961), 247–305; Robert Müller, Die Gräberfelder vor der Südmauer der Befestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta (Budapest/Leipzig: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Régészeti Intézet/Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, 2010), pp. 40 and 63. Much like in Popina, a joint Hungarian-Soviet team led by István Erdélyi,

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

99

not Sós, further excavated the early medieval cemetery on the southern side of the late Roman fort between 1976 and 1983. See Péter Straub, “6–7. századi temetőrészlet Keszthely-Fenékpusztan (Erdélyi István ásatása 1976),” in Hadak útján. A népvándorlás kor fiatal kutatóinak konferenciája, edited by Livia Bende, Gábor Lőrinczy and Csaba Szalontai (Szeged: Csongrád megyei Múzeum Igazgatósága, 2000), p. 205. 31. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen von Zalavár-Récéskut in den Jahren 1961–1963,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21 (1969), 51–103. 32. In that area, she brought to light different masonry structures belonging to several periods. On that basis, she advanced a hypothetical reconstruction of the building activity on the site, which has meanwhile been rejected. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Megyegyzések a zalavári ásatások jelentöségéről és problematikájáról,” Zalai Gyűjtemény 6 (1976), 105–40; Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Neue Daten zur Siedlungsgeschichte von Mosaburg-Zalavár,” in Archäologie des westpannonischen Raumes: Urgeschichte, Römerzeit, Mittelalter; Kurzfassungen der Referate anlässlich der von der Österreichischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und dem Burgenländischen Landesmuseum veranstalteten Tagung vom 14.-19. Juni 1978 in Eisenstadt (Vienna: Österreichische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- u. Frühgeschichte, 1978), pp. 115–16; Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Neuere archäologische Angaben zur Frage der Kirchen von Mosaburg-Zalavár des 9. Jahrhunderts,” in Szlávok-­ Protobolgárok-­Bizánc, edited by Nino Nikolov, Samu Szádeczky-Kardoss and Teréz Olajos (Szeged: József Attila University, 1986), pp. 79–94. 33. Szőke, “Cs. Sós Ágnes,” p. 88. 34. Szőke, “Cs. Sós Ágnes,” p. 88; Ritoók, “The Zalavár collection,” p. 68. The results of those excavations are summarized in Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Zalavár az újabb ásatások tükrében,” in Honfoglalás és régészet, edited by László Kovács (Budapest: Balassi, 1994), pp. 85–90. 35. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Előzetes jelentés a Zalavár-kövecsesi mentőásatásaról,” Folia Archaeologica 31 (1980), 175–87; Ágnes Cs. Sós, Zalavár-Kövecses. Ausgrabungen 1976–1978 (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 1984). 36. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Zalavár-Mosaburg, das befestigte Herrschafts- und Kulturzentrum des 9. Jahrhunderts in Pannonien,” Kirilo-metodievski studii 4 (1987), 148–59; Béla Miklós Szőke, “Mosaburg/Zalavár und Pannonien in der Karolingerzeit,” Antaeus 31–32 (2010), 19–31. 37. Ritoók, “The Zalavár collection,” p. 68. 38. György Györffy and István Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény. Cs. Sós Ágnes, ‘A Dunántúl IX. századi szláv népessége’ c. kandidátusi értekezéséről,” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 95 (1968), 115. In support of his critique of Sós’s interpretation of the pottery remains, Bóna cited Maria Comşa, “La civilisation balkano-danubienne (IX-e-XI-e siècles) sur le territoire de la RP

100 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Roumanie (origine, évolution et appartenance ethnique),” Dacia 7 (1963), 413–38. 39. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “O vengerskikh issledovaniiakh v oblasti slavianskoi arkheologii,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1962), no. 4, 105. 40. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Archäologische Angaben zur Frage der Frühperiode des awarisch-slawischen Zusammenlebens,” Študijné zvesti 16 (1968), 221–25. 41. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Rapport préliminaire des fouilles executées autour de la chapelle du château de Zalavár,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4 (1954), 273; Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Wykopaliska w Zalavár,” Slavia Antiqua 7 (1960), 211–303; Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Das slawische Urnengräberfeld von Pókaszepetk, Pannonien,” in Studien zur europäischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte, edited by Martin Claus, Werner Haarnagel and Klaus Raddatz (Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz, 1968), p. 282. 42. Ágnes Cs. Sós, Die slawische Bevölkerung Westungarns im 9. Jahrhundert (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1973). The book was reviewed favorably by Maria Comşa, for Dacia 19 (1975), 330–31. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Bemerkungen zur Frage des archäologischen Nachlasses der awarenzeitlichen Slawen in Ungarn,” Slavia Antiqua 10 (1963), 315–18, embraced Werner’s theories about the “Slavic” bow fibulae, specimens of which were found in Avar-age assemblages in Hungary, including those excavated by Sós, such as Szigetszentmiklós-Háros. 43. Kemenczei, “Dr. Cs. Sós Ágnes,” p. 24. 44. He interpreted it instead as the remains of the construction scaffolding. See Sándor Tóth, “Régészet—építészet—műemlékvédelem,” Építés— Építészettudomány 5 (1973), 623–24 and note 3. 45. Béla Miklós Szőke, “Zalavár,” Zalai Gyűjtemény 6 (1976), 76–84. According to Szőke, Sós’s chronology of the site was wrong. The island was first occupied in the mid-ninth century (and not shortly before or after 800), when the three-aisled basilica was built. Shortly afterwards, the site was abandoned and a cemetery appeared in the ruins of the settlement, and around the church. The earliest graves in the cemetery may be dated to the late ninth century. For a similar critique, see Maxim Mordovin, “The building history of Zalavár-Récéskút church,” Annual of Medieval Studies at the CEU 12 (2006), 14, who does not mention Szőke’s article. 46. Sós, “Megyegyzések,” pp.  105–40. In her article, Sós polemicized with Szőke on many issues pertaining to the interpretation of Zalavár and other sites in the environs. This strongly suggests that she had access to his manuscript before its publication. 47. In the late 1980s, relations turned a little friendlier, as Szőke worked on neighboring sites in the Zala valley, not far from Sós, and they regularly visited each other’s excavations. There were rumors that Szőke was even scolded by “colleagues of good will” for having attacked a disabled woman.

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

101

48. Ritoók, “The Zalavár collection,” pp. 68–69. 49. Szőke, “Cs. Sós Ágnes,” p. 88. In a rather awkward remark, Szőke noted that upon Sós’s death, “her soul ascended to Perun and Sventovit in the realm of the afterworld,” even though no traces of Slavic paganism have been found in Zalavár. Nor has Sós written anything on Slavic pre-­Christian beliefs. To Kemenczei, “Dr. Cs. Sós Ágnes,” p. 24, Sós appeared as having “superhuman willpower that defeated both her illness and the difficult conditions of archaeological excavation.” 50. Żaki, “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa,” p. 489. Elżbieta M. Nosek, “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa (27.03.1931–08.09.2000),” Materiały archeologiczne 32 (2001), 260 calls her a “titan of work.” 51. Dekówna, “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamik,” p. 143. 52. Urszula Maj, Stradów, stanowisko 1. Ceramika wczesnos ́redniowieczna (Cracow: Secesja, 1990); Anna Tyniec-Kępińska, “Nowe spojrzenie na fortyfikację grodu właściwego w Stradowie, woj. Kielce,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 48 (1996), 33–47; Anna Tyniec-Kępińska, “Forschungen zum Burgwall von Stradów. Interpretation, Chronologie und Erforschung der Befestigungen,” in Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Tagung, Nitra, vom 7. bis 10. Oktober 1996, edited by Joachim Henning and Alexander T. Ruttkay (Bonn: R. Habelt, 1998), pp. 301–13. Although Urszula Maj wrote her dissertation under the official supervision of Witold Hensel, Zoll-Adamikowa was her unofficial adviser until Maj’s untimely death in 1988. Anna Tyniec became a member of the Stradów team in 1987 and wrote her dissertation with Zoll-Adamikowa as adviser. See Szmoniewski and Włodarczyk, “Badania,” pp. 173 and 185. 53. For Hensel as the “Old Fox” of Polish archaeology, see Milisauskas, “Historical observations,” pp.  128–29. Paul M.  Barford and Stanisław Tabaczyński, “Polish archaeology: reality and challenges of the 1990s,” World Archaeological Bulletin 8 (1996), 157 describe Hensel as “one of the most important figures in the recent history of central European archaeology.” 54. As a consequence, in the aftermath of the implementation of martial law of 1981, Hensel automatically became a member of the Patriotic Movement for National Rebirth (PRON), an organization designed to show unity and support for the Communist government (Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, e-mail message of June 3, 2018 to Florin Curta). His loyalty and “sincere devotion to the party” was recognized in a 1985 evaluation of the members of the Polish Academy of Science done by the Ministry of the Interior. See “Ocena kadry kierowniczej PAN przez MSW (rok. 1985),” available at https://lustronauki.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/ocena-­k adr y-­ kierowniczej-­pan-­przez-­msw-­rok-­1985/ (visit of January 7, 2020). On his 70th birthday in 1987, he received a special letter of congratulations signed

102 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

by General Wojciech Jaruzelski, Prime Minister Zbigniew Messer, and Roman Malinowski, the president of the parliament. See “Od redakcji,” Archeologia Polski 32 (1987), no. 1, 12. 55. Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski, e-mail message of March 22, 2016 to Florin Curta. According to Szmoniewski, in the 1980s, most members of the Cracow branch of the Institute for the History of Material Culture were also members of the Solidarity. According to Kadrow, “The German influence,” p.  133, despite political pressure, “no Marxist trends have developed” in any archaeological institution in Cracow. For the conservative views of the Cracow school of archaeology, see Abramowicz, Historia, p. 189. 56. Witold Hensel, “Potrzeba przygotowania wielkej rocznicy (O niektórych zagadnieniach polskiej protohistorii),” Przegla ̨d Wielkopolski 2 (1946), nos. 7–8, 193–206; Zofia Kurnatowska, “Witold Hensel—twórca polskiej mediewistyki archeologicznej,” Nauka 1 (2008), 168–69; Milisauskas, “Historical observations,” p. 131. 57. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Formy konwersji słowiańszczyzny wczesnośredniowiecznej a problem przedpiastowskiej chrystianizacji Małopolski,” in Chrystianizacja Polski południowej. Materiały sesji naukowej odbytej 29 czerwca 1993 roku (Cracow: Secesja, 1994), pp. 131–40; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Zum Beginn der Körperbestattung bei den Westslawen,” in Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts. Internationale Fachkonferenz der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Verbindung mit der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Kiel, 18.-25. September 1994, edited by Michael Müller-Wille, vol. 2 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998), pp. 227–38; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Postępy chrystiań izacji Słowian przed rokiem 1000,” in Swiety Wojciech i jego czasy. Materiały III Sympozjum Historyczno-­ Archeologicznego Polskiego Uniwersytetu na Obczyźnie, Saint-Maurice, 12–13 kwietnia 1997 roku, edited by Andrzej Żaki (Cracow: Nakł. Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 2000), pp. 103–09. 58. Ferenc Fülep, “The five-year-plan of Hungarian archaeology,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1 (1951), 13. 59. For Géza Fehér’s life, see István Fodor, “Száz éve született id. Fehér Géza,” Archaeologiai Értesitő 117 (1990), 256–57. For his activity in Bulgaria, see Rasho Rashev, “Geza Feher—izsledovatel na prabălgarskata ezicheska kultura,” Minalo (1998), no. 2, 69–74; Penka Peikovska, “Géza Fehér v Bălgariia (1922–1944),” in Ungaristichni izsledvaniia. Iubileen sbornik po povod 30 goini ot sa ̆zdavaneto na specialnost “Ungarska filologiia” SU Sv. Kliment Okhridski, edited by Ionka Naidenova, Liliiana Lesnichkova and Indra Markova (Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2014), pp. 187–219. The circumstances of Fehér’s refuge in Istanbul remain unclear. According to Ágnes

  CHAPTER 5: REACHING THROUGH THE GLASS CEILING: ÁGNES CS. SÓS… 

103

Cs. Sós, “Fehér Géza (1890–1955),” Múzeum Hiradó (1955), 180, that in 1941 Fehér could not occupy a position in Hungarian Studies at the University of Ankara was because of the Gestapo (that wanted to punish Fehér for his political views). 60. Ritoók, “The Zalavár collection,” p.  68. According to Sós, Die Ausgrabungen, p. 8, Fehér was the first to have drawn attention to the fact that without a serious study of the ninth century, no crucial problems of Hungarian history could be solved—no understanding of the economic and social organization of the Magyars, and no clue about the influences exercised upon them before the rise of the medieval state. Sós was convinced that in that respect “historical and linguistic studies are simply not sufficient.” 61. Sós, “Fehér Géza,” p. 180. According to Sós, the reports of archaeological excavations in Zalavár that Fehér had published clearly show that he interpreted the archaeological data as a historian. 62. Sós, “Fehér Géza,” p. 180.

Chapter 6: Research Topics, Gender and Marxism

The five biographical vignettes presented in this book are meant to illustrate the diversity of life experience for women archaeologists working under Communism. Equality between women and men was a postulate of Marxist ideology, and it is therefore important at this point to turn to that ideology and to its influence upon the scholarly output of the five women under consideration. Was there any preoccupation in their works with women in the (medieval) past? Did they use Marxism as an interpretative paradigm, and if so, to what goals? Can any one of them be regarded as an advocate of feminism, particularly on the basis of their presumed study of women in the past? Were there any particular topics that they favored in their respective studies?

Research Topics Petr Tret’iakov was right: to this day, Irina Rusanova’s reputation among archaeologists is that of a talented ceramologist. But her first publication was about mortuary archaeology—cremation cemeteries with barrows.1 Her first book was also dedicated to that topic, and she continued to publish on that until the early 1970s.2 For more than two decades, between 1963 and 1984, she also dealt with settlement sites, most famously with Korchak and Kodyn (Fig. 1).3 It is only in the late 1960s that she became interested in the early Slavic pottery, and her most important studies on

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6_7

105

106 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Fig. 1  Principal sites mentioned in the text

that topic, including the book on which her reputation is now based, were published in the 1970s. She stopped writing on pottery after 1984.4 Beginning with the 1960s (so quite early in her career as archaeologist), she became interested in Slavic paganism and the remains of sanctuaries. However, her first important studies on that topic were published only after 1984 together with her husband, Boris Timoshchuk. Slavic paganism was the topic of her last works.5 Zhivka Văzharova’s career began and ended with settlement studies.6 Much like Rusanova, she wrote only one specialized article on hearths and ovens, relatively late in her career.7 Equally late is her interest in Slavic paganism, possibly under the influence of Rusanova.8 Unlike Rusanova, however, she had little interest in pottery classification, but wrote on non-­ rural, “urban” sites.9 Her first archaeological monograph, however, was on agricultural tools.10 Early in her career, she also became interested in

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

107

the archaeology of industrial facilities.11 Almost simultaneously, however, she published her excavations of cemetery sites, and continued to do so well into the 1980s.12 In relation to her excavations in the graveyard of the Great Basilica in Pliska, Văzharova also dealt with jewelry and dress accessories.13 Occasionally, she published one and the same article in Bulgarian and in some other international language; those were more often than not surveys of earlier research combined with new interpretations based on the ethnic attribution.14 Of all five women archaeologists, Văzharova is the only one who did serious research in the history of her own discipline.15 Maria Comşa’s first publication was a review of Stamen Mikhailov’s excavations in Novi Pazar (Bulgaria).16 In the same volume of Dacia, she also published her first study of early medieval pottery.17 She returned to ceramic studies only two decades later.18 From the very beginning, Comşa published some of her studies both in Romanian and some other international language, which could explain the popularity of her ideas outside Romania.19 Like Rusanova, she was interested in mortuary archaeology, particularly cremation cemeteries with barrows.20 The reports of her earlier excavations on the settlement site at Bucov were published shortly after the end of each campaign.21 Like Văzharova, Comşa dealt with the archaeology of non-rural sites, particularly strongholds in the Carpathian Mountains, as well as with industrial installations.22 She also published hoards of agricultural tools, implements, and weapons—her first contribution to the history of medieval agriculture.23 Because of her participation in the large-scale excavations of the Roman and Byzantine site at Dinogetia (Garvăn), she is the coauthor of the monograph of that site.24 Like Rusanova and Văzharova, Comşa turned her attention to settlement features only later in her career.25 Unlike Rusanova and Văzharova, however, Comşa’s earlier, as well as later publications reflect her antiquarian interest in particular artifacts and their social or religious significance.26 Of particular interest are her studies of so-called “Slavic” bow fibulae—both publications of accidental finds and more elaborate discussions of their chronology and ethnic attribution.27 Of all women archaeologists considered in this book, Comşa is the only one who wrote about the influence of the paleo-­ environment on human habitation, and who made use of paleobotanical data and results of pollen analyses for the interpretation of the archaeological record.28 She is also the only one to have tackled the thorny problem of transhumant pastoralism.29 No other woman archaeologist considered in this book was more attached to a (single) site and its hinterland than Ágnes Cs. Sós. The

108 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

excavations in Zalavár offered the opportunity both for her first and for her last article. Zalavár remained the main topic of research throughout her career.30 Because of Zalavár, Sós wrote about medieval churches, as well as workshops, and got involved in ceramic studies at an earlier date in her career than any of the other four women considered in this book.31 Because of her involvement in rescue excavations in different parts of Hungary, however, she also published extensively on mortuary archaeology, particularly on Avar-age, inhumation cemeteries.32 At age 31, Helena Zoll-Adamikowa published her first article on barrows with cremation burials, and during the subsequent years of her life, mortuary archaeology became her most important research topic.33 All her single-author books are dedicated to that topic.34 Like Comşa, but to a much greater degree, Zoll-Adamikowa was preoccupied with questions of burial ritual and customs.35 Like Văzharova, but in a much more systematic manner, she dealt with the transformations of burial customs that accompanied the conversion to Christianity.36 From that perspective, she also addressed such issues as Slavic paganism and the Christianization of Poland.37 Her publications dealing with settlement archaeology came comparatively later.38 The first articles dedicated to the stronghold at Stradów are from the late 1980s.39 Like Comşa, Zoll-Adamikowa wrote on individual artifacts, their chronology, and ethnic attribution.40 Like Comşa, she was also interested in the environment (albeit more from the point of view of landscape) and sometimes published one and the same article both in Polish and in German, in order to increase the scholarly visibility of her conclusions and draw attention to the importance of the topic.41 Unlike the other four women archaeologists, for almost two decades (1969–1988) Zoll-Adamikowa kept a gazetteer of early medieval archaeological sites and finds from the whole of Poland, which was updated annually.42

Relations with Male Archaeologists There are many similarities between the scholarly profiles of the five women archaeologists, as reflected in their publications. All of them dealt in one way or another with mortuary archaeology, three of them specifically with barrows. All five also carried out excavations of settlement sites, either open or fortified. Four of them also published ceramics from those

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

109

excavations, as well as specialized studies dedicated to the classification of pottery remains. All five women favored the ethnic interpretation of the archaeological record, and strove to line up the conclusions drawn from their analyses of that record with the historical narrative.43 Mortuary and settlement archaeology, ceramics, and ethnicity—all these topics were key questions of medieval archaeology. They were definitely not issues of secondary importance, to which women would supposedly be relegated in order to make room for men. In fact, for each one of the five women the publication record is either equally impressive as, or even longer than that of male archaeologists, with whom they competed for recognition. There is simply nothing similar to Rusanova’s book on Slavic pottery in Valentin Sedov’s otherwise very long list of publications.44 Maria Comşa’s is four times longer than Ion Nestor’s, and the latter includes no monographs.45 The same is true about Atanas Milchev: he published less than Zhivka Văzharova, and no book whatsoever.46 Rusanova and Zoll-Adamikowa became uncontested authorities in their respective fields (pottery analysis and mortuary archaeology, respectively), with worldwide recognition. Before Sós’s book on the Slavic population of western Hungary in the ninth century, no other Hungarian archaeologist working on the Middle Ages had been able to publish in Western Europe, on the other side of the Iron Curtain, and none had been endorsed by such a prominent figure as Joachim Werner.47 At a closer look, however, there are also substantial differences. The relations with male archaeologists are reflected differently in the publications of the five women. Both Rusanova and Comşa were married to archaeologists. However, the only publications that Comşa signed together with her husband are an excavation report from, and the monograph of the settlement site at, Dinogetia (Garvăn), where the two had in fact met.48 By contrast, Irina Rusanova and Boris Timoshchuk published a comparatively greater number of studies together, either alone or in the company of the Ukrainian archaeologist Liubomyr Mykhaylyna.49 While Timoshchuk and Rusanova considerably influenced each other’s research agenda, there is no parallel to that in the relation between Maria and Eugen Comşa. Unlike Rusanova, Comşa published articles coauthored with other male authors, often local archaeologists or museum curators.50 The same is true for Zhivka Văzharova, but neither for Ágnes Cs. Sós nor for Helena Zoll-Adamikowa.51

110 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Marxism and Gender Even sharper differences emerge when one turns to the use of Marxism and gender as a conceptual categories for analysis and interpretation. Perhaps the most surprising is the complete absence of any reference to Marxism, either in a theoretical form or as mere citations (for the sake of political correctness) in the works of Helena Zoll-Adamikowa. In an early article, she published a double (but robbed) burial of a woman and a child from Stradów (southern Poland), but with no interpretation whatsoever.52 Later, in her discussion of cremation cemeteries with barrows in southern Poland, Zoll-Adamikowa noted that where the sex and the age had been established by anthropologists, in no instance was a man buried together with a woman of the same age. Building upon the idea (largely inspired from the written sources) that early Slavic society practiced suttee burial, the Polish archaeologist insisted therefore that in southern Poland, it was the wife (of about the same age as her spouse), and not a slave or a servant that committed suicide upon the death of the husband. That she was so willing to die was, according to Zoll-Adamikowa, the result of the fear of living a harsh life as a widow.53 This remark may, at a quick glimpse, suggest that Zoll-Adamikowa had an understanding of gender that was anchored in a Marxist model of social organization: in a “primitive” society, with undeveloped relations of production, the division of labor based on gender made women entirely dependent upon men, particularly their husbands. But at a closer look, Zoll-Adamikowa’s interpretation is in fact an adaptation of a remark that she had found in a letter of St. Boniface to King Aethelbald of Mercia (716–757).54 Hers was not an attempt to draw general conclusions from the archaeological record, but an effort to line up that evidence with the written sources. A variation on the same theme appears in Ágnes Cs. Sós’s work. She followed Géza Fehér’s interpretation of two tenth-century, double inhumations at Zalavár to advance her own interpretation of biritual burials excavated at Pókaszepetk.55 According to Sós, each burial contained the cremated remains of a Slavic woman (slave) that were buried by her husband (master), but according to Slavic customs (i.e., after cremation and together with such dress accessories as trapezoidal pendants).56 Even in the absence of cremated remains, the deposition in male graves of female headdresses with trapezoidal pendants must be interpreted as (symbolic) suttee burial. As she believed that most women in Pókaszepetk had been cremated, Sós interpreted the cemetery as the burial ground of a

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

111

community of Avar males who had married local Slavic women.57 The trapezoidal pendants found on a number of Avar-age sites were therefore Slavic before being female dress accessories.58 That the conceptual emphasis here is on ethnicity, not gender, results from the fact that Sós made a number of pertinent observations, from which, however, she drew no conclusions. For example, she noted that female burials of the Avar age were typically poorer than both male and child burials. While animal bones were typically found in burials of females of all ages, chicken bones were only found in graves of women aged 18 to 45 years.59 Eggshells appear in inhumation burials in Pókaszepetk more often with female than with male graves, but Sós had no explanation for that phenomenon, and no interpretation of gender markers in burial practices.60 Like Zoll-Adamikowa, Sós had no interest in exploring the social construction of gender roles in the Avar age, and was oblivious to Marxist theory. A very different picture emerges from the examination of the scholarly output of the other three women archaeologists. According to Igor Gavritukhin, Irina Rusanova was quite hostile to Communism. It is therefore surprising to see her applying a Marxist model to the interpretation of her and Boris Timoshchuk’s excavations at Kodyn. Because no agricultural tools had been found on that site, except the fragment of a sickle, the economy of the inhabitants of Kodyn supposedly remained “natural” throughout the entire history of the settlement, based primarily on slash-­ and-­burn agriculture.61 Since the relations of production were so poorly developed, the form of social organization favored was the large, patriarchal family. Its existence was revealed by the careful study of the directions into which the excavated houses opened to the outside, in itself an attempt to identify social links between the inhabitants of those dwellings.62 A move away from the patriarchal family and toward the socially more advanced community with a territorial basis happened only in the seventh century. Rusanova’s conclusion was that Kodyn was the village of people living in the last phase of the primitive commune.63 This is the only instance of Marxist interpretation in Rusanova’s work. There is no such interpretation in any of her studies of pottery typology, and no serious engagement with the work of the Polish archaeologist Włodzimierz Hołubowicz, who had promoted Marxism as a model for the interpretation of the archaeological record, especially of pottery production.64 It is more likely, therefore, that the remarks about the village of Kodyn were not hers, but those of her coauthor (and husband), Boris Timoshchuk. Shortly before the publication of the monograph on Kodyn,

112 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Timoshchuk had in fact defended a dissertation in Moscow on the archaeological study of early medieval, Slavic village communities.65 Whether or not she was aware of the interpretation put forward for Kodyn, Zhivka Văzharova had much the same to say about the results of her own excavations in Garvan. She noted a difference between the arrangement in rows of houses excavated on that site and dated between the sixth and the eighth century, and the clusters (“nests”) of houses dated between the eighth and the eleventh century. The change from the earlier to the later settlement layout was attributed to the transformation of the social organization based on large patriarchal families (to which Văzharova referred as “zadrugas”).66 Their disintegration led to the rise of territorial, village communities. The lack of kilns and smithies, as well as of any signs of wealth or social inequality on the settlement site at Krivina (near Ruse, Bulgaria) led Văzharova to the conclusion that that was still not a village community, even though she dated the site between the mid-eighth and the tenth century.67 Why was the development of the local society so slow? Văzharova answered that question by citing Lenin’s Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899), in order to argue that the rural economy in medieval Bulgaria was characterized by the lack of any incentive for technological progress (a “routine technique”).68 The conclusion smacks of Chayanov’s consumption-labor-balance principle, according to which peasants had no incentive to produce a surplus.69 However, four years later, writing for a Bulgarian, not Soviet audience, Văzharova used finds of tools, other implements, and slag to advance the idea that an ironworking center was in operation in Selishte near Preslav during “feudalism,” even though she dated the site to the same period as the village in Krivina.70 Apparently, there was technological progress going on in Bulgarian society, which was neither primitive, nor lagging behind that of “feudal” Rus(sia). Moreover, Văzharova used coins and lead seals as illustrations of the flourishing trade between Byzantium and Bulgaria during that same time.71 At a microlevel of analysis, however, such as that of burial assemblages, Văzharova dropped all references to Marxism and embraced an approach that would have been easily recognizable to Ágnes Cs. Sós and Helena Zoll-Adamikowa. Like the former, Văzharova noted that in eighth- and ninth-century cemeteries of Bulgaria, women were buried with fewer grave goods than men, and that the larger number of artifacts was found in child and teenager burial.72 Like Zoll-Adamikowa, Văzharova published

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

113

a female burial from the cemetery near the Great Basilica in Pliska, with no interpretation and no concern for gender as a category of analysis.73 Maria Comşa shared Văzharova’s interest in special facilities for industrial activities. She too published a smithy discovered during her excavations in Bucov.74 Although with a different chronology in mind, she, like Văzharova, cited Engels in support of the idea that economic and social differences in Slavic society (largely the result of plundering expeditions) led to the disintegration of the patriarchal family, which left room for confederacies of village communities.75 Several years ahead of Rusanova (or rather, Timoshchuk) and Văzharova, Comşa used the settlement layout to draw conclusions about the social organization of the community. The row arrangement of houses in the eighth- to tenth-century settlement in Bucov-Tioca reveals two clusters, which she interpreted as the two separate clans. By the early ninth century, those clans began to disintegrate, and the two former clusters now formed a village community on the basis of economic ties.76 There were several village communities around a fortified center, yet to be found on the territory of Bucov. To Comşa, the large buildings that she had excavated in Bucov-Tioca (e.g., house 12) were a clear sign of economic inequality.77 Size as an indication of elevated social status also appears in the interpretation of her excavations at Nuşfalău (near Zalău, Romania). Larger barrows in that cemetery were for a tribal aristocracy on the point of becoming truly feudal lords, while the medium and small barrows were for commoners.78 Conspicuously missing from Comşa’s work are any references to women in the past. Her interpretation of the archaeological record is completely genderless.79 While Rusanova focused exclusively on the ceramic morphology and chronology, Comşa paid attention to unusual forms of decoration, such as marks imprinted on the bottom of vessels thrown on a tournette (slowly moving wheel). She interpreted those marks in social and economic terms. According to Comşa, such marks appeared at a time when pottery production had ceased to be household-based and had turned into a separate industrial activity. Moreover, she believed that later marks were in fact symbols of the feudal lords who controlled, and benefited from, the work of the potters.80 At a macro-level of analysis, Comşa engaged Marxist theory critically. In an article published in Romanian in 1967 (with a French version following up three years later), Comşa maintained that in his On the Prehistory of the Germans (Zur Urgeschichte der Deutschen, 1881–1882), his Frankish Period (Die fränkische Zeit, 1881–1882), and his Origin of the Family,

114 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Private Property and the State (Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats, 1884), Engels had dealt with developments in Western Europe and in Germany. His works mirrored the state of research in the late nineteenth century, but recent studies have brought more information, especially about those societies that did not follow the classic model of development, such as those on the territory of Romania.81 During the transition to feudalism, the main form of social organization on that territory was the village community, which had emerged before the Roman conquest of the early second century and had survived throughout the period of Roman rule in the peripheral regions of the province of Dacia.82 With the abandonment of the province by the Roman army and administration, and after the arrival of the Goths, the newcomers and the indigenous population mixed in a way described by Engels for other parts of Europe.83 Archaeologically, this phenomenon is illustrated by cemeteries of the (Sântana de Mureş-)Chernyakhov culture, in which individuals of different ethnic origins were buried side by side, but according to specific burial customs. To those claiming that the form of social organization in post-Roman Dacia must have been primitive, Comşa responded by using an argument lifted from Engels’s Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State: a primitive, kin-based society is incompatible with the monetary economy. Since numerous bronze coins dated between the fourth and the seventh centuries have been found on the territory of modern Romania, monetary exchanges were taking place at that time. The social formation of the communities engaged in such exchanges was not kin-based, but the village community.84 With village communities came also increasing social inequality and social dissent.85 However, the development of the forces of production was not sufficiently advanced to prompt the rise of social classes. A class-based society that one may call feudal only came into being in the ninth century for Transylvania and in the tenth century for Walachia and Moldavia.86 This is an extraordinary departure from the run-of-the-mill papers published in archaeology journals of Eastern Europe, so easily recognizable by their obligatory citations from Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Few, if any other archaeologists in Romania have engaged Marxism so critically, while attempting to make sense of the results of their excavations. Maria Comşa stands apart from all the women archaeologists considered in this book, because she seems to have been genuinely interested in applying theory to the data (as opposed to interpreting the data without any theoretical framework, only on the basis of a match with the written sources). In later articles, she returned to the critical understanding of the Marxist

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

115

framework of interpretation, in order to make sense of the archaeological record. The stronghold that she excavated at Slon (in the Carpathian Mountains, north of Ploieşti) became the residence of a local duke or prince (knez) who ruled over a number of village communities in the upper valley of the river Telejenel. Such communities had emerged in antiquity (second to fourth century) and by the ninth century had absorbed the Slavic influence still visible in local place names.87 However, federations of village communities led by local dukes already existed in the sixth century in the Walachian Plain. Finds of molds for casting dress accessories or crosses, according to Comşa, signal the presence of craftsmen who worked on commission. As such, they are markers of political entities led by the early Slavic “kings” mentioned in the late sixth- and early seventh-century sources.88 The same sources refer to a great number of captives treated as slaves in the local Slavic society. However, Comşa insists, “they had no role in production. Responsible for the production of goods during this period were only free peasants, the members of the village communities.”89 Why was Comşa so different? In our opinion, the answer may be found in the intellectual environment of the early years of Ceauşescu’s regime in Romania. In a later publication, Comşa made it clear that the source of inspiration for her ideas about the village community was the work of the Romanian sociologist Henri H. Stahl (1901–1991).90 A Marxist cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, Stahl set as his goal the (re)writing of the medieval history of the Romanian principalities starting from the social structure of the archaic village communities in the Vrancea region of southeastern Romania.91 As no written sources are available, he proposed reconstructing the past by means of the retrogressive method based on empirical observations of modern-day communities. At the core of this attempt at reconstructing history was the idea that, from a Marxist point of view, no true feudalism had emerged on the territory of modern Romania. Stahl offered arguments in favor of the so-called Asiatic (or tributary) mode of production, which he adapted to the specific circumstances in which village communities operated in the Romanian lands.92 Stahl’s ideas were quickly embraced by Romanian historians and archaeologists, because they offered a way out of the classical succession of modes of production, and allowed for national specificity, a key element of Ceauşescu’s policies in the aftermath of the Prague Spring.93 It is against that background that Comşa’s serious engagement with Marxism must be analyzed. Hers was an attempt to explain in Marxist terms the absence of any direct transition from a slave-based to a feudal

116 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

mode of production: “Thus, the idea that in our country the Migration period marks a step backwards, a return from a slave-based mode of production (which had existed under Roman rule) to the late phase of the primitive commune cannot be accepted.”94 Much like in Western Europe, the basic form of social organization after the fall of the Roman Empire was the village community. However, on the territory of Romania there was no classic type of transition to feudalism, because new migratory populations kept on coming. The local tribal aristocracy, therefore, never had sufficient time to consolidate its social position, and was replaced every time with some new elite.95 Channeling Stahl, but with a Chayanovian twist, Comşa believed therefore that the historical circumstances of the early Middle Ages could explain very well why the village community was maintained for so long, thus slowing down the development of forces of production.96 Maria Comşa was not the only Romanian archaeologist to draw inspiration from Stahl’s ideas, but she was the only one to reflect upon his theories in the light of the archaeological evidence. Others cited Stahl only for ethnographic parallels to their interpretations of the archaeological record, or simply as a bibliographical reference for the concept of “village community.”97 However, despite the fact that she continued to refine some of her ideas inspired by Stahl, Comşa remained largely isolated from the interpretational field of the Romanian archaeologists dealing with the Middle Ages. Most of them did not cite Comşa’s work, even when mentioning Stahl’s.98 One cannot explain such an attitude by means of a reaction to Comşa’s attempt to use Marxist concepts for the interpretation of the archaeological record. If the notion of village community is Marxist (at least in Stahl’s terms), then it was employed as much by Comşa as by those who refused to cite her works, even after the end of the Communist regime in Romania. This must be because of reasons other than ideological differences, but it is beyond doubt that Maria Comşa’s was a genuine effort to do Marxist archaeology.99

Summary Even at a quick glimpse, the research agenda for each one of the five women archaeologists discussed in this book was not different in any respect from that of any other, male archaeologist, either from her own country or from abroad. There are simply no topics restricted to women archaeologists, and all five of them dealt with both detailed analysis of

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

117

artifacts and very broad issues pertaining to settlements, mortuary archaeology, ethnicity, or economy. It is remarkable, on the other hand, that none of these women archaeologists was interested in gender issues. Moreover, three of them showed no interest in any Marxist interpretation of the archaeological evidence. As a matter of fact, the two archaeologists who managed to break through the glass ceiling—Ágnes Cs. Sós and Helena Zoll-Adamikowa—are also those who were most oblivious to Marxist theory. By contrast, Maria Comşa, who engaged most seriously with that theory and attempted to apply it to the interpretation of the archaeological evidence, was marginalized and her reputation was tarnished, primarily because of rumors that she was a Soviet agent in the Romanian school of archaeology. Unlike Rusanova, Comşa rarely published works coauthored with her archaeologist husband. Rusanova’s only works reflecting some preoccupation with Marxism are those published together with Boris Timoshchuk, her husband, and most likely reflect his, and not her penchant for Marxist theory. Not only did Sós and Zoll-Adamikowa show indifference toward Marxism, but they also had no male coauthors. Zhivka Văzharova occasionally published together with male archaeologists, but her use of Marxist theory was superficial and not very adroit. By contrast, Maria Comşa not only took a critical position in relation with the oft-cited work of Engels (especially his Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State), but also borrowed heavily from the ideas of the Marxist sociologist Henri H. Stahl, while distancing herself from his ideas concerning the absence of the slave and the feudal modes of production from the history of Romania. Comşa is the only one of the five women archaeologists to have attempted to apply a Marxist model of analysis to the results of her excavations of both settlement and cemetery sites. Moreover, she adopted and adapted the idea of the tributary (or “Asian”) mode of production to explain the historical developments of the early Middle Ages on the territory of Romania. Because of her marginalization and demonization in Romanian archaeology, she had neither students, nor followers. Hers was the only bona fide attempt to do Marxist archaeology.

Notes 1. Rusanova, “Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki.” 2. Irina P.  Rusanova, Kurgany polian X-XII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1966); Irina P. Rusanova, “Pogrebal’nye pamiatniki vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia

118 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

n. e. na territorii Severo-Zapadnoi Ukrainy,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 135 (1973), 3–9. 3. Rusanova, “Poselenie”; Irina P. Rusanova, “Zhilishche VIII-IX vv. u sela Buki na Zhitomirshchine,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 125 (1971), 46–51; Rusanova and Timoshchuk, Kodyn; Irina P. Rusanova and Boris O. Timoshchuk, “Gnezdo slavianskikh poselenii u s. Chernovka, Chernovickoi obl.,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 179 (1984), 19–25. The only specialized study of settlement features (bread-baking ovens) was written during the last years of Rusanova’s life: Irina P.  Rusanova, “Khlebnye pechi u slavian,” in Arkheologiia i istoriia iugo-vostoka Drevnei Rusi (materialy nauchnoi konferencii), edited by Anatolii Z.  Vinnikov, A.  D. Priakhin and Mikhail V.  Cybin (Voronezh: Izdatel’stvo Voronezhskogo universiteta, 1993), pp. 56–59. 4. Rusanova, “Keramika”; “O keramike”; “Karta”; Slavianskie drevnosti. See also Irina P. Rusanova, “Severnye elementy na pamiatnikakh tipa Korchak,” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 139 (1974), 3–7; “O rannei date pamiatnikov prazhskogo tipa,” in Drevniaia Rus’ i slaviane, edited by Tat’iana V.  Nikolaeva (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), pp.  138–43; “Pamiatniki tipa Pen’kovki,” Problemy arkheologii 2 (1978), pp. 114–18; “Klassifikaciia keramiki tipa Korchak,” Slavia Antiqua 30 (1984–1987), 93–100. 5. Rusanova, “Iazycheskoe sviatilishche.” See also Irina P.  Rusanova and Boris O. Timoshchuk, “Zbruchskoe sviatilishche (predvaritel’noe soobshchenie),” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1986), no. 4, 90–99; Timoshchuk and Rusanova, “Vtoroe Zbruchkoe (Krutilovskoe) sviatilishche”; Rusanova, “Kul’tovye mesta”; Rusanova and Timoshchuk, Iazycheskie sviatilishche; Irina P. Rusanova and Boris O. Timoshchuk, “Religioznoe ‘dvoeverie’ na Rusi v XI-XIII vv. (po materialam gorodishch-sviatilishch),” in Kul’tura slavian i Rus’, edited by Iu. S. Kukushkin, T. B. Kniazevskaia and Tat’iana I. Makarova (Moscow: Nauka, 1998), pp. 144–63. 6. Văzharova, Slaviano-bălgarskoto selishte; Zhivka Văzharova, “Slavianskoto selishte v mestnostta ‘Stublata’ krai s. Bezhanovo, Loveshko,” Izvestiia na Arkheologicheskiia Institut 24 (1961), 317–26; “Srednevekovni obekti po dolinite na rekite Cibrica i Ogosta,” Izvestiia na Arkheologicheskiia Institut 28 (1965), 231–46; Văzharova, Slavianski i slavianobărlgarski selishta; Văzharova, “Rannoslaviansko i slavianobălgarsko selishte”; Văzharova, Srednovekovnoto selishte; Zhivka Văzharova, “Srednevekovye zhilishcha na territorii Bolgarii (po arkheologicheskim dannym),” Slovenská Archeológia 34 (1986), no. 2, 261–78; “Drevneslavianskie poseleniia (selishcha, gorodishcha i gorodishcha-kreposti) na territorii Bolgarii,” in Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa slavianskoi arkheologii, Kiev 18–25 sentiabria

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

119

1985 g., edited by Boris A. Rybakov, vol. 1 (Moscow: Institut arkheologii AN SSSR, 1987), 105–17; “Die bulgarischen Untersuchungen der mittelalterlichen Siedlung in den Jahren 1975 und 1977 bis 1981,” in Iatrus-­ Krivina. Spätantike Befestigung und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau, edited by Gerda von Bülow and Dietlind Schieferdecker, vol. 4 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991), pp. 299–315. 7. Zhivka Văzharova, “Otopitel‘nye sooruzheniia na territorii Bolgarii (VI-XIV vv.),“ in Studia nad etnogeneza ̨ Słowian i kultura ̨ Europy wczesnos ́redniowiecznej. Praca zbiorowa, edited by Gerard Labuda and Stanisław Tabaczyński, vol. 1 (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/Gdańsk/Łódż: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1987), pp. 271–78. 8. Zhivka Văzharova, “Mitologiiata na iuzhnite slaviani (bălgarite),” in Vtori mezhdunaroden kongres po bălgaristika, Sofiia, 23 mai-3 iuni 1986 g. Dokladi 6: Bal̆ garskite zemi v drevnostta Bal̆ gariia prez srednovekovieto, edited by Khristo Khristov, Pantelei Zarev, Vladimir Georgiev et al. (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1987), pp. 390–99. 9. Văzharova, “Ranneslavianskie keramika”; Zhivka Văzharova, “K voprosu o material’noi kul’ture Pliski i Preslava,” in Actes du XIIe Congrès international d’études byzantines. Ochride, 10–16 septembre 1961, vol. 3 (Belgrade: Comité yougoslave des études byzantines, 1964), pp. 403–07. 10. Văzharova, O proiskhozhdenii. 11. Văzharova, “Zhelezarska rabotilnica.” See also Zhivka Văzharova, “Zum Problem der Glasproduktion im mittelalterlichen Bulgarien (8–10. Jh.),“ in Srednjovekovno staklo na Balkanu 5.-15. vek. Zbornik radova sa ̵ medunarodnog savetovanja održanog od 22. do 24. aprila 1974, u Beogradu, edited by Vasa Č ubrilović (Belgrade: Balkanoloshki Institut, 1975), pp.  115–21. Zhivka Văzharova is the only archaeologist among the five women archaeologists who wrote a study on the archaeology of trade: Zhivka Văzharova, “Vneseni predmeti po tărgovski i drugi nachini v srednovekovna Bălgariia (VIII-XI v.),“ Izvestiia na Bal̆ garskoto istorichesko druzhestvo 32 (1978), 33–48. 12. Zhivka Văzharova, “Slavianskiiat nekropol v selo Bukovci, Vrachansko,“ Arkheologiia 1 (1959), nos. 1–2, 20–23; Zhivka Văzharova and Vera Chacheva, “Srednovekoven nekropol pri s. Ablanica, Blagoevgradski okrăg,“ Arkheologiia 10 (1968), no. 2, 27–36; Zhivka Văzharova and Dimităr Zlatarski, “Srednovekovno selishte i nekropoli v gr. Dălgopol, Varnenski okrăg,“ Arkheologiia 11 (1969), no. 3, 49–58; Văzharova, “Selishta i nekropoli”; Văzharova, Slaviani; Zhivka Văzharova, “Pogrebalniiat obred kato istoricheski iztochnik za etnicheskata săshnost na bălgarskta narodnost (po arkheologicheski i etnografski danni),” Arkheologiia 19 (1977), no. 2, 30–50; Văzharova, “Zur Frage der Ethnogenese”; Zhivka Văzharova, “Nekropolăt do Goliamata bazilika v

120 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Pliska,” Pliska-Preslav 1 (1979), 69–80; Văzharova, “Bogatoe pogrebenie”; Zhivka Văzharova, “Dvuobriaden ezicheski nekropol krai s. Bdinci, Tolbukhinski okrăg,” Izvestiia na Narodniia muzei Varna 17 (1981), 77–109; “Nekropol krai s. Cherniche-­Krupnik, Blagoevgradski okrăg,” Izvestiia na Ba ̆lgarskoto istorichesko druzhestvo 26 (1984), 5–20. 13. Zhivka Văzharova, “Zlatni nakiti ot grob 27 v Pliska,” Arkheologiia 22 (1980), no. 1, 52–56. 14. Zhivka Văzharova, “Slavianite na iug ot Dunava (po arkheologicheski danni),” Arkheologiia 6 (1964), no. 2, 23–33, and “The Slavs”; “Slaviani i prabălgari” and “Slawen und Protobulgaren auf Grund archäologischer Quellen,” Zeitschrift für Archäologie 5 (1971), 266–88. 15. Văzharova, “Vrăzkite.” 16. Maria Chişvasi-Comşa, Review of “Edin starinen nekropol pri Novi Pazar” by Stamen Mikhailov, Izvestiia Institut XX, 1955, Dacia 1 (1957), 369–71. 17. Chişvasi-Comşa, “Nekotorye istoricheskie vyvody.” 18. Maria Comşa, “La céramique de type byzantin de Bucov-Ploieşti,” in Actes du XIV-e Congrès international des études byzantines, Bucarest, 6–12 septembre 1971, edited by Mihai Berza and Eugen Stănescu, vol. 3 (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1976), pp.  295–97; “Ceramica alanică din sec. VIII descoperită în centrul Dobrogei,” Pontica 12 (1979), 151–56; “Die örtliche Keramik aus den Siedlungen des 8.-10. Jhs. von Bucov-Ploieşti,” Dacia 23 (1979), 231–64; “Die Keramik von byzantinischen Typus aus den Siedlungen von Bucov-Ploieşti,” Dacia 24 (1980), 323–39; “Ceramica din pastă caolinoasă din Cîmpia Română şi unele probleme privind legăturile teritoriului de la nord de Dunăre cu Dobrogea în secolele IX-X,” Cultura ̆ şi civilizaţie la Dunar̆ ea de Jos 1 (1985), 93–104. Between 1957 and 1976, she dealt primarily with potter’s marks: Maria Comşa, “O znachenii goncharnykh kleit rannefeodal‘noi epokh,” Dacia 5 (1961), 449–61; “L‘origine des marques de potier sur la céramique slave,” in Berichte über den II. internationalen Kongre für slawische Archäologie. Berlin, 24.-28. August 1970, edited by Joachim Herrmann and Karl-Heinz Otto, vol. 3 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973), pp. 167–73. 19. See, for example: Maria Chişvasi-Comşa, “Unele concluzii istorice pe baza ceramicii din secolele VI-XII,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 8 (1957), nos. 1–4, 267–94, and Chişvasi-Comşa, “Nekotorye istoricheskie vyvody”; Maria Comşa, “Discuţii în legătură cu pătrunderea şi aşezarea slavilor pe teritoriul RPR,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 11 (1960), no. 1, 159–66, and Comşa, “Die bulgarische Herrschaft”; Maria Comşa, “Cu privire la semnificaţia mărcilor de olar din epoca feudală timpurie,” Studii şi cercetar̆ i de istorie veche 12 (1961), no. 2, 291–305, and “O znachenii”; Maria Comşa, “Semne din epoca feudală timpurie incizate pe o coloană romanobizantină,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 13 (1962), no. 1, 177–90, and

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

121

“Znaki rannefeodal‘noi epokhi, vrezannie na rimsko-­vizantiiskoi kolonne,” Dacia 6 (1962), 257–68; Maria Comşa, “Cu privire la evoluti̧ a culturii balcano-dunărene în sec. IX-XI (studiu preliminar),” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 14 (1963), no. 1, 107–22, and Comşa, “La civilisation”; Maria Comşa, “Cercetările de la Slon şi important ̧a lor pentru studiul formării relat ̧ilor feudale la sud de Carpat ̧i,” Studii şi materiale privitoare la trecutul istoric al judetu̧ lui Prahova 2 (1969), 21–29, and “Die Forschungen von Slon und ihre Bedeutung für das Studium der Entwicklung der Feudalbeziehungen südlich der Karpaten,” in Siedlung, Burg und Stadt. Studien zu ihren Anfängen, edited by Karl-Heinz Otto and Joachim Herrmann (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1969), pp. 232–38; Maria Comşa, “Unele consideraţii privind situati̧ a de la Dunărea de Jos în secolele VI-VII,” Apulum 12 (1974), 300–18, and “Einige Betrachtungen über die Ereignisse im 6.-7. Jahrhundert an der unteren Donau,” Slavia Antiqua 21 (1974), 61–81. 20. Comşa, “Kurganyi”; “Săpăturile de la Nuşfalău (r. Şimleu, reg. Oradea),” Materiale şi cercetar̆ i arheologice 7 (1961), 519–29; “Vostochnye elementy v pogrebal‘nom obriade kurgannykh mogil‘nikov u.s. Nushfaleu i Somesheni (Severo-Zapadnaia Rumyniia),” in Drevniaia Rusi i slaviane, edited by Tat’iana V. Nikolaeva (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), pp. 96–100. For cremation cemeteries without barrows, see Maria Comşa, Adrian Rădulescu and Nicolae Hartu̧ che, “Necropola de incinerati̧ e de la Castelu,” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 8 (1962), 649–60; Maria Comşa, “Ritualuri de origine geto-dacă în mormintele de incinerati̧ e din secolele VIII-X din Dobrogea,” Symposia thracologica 3 (1985), 169. For inhumation cemeteries or isolated graves, see Maria Comşa, “Frühawarenzeitliche Funde aus Valea lui Mihai,” Sborník Narodního musea v Praze. Historie 20 (1966), nos. 1–2, 173–74; Maria Comşa and Doina Ignat, “Gräber aus dem 6. Jh. in Mediaş,” Dacia 15 (1971), 349–51; Maria Comşa, “Quelques donnees relatives la chronologie et l’appartenance ethnique des nécropoles de type Moreşti et Band,” In Actes du VIII-e Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Beograd 9–15 septembre 1971, edited by Grga Novak, vol. 3 (Belgrade: Comité National d’Organisation, 1973), pp.  309–18; Maria Comşa and Gheorghe Bichir, “Date preliminarii cu privire la necropola de la Păuleasca,” Studii şi cercetar̆ i de istorie veche 24 (1973), no. 2, 317–20. For specific burial customs, see Maria Comşa, “Câteva date referitoare la folosirea lutului ars şi nears în ritualul funerar al unor morminte de incinerat ̧ie din secolele VI-X de pe teritoriul României,” Acta Musei Napocensis 33 (1996), 225–37. Comşa mistook a well for a grave in her article, “Ein Begräbnis-Fundverband aus dem 9.-10. Jh. in Fîntînele,” Dacia 13 (1969), 417–37.

122 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

21. Maria Chişvasi-Comşa, “Săpăturile de la Bucov (r. şi reg. Ploieşti),” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 5 (1959), 495–500; “Contribuţii la cunoaşterea culturii străromâne în lumina săpăturilor de la Bucov,” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 10 (1959), no. 1, 81–99; “Săpăturile de la Bucov” (1960); Maria Comşa, “Săpăturile de la Bucov (r. şi reg. Ploieşti),” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 7 (1961), 541–50; Cultura materială. Comşa excavated and published (albeit incompletely) other settlement sites as well: Maria Comşa, “Unele date privind aşezarea din sec. VI-VII de la Radovanu, jud. Ilfov,” Muzeul Nati̧ onal 2 (1975), 335–41. 22. Comşa, “Cercetările” and “Die Forschungen”; Maria Comşa, “Un knézat roumain des X-e-XII-e siècles Slon-Prahova (Etude préliminaire),” Dacia 22 (1978), 303–17; “Cetatea de lemn din sec. VIII-IX de la Slon-­Prahova,” Muzeul Nat ̧ional 5 (1981), 133–36; “Raport preliminar asupra săpăturilor executate la Slon (jud. Prahova),” Materiale şi cercetar̆ i arheologice 15 (1983), 437–38. For industrial installations, see Maria Comşa, “Töpferöfen aus dem IX.-X. Jahrhundert freigelegt bei Dragosloveni (Kreis Vrancea),” Slovenská Archeológia 18 (1970), no. 1, 119–27; “Töpferei aus dem 10. Jh. bei Radovanu,” Archeologia Polski 16 (1971), nos. 1–2, 385–99; “Cuptoare de ars oale din secolele VI-VII descoperite la Radovanu-Ilfov,” in Studii şi comunica ̆ri de istorie a civilizati̧ ei populare din România, edited by Cornel Irimie, Corneliu Bucur, Cornelia Gangolea and Hedwiga Ruşdea (Sibiu/ Bucharest: Muzeul Brukenthal/Centrul special de perfecti̧ onare a cadrelor, 1981), pp. 241–48. 23. Maria Comşa and Gheorghe Constantinescu, “Depozitul de unelte şi arme din epoca feudală timpurie descoperit la Dragosloveni (jud. Vrancea),” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 20 (1969), no. 3, 425–36; Maria Comşa and Elena Gheannopoulos, “Unelte şi arme din epoca feudală timpurie descoperite la Radovanu (jud. Ilfov),” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 20 (1969), no. 4, 617–21; Maria Comşa and Constantin Deculescu, “Un depozit de unelte şi arme descoperit la Curcani (jud. Ilfov),” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 23 (1972), no. 3, 469–74. On the basis of such studies, much like Văzharova, Comşa began to draw conclusions regarding the agricultural (horticultural) practices in the early Middle Ages: Maria Comşa, “Grădinăritul în mileniul I e.n. pe teritoriul României,” Pontica 13 (1980), 164–84; Maria Comşa, “Date privind agricultura în sudul Munteniei în secolele VIII-X,” in Istro-Pontica. Muzeul tulcean la a 50-a aniversare 1950–2000. Omagiu lui Simion Gavrilă la 45 de ani de activitate, 1955–2000, edited by Mihaela Iacob, Ernest Oberländer-Târnoveanu and Florin Topoleanu (Tulcea: Consiliul Judeţean Tulcea, 2000), pp. 355–62.

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

123

24. Gheorghe Ştefan, Ion Barnea, Maria Comşa and Eugen Comşa, Dinogetia I. Aşezarea feudala ̆ timpurie de la Bisericuta̧ -Garva ̆n (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1967). 25. Maria Comşa, “Tipuri de locuint ̧e din secolele VIII-X din sudul Munteniei,” in Ilfov-file de istorie (Bucharest: 1978), pp. 111–15; “Cu privire la originea tipului de bordei cu cuptor scobit din epoca feudală timpurie în zona extracarpatică a României,” Hierasus 5 (1983), 148–57; “Tipuri de locuinţe din secolele IX-X de la Radovanu-‘Valea lui Petcu’,” Cultură şi civilizat ̧ie la Dunar̆ ea de Jos 5–7 (1988), 143–52. 26. Chişvasi-Comşa, “O jucărie”; Comşa, “Znaki”; Maria Comşa, “K voprosu istolkovaniia nekotorykh graffiti iz Basarabi,” Dacia 8 (1964), 363–70; “Frühmittelalterliche Schriftzeichen auf einer römisch-­ byzantinischen Säule,” Bibliotheca Classica Orientalia 9 (1964), 330–31; “Izdeliia drevnerusskikh gorodov na territoriiakh k Iugo-Zapadu ot Kievskoi Rusi,” in Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa slavianskoi arkheologii, Kiev 18–25 sentiabria 1985 g., edited by Boris A. Rybakov, vol. 3 (Moscow: Institut arkheologii AN SSSR, 1987), pp.  100–10; “Betrachtungen über das Diadem von Bălteni im Zusammenhang mit den Ereignissen der Jahre 670/680,” Problemi na prabal̆ garskata istoriia i kultura 1 (1989), 77–86; “Inscript ̧iile runice din secolele IX-X descoperite la Slon-Prahova. Notă preliminară,” Muzeul Nat ̧ional 11 (1998), no. 2, 615–22. 27. Maria Comşa and Barbu Ionescu, “O fibulă ‘digitată’ descoperită la Căscioarele,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 11 (1960), no. 2, 419–21; Maria Comşa, “Două fibule digitate descoperite în Oltenia,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 12 (1961), no. 1, 105–07; “Quelques considérations sur l’origine et l’appartenance ethnique des complexes fibules digitées de type Gîmbaş-Coşoveni,” Mitteilungen des archäologischen Instituts der ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1 (1972), 35–40; “Unele consideraţii cu privire la originea şi apartenenta̧ etnică a complexelor cu fibule digitate de tip Gîmbaş (jud. Alba)-Coşoveni (jud. Dolj),” Apulum 11 (1973), 259–72. 28. Maria Comşa, “Rolul mediului natural (munţi, păduri, bălţi) în ment ̧inerea elementului autohton la nord de Dunăre în secolele III-VII,” Hierasus 7–8 (1989), 259–68 (reprinted in Carpica 27 [1998], 54–65). Comşa, “Un knézat roumain,” p. 303 with n. 3, cites the results of pollen analysis as proof of forest clearing coinciding in time with the establishment of the stronghold at Slon. 29. Maria Comşa, “Considerati̧ i privind păstoritul pe teritoriul României de la sfârşitul secolului al III-lea până către sfârşitul secolului al XIII-lea,” Litua 6 (1994), 56–70. 30. First and last article: Sós, “Rapport”; “Zalavár.” See also Sós, “Wykopaliska”; Die Ausgrabungen; “Ausgrabungen von Zalavár,” in Cyrillo-Methodiana.

124 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Zur Frühgeschichte des Christentum bei den Slaven, 863–1963, edited by Manfred Hellmann, Reinhold Olesch, Bernhard Stasiewski and Franz Zagiba (Cologne/Graz: Böhlau, 1964), pp.  222–61; “Bericht”; “Mosaburg-Zalavár im 9. Jahrhundert,” Arheološki vestnik 21–22 (1970), 81–94; “Neue Angaben zur Frage der Kontinuität der mittelalterlichen Festungssysteme in Mosaburg-Zalavár,” Archeologia Polski 16 (1971), 347–62; “Megyegyzések”; “Neue Daten”; “Előzetes jelentés”; Zalavár-­ Kövecses; “Zalavár-Mosaburg.” 31. Churches: Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Über die Fragen des frühmittelalterlichen Kirchenbaues in Mosapurc-Zalavár,” in Das östliche Mitteleuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Acta Congressus historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis in memoriam SS. Cyrilli et Methodii anno 1963 celebrati, edited by Franz Zagiba (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1966), pp. 69–86; “Bemerkungen zur Problematik des Kirchenbaus des 9. Jahrhunderts in Transdanubien (Pannonien),” in Liber Iosepho Kostrzewski octogenario a veneratoribus dicatus, edited by Konrad Jażdżewski (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1968), pp. 377–89; “Neuere archäologische Angaben.” Workshops: Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Knochenbearbeitungswerkstatt in Mosaburg-Zalavár,” Č asopis Moravského musea 57 (1972), 189–93. Ceramic studies: Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Frühmittelalterliche Keramik in römischer Tradition,” Rei cretariae romanae fautorum acta 10 (1968), 35–51. 32. Sós, “Le deuxième cimetière”; “Das frühawarenzeitliche Gräberfeld”; A keceli avarkori temetők; “Újabb avar kori leletek”; “A dunaszekcsői avarkori temető.” See also Sós, “Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld”; Ágnes Cs. Sós and Agnés Salamon, Cemeteries of the Early Middle Ages (6th–9th Centuries A.D.) at Pókaszepetk (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1995). For cremation graves and cemeteries, see Sós, “Vorläufige Mitteilungen”; “Das slawische Urnengräberfeld”; “Jelentés a pókaszepetki ásatásokról,” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 100 (1973), 66–77; “Frühmittelalterliche Brandbestattung mit Feinwaage in Pókaszepetk,” Slovenská Archeológia 26 (1978), no. 2, 423–30. The results of some of those rescue excavations that pertained to the High Middle Ages were published decades later: Ágnes Cs. Sós and Nándor Parádi, “A csátalji Arpád-kori temető és település,” Folia Archaeologica 22 (1971), 105–41. 33. Zoll-Adamikowa, “Wczesnośredniowieczne kopce-mogiły”; Helena ZollAdamikowa, Helena and Józef Niznik, “Z badań kopców-mogił w Jawczycach i Wiatowicach (Podkarpacie Polski) w latach 1960–1961,” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 5 (1963), 25–39; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Z badań wczesnośredniowiecznych kurhanów ciałopalnych w Beskidzie Średnim,” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 6 (1964), 47–52; “Czworoka ̨tne konstrukcje”; “Ciałopalne kurhany.” For flat cemeteries, see Zoll-­ Adamikowa, “Wczesnośredniowieczne cmentarzysko szkieletowe”;

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

125

“Nazemnye pogrebeniia s truposozhzheniem u slavian v svete pis’mennykh i arkheologicheskikh istochnikov,” Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia (1998), no. 1, 84–90. 34. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzyska szkieletowe ́ Małopolski. Zródła (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1966); Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzyska szkieletowe Małopolski. Analiza; Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzyska ciałopalne Słowian na teré nie Polski. Zródła (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/Gdańsk Ossolineum, 1975); Wczesnos ́redniowieczne cmentarzyska ciałopalne Słowian na terenie Polski. Analiza. Wnioski (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 1979). 35. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Badania nad rytuałem ciałopalnym z pierwszych faz wczesnego średniowiecza w Małopolsce,” Archeologia Polski 13 (1968), 407–28; “Próba periodyzacji wczesnośredniowiecznych praktyk pogrzebowych w Polsce,” Archeologia Polski 16 (1971), nos. 1–2, 557–74; “Zu der Brandbestattungsbräuchen der Slawen im 6. bis 10. Jahrhundert in Polen,” Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift 13 (1972), 497–542; “Die Grabsitten zwischen Elbe und Weichsel im 6. bis 10. Jh. als Quelle zur Religion der Westslawen,” Slavica Gandensia 7–8 (1980), 113–21; “Einheimische und fremde Elemente im Grabkult der Ostseeslawen,” Offa 37 (1980), 81–93; “Die Überreste der Kremationseinrichtungen auf den frühmittelalterlichen slawischen Gräberfeldern,” in Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, edited by Hans Kaufmann and Klaus Simon, vol. 2 (Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1982), pp. 87–96; “Die oberirdischen Brandbestattungen bei den Slawen im Lichte der schriftlichen und archäologischen Quellen,” Archaeologia Polona 21–22 (1983), 223–32; “W kwestii genezy”; “Do pytannia pro genezys slov’ians’kogo pokhoval‘nogo obriadu na pochatku rann’ogo seredn’ovychchia (VI-VII st.),” in Etnokul’turni protsesy v Pivdenno-Skhidnoy Evropi v I tysiacholitti n.e. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’, edited by Rostislav V.  Terpylovs’kyi, N.  S. Abashina, L.  E. Skyba and V.  I. Ivanovs’kyi (Kiev/Lviv: Instytut arkheologii NAN Ukrainy, 1999), pp. 319–27. See also Anna Tyniec and Helena Zoll-­ Adamikowa, “Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnośre dniowiecznymi cmentarzyskami Małopolski,” in Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnym sredniowieczem ́ w Polsce. Materiały z konferencji Poznań 14–16 grudnia 1987 roku, edited by Zofia Kurnatowska (Poznań: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Volumen”, 1990), pp.  213–23; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Stan badań nad obrzędowościa ̨ pogrzebowa Słowian,” Slavia Antiqua 38 (1997), 65–80. Of particular interest in this respect are Zoll-Adamikowa’s works on funerary constructions in barrows with cremations, which to this day remain the best studies on this subject matter: Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Typy konstrukcji drewnianych w słowiańskich kurhanach ciałopalnych,”

126 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 17 (1977), 72–119; “Dereviannye konstrukcii v kurganakh s truposozhzheniem u vostochnykh i zapadnykh slavian,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1982), no. 4, 82–90. 36. Zoll-Adamikowa, “Przyczyny”; “Zum Beginn”; “Postępy.” See also Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Pochówki benedyktynów tynieckich jako impuls do dyskusji nad średniowiecznym rytuałem pogrzebowym w ośrodkach monastycznych,” in Klasztor w kulturze s ́redniowiecznej Polski. Materiały z ogólnopolskiej konferencji naukowej zorg. w Dabrowie Niemodlińskiej w dniach 4–6 XI 1993 przez Instytut Historii WSP w Opolu i Instytut Historyczny Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, edited by Anna PobogLenartowicz and Marek Derwich (Opole: Wydawnictwo Św. Krzyża, 1995), pp. 445–47; “Elementy ordo defunctorum średniowiecznych bené dyktynów tynieckich (na podstawie wykopalisk),” in Smierc w dawnej Europie. Zbiór studiów, edited by Marek Derwich (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1997), pp. 73–86. 37. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Die Jenseitsvorstellungen bei den heidnischen Slawen: defuncti vivi oder immaterialle Seelen?” Przegla ̨d Archeologiczny 43 (1995), 123–26; “Formy”; “Zur Frage der großmährischen bzw. böhmischen Christianisierung Südpolens im Lichte der Grabfunde,“ in Ethnische und kulturelle Verhältnisse an der mittleren Donau vom 6. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. Symposium Nitra 6. bis 10. November 1994, edited by Darina Bialeková and Jozef Zábojník (Bratislava: VEDA, 1996), pp.  305–12; “Bestattungssitten als wesentliches Zeugnis der Christianisierung bei den Slawen,” in Early Christianity in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Przemysław Urbańczyk (Warsaw: Semper, 1997), pp. 39–42. 38. Zoll-Adamikowa, “Wyniki” and “Chata.” 39. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Wczesnośredniowieczne połziemianki z tzw. korytarzykami z grodziska w Stradowie,” in Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa arkheologov-slavistov. Kiev 18–25 sentiabria 1985 g., edited by Petro P.  Tolochko, Ia. E.  Borovs’kyi, A.  A. Kozlovskii and Oleksandr P. Motsia, vol. 2 (Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1988), pp. 189–94; Urszula Maj and Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “W kwestii chronologii wczesnośredniowiecznego grodzisko w Stradowie,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 44 (1992), 273–96; Zoll-Adamikowa, “Archäologische Quellen”; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Wczesnośredniowieczne półziemianki z tzw. korytarzykami z grodziska w Stradowie,” Archeologia Polski 42 (1997), 161–73; “Problem datowania grodziska w Stradowie w świetle najnowszych badań,” in Osadnictwo i architektura ziem polskich w dobie zjazdu gniezń ieńskiego, edited by Andrzej Buko and Zygmunt Świechowski (Warsaw: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2000), pp. 245–47.

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

127

40. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Eiserner Bestandteil einer Riemengarnitur aus dem Burgwall in Stradów,” Slovenská Archeológia 36 (1988), no. 2, 277–81; “W sprawie chronologii”; “Zur Chronologie”; “Awarska ozdoba”; “Wczesnokarolińskie okucie z ornamentem zoomorficznym znalezione w Krakowie na Wawelu,” Acta Archaeologica Waweliana 2 (1998), 93–103; “Dwużebny haczyk z tulejka ze Stradowa  - narzedzie rybackie czy kuchenne?” in Kraje słowiańskie w wiekach s ́rednich. Profanum i sacrum, edited by Hanna Kóčka-Krenz and Władysław Łosiński (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1998), pp. 312–21. Unlike Comşa, however, Zoll-Adamikowa dealt with hoards of jewelry, not agricultural tools (Zoll-Adamikowa, Dekówna, and Nosek, The Early Mediaeval Hoard). 41. Environment-as-landscape: Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Usytuowanie cmentarzy Słowian w środowisku (doba pogańska i pierwsze wieki po przyjęciu chrześcijaństwa),” in Człowiek, sacrum, srodowisko. ́ Miejsca kultu we wczesnym sredniowieczu, ́ edited by Sławomir Moździoch (Wrocław: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2000), pp. 207–19. For articles published in both Polish and German, see ZollAdamikowa, “Przyczyny” and “Die Einführung der Körperbestattung bei den Slawen an der Ostsee,” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 24 (1994), 81–93; “Pochówki dostojników kościelnych i świeckich w Polsce wczesnopiastowskie (na podstawie źródeł archeologicznych),” Roczniki historyczne 55–56 (1989–1990), 33–70, and “Frühmittelalterliche Bestattungen der Würdenträger in Polen (Mitte des 10. bis Mitte des 12. Jh.),” Przegla ̨d Archeologiczny 38 (1991), 109–34; “Wczesnokarolińskie okucie” and “Eine Knopfriemenzunge kleinen Formats vom Wawel in Kraków. Das östlichste Vorkommen frühkarolingischer Tierornamentik,” in Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Prof. Michael Müller-Wille, edited by Anke Wesse (Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1998), pp. 515–20. 42. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Survey of the 1967 investigations of early medieval sites,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 20 (1969), 405–10; “Results of the 1968 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 21 (1969), 385–90; “Results of 1970 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 23 (1971), 207–13; “Major results of 1971 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 24 (1972), 321–26; “Major results of the 1972 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 25 (1973), 273–77; “Major results of the 1975 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 28 (1976), 277–81; “Major results of 1978 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 31 (1979), 281–84; “Major results

128 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

of the 1979 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 32 (1980), 349–52; “Major results of 1980 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 33 (1981), 293–96; “Major results of the 1981 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 34 (1982), 315–17; “Major results of 1982 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 35 (1983), 305–08; “Major results of 1983 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 36 (1984), 329–32; “Major results of 1984 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 37 (1985), 337–40; “Major results of 1985 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 38 (1986), 387–90; “Major results of 1986 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 39 (1987), 395–98; “Major results of 1987 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 40 (1988), 405–07. 43. Irina P.  Rusanova, “Territoriia drevlian po arkheologicheskim dannym.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1960), no. 1, 63–69; Văzharova, “Slaviani i prabălgari”; Zhivka Văzharova, “Bălgarskiiat narodnosten oblik prez srednovekovieto v svetlinata na arkheologicheskite danni (VI-XI v.),” in Părvi kongres na Ba ̆lgarskoto istorichesko druzhestvo. 27–30 ianuari 1970 godina, edited by Dimităr Kosev, vol. 1 (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1972), pp. 393–410; Zhivka Văzharova, “Slaviani i nomadi na teritoriiata na dneshnite bălgarski zemi ot kraia na VI-XI v.,” Pliska-Preslav 3 (1981), 16–65; Maria Comşa, “Slavii pe teritoriul RPR în sec. VI-X în lumina cercetărilor arheologice,” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 10 (1959), no. 1, 65–80; Maria Comşa, “Eindringungen der Slawen in das Gebiet der RVR im 6.-9. Jahrhundert u. Z.,” in Bericht über den V. internationalen Kongreß für Vor- und Frügeschichte, Hamburg vom 24. bis 30. August, 1958 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961), pp. 197–200; Comşa, “La civilisation”; Maria Comşa, “Slaves et autochtones sur le territoire de la RP Roumaine aux VI-e et VII-e siècles d. n. è.,” in Atti del VI Congresso internazionale delle scienze preistoriche e protoistoriche, edited by Massimo Pallotino and Luigi Cardini, vol. 2 (Florence: Sansoni, 1965), pp. 162–66; Maria Comşa, “Contribution la question de la pénétration des Slaves au sud du Danube durant les VIe-VIIe siècles d’après quelques données archéologiques de Dobroudja,” in I.  Międżynarodowy kongres archeologii słowiańskej. Warszawa 14–18 IX 1965, edited by Witold Hensel, vol. 3 (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1970), pp.  322–30; Maria Comşa, “Die Slawen im karpatischen-­ donauländischen Raum im 6.-7. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für Archäologie 7 (1973), 197–223; Maria Comşa, “Unité et diversité de la civilisation slave des VI-e-VII-e siècles,” in VII.  Międżynarodowy kongres sławistów,

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

129

Warszawa, 21–27 VIII 1973. Streszczenia referatówi komunikatów, edited by Witold Doroszewski (Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1973), pp. 972–73; Comşa, Cultura materială; Maria Comşa, “Romans, Germains et Slaves dans le territoire de la Roumanie aux VI-VII-e siècles,” Zbornik narodnog muzeja 9–10 (1979), 103–20; Maria Comşa, “Slawen und Awaren auf rumänischem Boden, ihre Beziehungen zu der bodenständigen und späteren frührumänischen Bevölkerung,” in Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert, edited by Bernhard Hänsel (Berlin: Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, 1987), pp. 219–30; Maria Comşa, “Romanen, Rumänen und Walachen  - Stompfeiler der Antike in der neuen Welt,” Zeitschrift für Archäologie 21 (1987), 179–92; Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Archäologische Beiträge zur Frage der Gestaltung der Zentrale des Pribina-­Besitzes,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17 (1965), 87–93; Sós, “Archäologische Angaben” and Die slawische Bevölkerung; Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, “Die Verwendbarkeit der Grabfunde aus dem 6.-10. Jh. für die Aussonderung des Stammesgruppen bei den Westslawen,” in Rapports du III-e Congrès international d’archéologie slave. Bratislava 7–14 septembre 1975, edited by Bohuslav Chropovský, vol. 1 (Bratislava: VEDA, 1979), pp.  941–52; “Slawischawarische Grenzzone”; “Wczesnośredniowieczny obrza ̨dek pogrzebowy a zróżnicowanie etniczne na pograniczu polsko-ruskim,” in Pocza ̨tki sa ̨siedztwa. Pogranicze etniczne polsko-rusko-słowackie w s ́redniowieczu. Materiały z konferencji, Rzeszów 9–11 V 1995, edited by Michał Parczewski and Sylwester Czopek (Rzeszów: Muzeum Okregowe w Rzeszowie, 1996), pp.  81–90; “Gräberfelder des 8./9.-10./11. Jhs. mit skandinavischen Komponenten im slawischen Ostseeraum,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 49 (1997), 9–19. 44. By 1976, the year in which Rusanova’s book on early Slavic ceramics was published, Valentin Sedov’s scholarly output was almost exclusively based on his excavations of cremation cemeteries with barrows in northwestern Russia. With the exception of a short paper on a kiln (“Goncharnaia pech iz raskopok v g. Vladimire,” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 72 [1958], 78–83), there is no study of pottery among his publications between 1953 and 1976. 45. Nestor’s excavations of key sites, such as the cremation cemetery in Sărata Monteoru or the settlement and cemetery sites in Bratei were never published, or were published by his former students, long after his death. See Ligia Bârzu, Ein gepidisches Denkmal aus Siebenbürgen. Das Gräberfeld 3 von Bratei (Cluj-Napoca: Accent, 2010). 46. The results of Milchev’s excavations at Nova Cherna near Silistra are known only from a few excavation reports published together with Stefka

130 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Angelova: Milchev and Angelova, “Razkopki”; “Arkheologicheski razkopki i prouchvaniia v mestnostta ‘Kaleto’ pri s. Nova Cherna, Silistrenski okrăg, prez 1967–1969 g.,” Godishnik na Sofiiskiia Universitet. Istorikofilologicheski fakultet 63 (1970), no. 3, 1–214; “Razkopki i prouchvaniia v m. Kaleto krai s. Nova Cherna,” Arkheologiia 12 (1970), no. 1, 26–38. 47. The only comparable feat is Gyula Török, Die Bewohner von Halimba-­ Cseres nach der Landnahme (Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1959). However, at that time Leipzig was in East, not West Germany. 48. Gheorghe Ştefan, Ion Barnea, Eugen Comşa, Maria Chişvasi-Comşa and Bucur Mitrea, “Săpăturile arheologice de la Garvăn,” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 5 (1959), 565–86; Ştefan, Barnea, Comşa and Comşa, Dinogetia. 49. Liubomyr P.  Mykhaylyna, Irina P.  Rusanova and Boris O.  Timoshchuk, “‘Dlinnyi’ dom X v. na gorodishche Revno I,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1981 goda, edited by Boris A.  Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), pp.  289–90; Boris O.  Timoshchuk, Irina P.  Rusanova and Liubomyr P.  Mykhaylyna, “Itogi izucheniia slavianskikh pamiatnikov Severnoi Bukoviny V-X vv.,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1981), no. 2, 80–93; Liubomyr P.  Mykhaylyna, Irina P.  Rusanova and Boris O.  Timoshchuk, “Selishcha i gorodishcha Revnoe I,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1978 g., edited by Boris A.  Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1979), pp.  370–71; Liubomyr P.  Mykhaylyna, Irina P.  Rusanova and Boris O.  Timoshchuk, “Raskopki slavianskogo goroda na r. Prut,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1977 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), p. 358; Irina P.  Rusanova, Boris O.  Timoshchuk, Liubomyr P.  Mykhaylyna and A.  M. Malevanyi, “Poselenie Kodyn-II v basseine r. Prut,” in Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1976 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), pp. 364–65. 50. For example, Barbu Ionescu (1904–1980), the director of the archaeological museum in Oltenita̧ (Comşa and Ionescu, “O fibulă ‘digitată’”); Adrian Rădulescu (1932–2000), the director of the Museum of National History and Archaeology in Constant ̧a, and Nicolae Hartu̧ che (1928–2003), the director of the local museum in Brăila (Comşa, Rădulescu and Hartu̧ che, “Necropola de incinerat ̧ie”); and Constantin Deculescu (1889–1988), an amateur archaeologist from Călăraşi (Comşa and Deculescu, “Un deposit”). She also wrote articles together with other women—simple teachers of history at the village schools (Elena Gheannopoulos: Comşa and Gheannopoulos, “Unelte”) or archaeologists (Doina Ignat: Comşa and Ignat, “Gräber”). 51. Văzharova and Zlatarski, “Srednovekovno selishte”; Zhivka Văzharova and Plamen Ivanov, “Prouchvaniia v Kozlodui i mestnostite ‘Kilera’, ‘Vrachanska funiia’ i ‘Kalifera’,” Arkheologicheski otkritiia i razkopki

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

131

(1987), 155. For Zoll-Adamikowa, see Tyniec and Zoll-Adamikowa, “Stan i potrzeby badań”; Maj and Zoll-Adamikowa, “W kwestii chronologii”; Zoll-­Adamikowa, Dekówna and Nosek, The Early Mediaeval Hoard). For Sós, see Ágnes Salamon and Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Pannonia—fifth to ninth centuries,” in The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, edited by Alfonz Lengyel and George T. Radan (Lexington/Budapest: University Press of Kentucky/ Akadémiai kiadó, 1980), pp. 397–425. 52. Zoll-Adamikowa, “Wczesnośredniowieczne cmentarzysko szkieletowe,” pp. 260–62. 53. Zoll-Adamikowa, “Zu der Brandbestattungsbräuchen,” pp. 513 and 514. 54. Boniface, ep. 73, edited by Michael Tangl, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistulae selectae, 1 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1916), p. 150. A very similar remark appears in a much earlier source, the late sixth- or early seventh-­century military treatise known as the Strategikon. See Strategikon XI 4, edited by George T.  Dennis (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981), p. 372. For suttee burials among the medieval Slavs, see Helmut Preidel, “Die Witwenverbrennung bei den slawischen Völkern,” Stifter-Jahrbuch 7 (1962), 275–92; Heinz Grünert, “Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Bestattungssitten in der Sicht antiker und mittelalterlicher Autoren,” in Bestattungswesen und Totenkult in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit, edited by Fritz Horst and Horst Keiling (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991), pp. 294–97. 55. Sós, “Vorläufige Mitteilungen,” p. 76, citing Géza Fehér, “Les fouilles de Zalavár (1951–1953). Rapport préliminaire,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4 (1954), 201–65, here 224–25. 56. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Zur Problematik der Awarenzeit in der neueren ungarischen archäologischen Forschung,” in Berichte über den II. internationalen Kongreß für slawische Archäologie. Berlin, 24.-28. August 1970, edited by Joachim Herrmann and Karl-Heinz Otto, vol. 2 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1973), p. 93. 57. Sós, “Archäologische Angaben,” p. 228. 58. Sós, “Das frühawarenzeitliche Gräberfeld,” pp. 119–20. 59. Sós, “Le deuxième cimetière,” pp. 208–09. Sós believed that poultry was associated with a fertility cult, even though chicken bones appeared in male graves as well. 60. Sós and Salamon, Cemeteries, p. 23. Similarly, she noted that weighing balances appear only exceptionally in female burials of the early Middle Ages, but offered no explanation for that. See Sós, “Frühmittelalterliche Brandbestattung,” pp. 427–28. 61. Rusanova and Timoshchuk, Kodyn, p. 43.

132 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

62. Rusanova and Timoshchuk, Kodyn, p. 44. In support of her interpretation, the authors cited Engels for the role that the patriarchal family played in the early history of Russia. 63. Rusanova and Timoshchuk, Kodyn, p. 45. 64. Włodżimierz Hołubowicz, “Garncarskie techniki lepienia na terenie ziem północno-wschodnich Polski w świetle ostatnich wykopalisk,” Ateneum Wileńskie 13 (1938), no. 1, 197–210; Włodzimierz Hołubowicz, Garncarstwo wiejskie zachodnich terenów Bialorusi (Toruń: Nakład Towarzystwo Naukowego, 1950); Włodzimierz Hołubowicz, Garncarstwo wczesnosredniowieczne ́ Słowian (Wrocław: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1965). Although she published in Polish journals, and was very familiar with the Polish literature, in her work Rusanova makes no mention of Hołubowicz’s studies of pottery production. The only mention of his name in Slavianskie drevnosti VI-VII vv. is in relation to the excavation carried at Niemcza (Slavianskie drevnosti VI-VII vv., p. 185 with n. 109). To be sure, Hołubowicz is also absent from the bibliographical list of the most comprehensive archaeological study of pottery technology published in the Soviet Union, Aleksandr A. Bobrinskii, Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy. Istochniki i metody izucheniia (Moscow: Nauka, 1978). For Hołubowicz as a pioneer of Marxist archaeology in Poland, see Barford, “Marksizm,” p. 52; Ga ̨ssowski, “Archaeology and Marxism,” p. 102. For his revolutionary role in the study of the early medieval ceramics, see Andrzej Buko, “Ceramology and medieval pottery research in Poland,” Archaeologia Polona 30 (1992), 8–11. 65. Boris O.  Timoshchuk, “Obshchinnyi stroi vostochnykh slavian VI-X vv. (po arkheologicheskim dannym Severnoi Bukoviny),” Ph. D. Dissertation, Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Moscow, 1983). An augmented and improved version of Timoshchuk’s dissertation was published right before the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Vostochnoslavianskaia obshchina VI-X vv. n. e. (Moscow: Nauka, 1990). Timoshchuk’s declared adherence to a Marxist interpretation of the archaeological record results from his article, “Nachalo klassovykh otnoshenii u vostochnykh slavian (po materialam poselenii Ukrainskogo Prikarpat’ia),” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1990), no. 2, 62–76. He continued to apply the Marxist model of interpretation even after 1991, just as he had done before that. See Boris O.  Timoshchuk, “Social’naia tipologiia selishch VI-X vv.,” in Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia srednevekovykh pamiatnikov v Dnestrovsko-­ Prutskom mezhdurech’e, edited by P.  P. Byrnia, E.  N. Abyzova, V.  I. Grosu, Nikolai P.  Tel’nov and T.  A. Shcherbakova (Kishinew: Shtiinca, 1985), pp.  3–24; Boris O.  Timoshchuk, Vostochnye slaviane. Ot obshchiny k gorodam (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1995).

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

133

66. Văzharova, Srednovekovnoto selishte, p. 78. Văzharova believed that at the moment of their migration to the Balkans, the Slavs had been organized in zadrugas (Văzharova, Slavianski i slavianobălgarski selishta, p.  185). She cited Marx’s letter of 1881 to Vera Zasulich in support of her use of the concept of “patriarchal family.” In that letter, Marx equated the rural commune in Russia with the Asian form of community and called both “agricultural communities.” See the letter’s “first draft” at https://www. marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/draft-­1.htm (visit of January 7, 2020). For zadruga as a much later phenomenon of the early modern period, see Mariusz Baumann, “From problems of the origin and collapse of Yugoslavian zadruga,” Ethnologia Polona 8 (1982), 131–41; Maria Todorova, Balkan Family Structure and the European Pattern: Demographic Developments in Ottoman Bulgaria (Washington/Lanham: American University Press, 1993), pp. 133–58. 67. Văzharova, “Die bulgarischen Untersuchungen,” p. 314. 68. Văzharova, O proiskhozhdenii, p. 5. She also cited Engels in support of the idea that the ultimate result of Roman imperialism was the ruin of agriculture, which would explain why no agricultural tools had been found in Bulgaria, the origins of which could be traced back to Roman times (Văzharova, O proiskhozhdenii, p. 32). 69. Aleksandr V. Chaianov, Organizaciia sievernago krest’ianskago khoziaistva (Iaroslavl’: Iaroslavskii kreditnyi soiuz kooperativov, 1918). Chayanov is, of course, neither cited nor mentioned in the text, as the Soviet agrarian economist, who had been executed at Stalin’s orders in 1937, was rehabilitated only half-a-century later. In 1956, when Văzharova’s book was published in the Soviet Union, Chayanov’s wife had just been released from the labor camp, in which she spent 18 years of her life. 70. Zhivka Văzharova, “Zhelezarska rabotilnica v m. Selishte, Preslav,” Slavia Antiqua 7 (1960), 395–405. 71. Văzharova, “Vneseni predmeti,” pp. 34–36. 72. Văzharova, Slaviane i prabal̆ gari, p. 411; Zhivka Văzharova, “Zur Frage der Etnogenese und der materiellen Kultur des bulgarischen Volkes (Zwei Nekropolen aus Nordostbulgarien),” in Culture et art en Bulgarie médiévale (VIII-e-XIV-e s.), edited by Dimităr Angelov, Iordanka Changova, G.  Il. Georgiev, Teofil Ivanov and Zhivka Văzharova (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1979), p.  29. At Kiulevcha, female graves were different from male graves because of gender-specific artifacts—small knives, objects of cultic significance, glass beads, finger- and earrings (Văzharova, “Zur Frage,” p. 21). 73. Zhivka Văzharova, “Bogatoe pogrebenie zhenshchiny v mogil’nike vozle bol’shoi baziliki v Pliske,” in Sborník referátů ze sympozia “Slované 6.-10. století”, Břeclav-Pohansko, 1978, edited by Bor ̌ivoj Dostál and Jana

134 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Vignatiová (Brno: Univerzita J.  E. Purkyně, Fakulta filozofická, 1980), pp. 299–312. Just like Sós, Văzharova was interested in ethnicity, not gender. According to her, the anthropological analysis showed that the skeleton in grave 27 in Pliska belonged to a 18–23-year-old woman, who was dressed up like most Slavic women who lived in the ninth and tenth centuries in different parts of the Slavic world. The woman must therefore be a Slav (i.e., a Bulgarian of Slavic origin). See Văzharova, “Zlatni nakiti,” p. 55. 74. Comşa, “Contribuţii,” pp.  82–83. Comşa repeatedly cited Slaviano-­ ba ̆lgarskoto selishte, the book coedited by Văzharova, to correct her dating of the pottery found in Popina. She cited no other work of Zhivka Văzharova. See Comşa, “Slavii pe teritoriul,” p.  68; “Discuţii,” p.163; “L’influence romaine,” p.  456; “Die Slawen,” p.  220; “Einige Betrachtungen,” p.  81. Zhivka Văzharova also cited Chişvasi-Comşa, “Nekotorye istoricheskie vyvody” and Maria Comşa, “Novye svedeniia o rasselenii slavian na territorii RNR,” Romanoslavica 9 (1963), 505–29. In both cases, she regarded Comşa as a scholarly authority. See Văzharova, “Slavianite na iug,” p. 25; “Rannoslaviansko i slavianobălgarsko selishte,” p. 31 with n. 6. 75. Comşa, “Slavii,” p. 750. 76. Comşa, Cultura materiala,̆ pp. 145 and 147 fig. 108. 77. Comşa, Cultura materiala,̆ p. 146. 78. Comşa, “Săpăturile de la Nuşfalău,” p.  527; “Unele considerati̧ i privind organizarea socială,” p. here 70. 79. This is remarkable, given that Comşa has excavated not only cremation, but also inhumation cemeteries. The latter certainly offered the opportunity for discussion on the basis of gender-specific artifacts. See, for example, Comşa and Ignat, “Gräber.” Similarly, Comşa published a clay lump with criss-cross incisions from Garvăn (ancient Dinogetia) and interpreted it as a toy representing a loaf of well-grown bread. In her interpretation, she focused on the symbolism of the bread, but did not elaborate her own idea that the artifact in question was a toy, therefore related to a child’s life. See Maria Chişvasi-Comşa, “O jucărie în formă de pîine descoperită la Garvăn,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 9 (1958), no. 2, 425–27. 80. Comşa, “Cu privire la semnificati̧ a” and “O znachenii.” Comşa’s argument was not entirely original, as a connection between feudal relations of production and potter’s marks has already been made by Karel Č ernohorský, “Keramika a feudalismus,” Č eský lid 40 (1953), 21–31. However, she was the first to draw attention to the organization of production, whereas earlier interpretations approached potter’s marks as ethnic badges or from a purely chronological point of view. See Józef Kostrzewski, “Znaki na dnach naczyń wczesnohistorycznych z Wielkopolski,” in Niederlu ̊v sborník, edited by Josef Schraníl (Prague: Společnosti československých

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

135

praehistoriků, 1925), pp.  117–30; Witold Hensel, “Metoda datowania ceramiki wczesnodziejowej na podstawie znaków garncarskich na dnach naczyń,” Sprawozdania z czynnoscí i posiedzeń Akademii Umiejętnoscí w Krakowie 51 (1950), no. 2, 71–74; Marija Birtašević, “Pechati na slovenskoj keramici u nekim muzejma Srbije i Vojvodine,” Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja 5 (1956), 159–62; Bořivoj Dostál, “Znački na slovanské keramice ve Znojmě-Hradišti,” Podyjí (1958), 144–48; Janusz Kramarek, “Znaki garncarskie na ceramice wrocławskiej z XII i pocza ̨tku XIII w.,” Silesia antiqua 1 (1959), 219–37. 81. Maria Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul organizării social-economice şi politice de pe teritoriul ta̧ ̆rii noastre în epoca migrati̧ ilor,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 18 (1967), no. 3, 431 with n. 1. This passage, which is ­particularly critical of Engels, was dropped in the French version of the article: Maria Comşa, “Sur le caractère de l’organisation socialeéconomique et politique sur le territoire de la Roumanie durant la période de passage la féodalité,” in Nouvelles études d’histoire, vol. 4 (Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1970), pp. 31–46. 82. Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul,” p. 432; Maria Comşa, “Structuri socioeconomice din secolele VI-X pe teritoriul României,” Carpica 26 (1997), no. 1, 195. Comşa, “Sur le caractère,” p. 31 with n. 1 deplores the lack of a systematic research on the village communities of the period of transition to feudalism. 83. Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul,” p. 434 with n. 11. Comşa cites Engels’s Anti-Dühring to make the point about migratory populations being commonly on an inferior level of development, which explains their quick absorption into the local village communities (Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul,” p. 436 with n. 18). Comşa believed that various alien populations were assimilated by the indigeneous population because the local village communities were based on nuclear families, while all migratory groups entering the territory of Romania at different moments in history were organized in large, patriarchal families (Comşa, “Unele considerat ̧ii,” p. 70). 84. Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul,” p. 437 with n. 21; Comşa, “Sur le caractère,” p. 40. 85. Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul,” p. 439; Comşa, “Sur le caractère,” p. 42 with n. 39 mentions the conflict between Avars and Slavs in late sixth-­ century Walachia as an example of social dissent, for the latter refused to pay tribute to the former. Similarly, according to Comşa, the Wendish Slavs revolted against the Avars and formed an independent polity in the seventh century under their king, Samo. The historical episodes to which Comşa hints are known from Menander the Guardsman (fragment 21) and the Chronicle of Fredegar IV 48, 68 and 87. See also Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700

136 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

(Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp.  47–48 and 109. Leaving aside the interpretation of the tribute payment in terms of social inequality, Comşa’s understanding of those events is remarkably similar to Sós’s description of the relations between Avars and Slavs. For both scholars, the Avars were conquerors, the lords, and the Slavs the subjugated population. According to Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul,” p. 441, there is a clear distinction between exploitation during the transition period and exploitation under feudalism. In the former case, unlike the latter, exploitation is done by a minority of people of different ethnic origin. 86. Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul,” p. 441. Only one year later, those ideas were “borrowed” by Miron Constantinescu and Constantin Daicoviciu in a “synthesis” of Romanian history, which has however remained in manuscript. See Henri H.  Stahl, Probleme confuze în istoria socială a ­ României (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1992), pp. 160–61. 87. Comşa, “Un knézat roumain,” p. 316; Maria Comşa, “Contribuţii arheologice privind existenţa unor cnezate şi stabilirea unui drum comercial între Carpaţi şi Dunăre în sec. IX-X,” Muzeul Nati̧ onal 6 (1982), 143 and 147. 88. Maria Comşa, “Les formations politiques (cnézats de la vallée) du VIe siècle sur le territoire de la Roumanie,” Prace i materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łódżi 25 (1978), 109–17. 89. Comşa, “Structuri socio-economice,” p. 199. 90. Comşa, “Socio-economic organization,” p. 196 with n. 84. Comşa cites Stahl’s Contribuţii la studiul satelor devălmaşe romîneşti, 3 vols. (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Populare Romîne, 1958–1965), an English summary of which was later published as Henri H. Stahl, Traditional Romanian Village Communities. The Transition from the Communal to the Capitalist Mode of Production in the Danube Region. (Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press/Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1980). For Comşa’s ideas regarding the village community, all inspired by Stahl, see Maria Comşa, “Einige Betrachtungen über den Kontakt zwischen den slawischen und den bodenständigen romanischen Gemeinschaften im Donau-Karpaten-­Raum (6. und 7. Jahrhundert),” in Studia nad etnogeneza ̨ Słowian i kultura ̨ Europy wczesnosredniowiecznej. ́ Praca zbiorowa, edited by Gerard Labuda and Stanisław Tabaczyński, vol. 1 (Wrocław/Warsaw/ Cracow/Gdańsk/Łódż: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1987), pp. 65–66 with 65 n. 8 and 70 with n. 37; Maria Comşa, “Considérations relatives à la communauté villageoise en territoire roumain aux VI-VII-e siècles,” in Actes du XII-e Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Bratislava, 1–7 septembre 1991, edited by Juraj Pavuj, vol. 4 (Bratislava: Institut archéologique de l’Académie Slovaque des Sciences Nitra, 1993), pp. 15–17.

  CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH TOPICS, GENDER AND MARXISM 

137

91. For Stahl’s historical sociology as essentially Marxist, see Ştefan Guga, Sociologia istorică a lui Henri H. Stahl (Cluj-Napoca: Tact, 2015), p. 350. 92. Stahl’s original use of Marxist theory explains why the French summary of his Contribut ̧ii—Les anciennes communautés villageoises roumaines: asservissement et pénétration capitaliste (Bucharest: Editions de l’Académie de la République Socialiste de Roumanies, 1969)—served as a reference point for Perry Anderson’s Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: N.  L. B., 1974), one of the most important twentieth-century developments of Marx’s concept of an “Asiatic mode of production.” The first to use the “Asiatic mode of production” in Romanian archaeology was Ion Horati̧ u Crişan, Statul geto-dac (Bucharest: Editura Ştiinti̧ fică şi Enciclopedică, 1977). 93. Among the first attempts to redraw the map of social and economic historical developments, while still preserving its essentially Marxist tenets, was Miron Constantinescu, “Despre format ̧iunea social-economică tributală,” Probleme economice 26 (1973), no. 4, 51–68, an article duly cited by Comşa, “Socio-economic organization,” p.  198 with n. 93. For Miron Constantinescu and the tributary mode of production, see Stahl, Probleme, pp. 159–60. For earlier discussions of the “Asiatic mode of production” in Romania, see Iosif Natansohn and Natalia Simion, “Despre existent ̧a aşa-­ numitului ‘mod de producti̧ e asiatic’,” Revista de filozofie 13 (1966), no. 2, 228–38. 94. Comşa, “Socio-economic organization,” p. 440. This statement must be seen as an oblique criticism of Stahl’s theories. In his Teorii şi ipoteze privind sociologia orânduirii tributale (Bucharest: Editura Ştiint ̧ifică şi Enciclopedică, 1980), Stahl advanced the idea that the historical development on the territory of Romania had no slave-based (after the Roman conquest of Dacia) and no feudal phase (after the abandonment of the province of Dacia). According to him, between the third and the sixteenth century, the dominant mode of production was tributary (“Asiatic”), that is, combining production on the basis of autonomous village communities with exploitation by means of tribute. 95. Those ideas are directly inspired from Stahl, Contribuţii, vol. 3, pp. 19–20 and 150. Stahl’s ideas came very close to what Perry Anderson, Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism (London: NLB, 1974), pp. 219–20 with n. 3, and 223–26 called the “nomadic mode of production.” Stahl cited Anderson in his Probleme confuze, p. 53. 96. Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul,” p. 440; Comşa, “Sur le caractère,” p. 43. 97. Nicolae Constantinescu, Coconi. Un sat din Cîmpia Română în epoca lui Mircea cel Ba ̆trân (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Române, 1972), pp. 13 with notes 14 and 15; Géza Bakó, “Despre organizarea obştilor săteşti ale epocii feudale timpurii în sud-estul României,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 26 (1975), no. 3, 371–80;

138 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Eugenia Zaharia, “Rolul istoric al obştilor săteşti. Contribuţie la cunoaşterea istoriei românilor în mileniul I. Închinare ţărănimii române,” Acta Moldaviae Meridionalis 2 (1980), 133–56; Dan Gh. Teodor, “Contribut ̧ii la istoria obştii săteşti din mileniul marilor migrati̧ i,” Carpica 28 (1999), 103–08; Eugenia Zaharia, s.v. “obşte,” in Enciclopedia arheologiei şi istoriei vechi a României, edited by Constantin Preda, vol. 3 (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 2000), pp.  215–16; Gheorghe Postică, “Obşti săteşti din perioada medieval timpurie în spaţiul pruto-nistrean,” Destin românesc 2 (2007), nos. 1–2, 188–214; Ştefan Olteanu, De la comunitatea obştească teritorială la constituirea statelor medievale româneşti de la mijlocul secolului al XIV-lea (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2017). 98. But see Constantinescu, Coconi, p.  12 with n. 4. Comşa’s own remarks regarding the village communities from Bucov fell on deaf ears. Diaconu, Review of “Cultura materială veche românească” has no mention of the topic in what is, after all, a devastating critique of Comşa’s work. 99. For a distinction between Marxist and pseudo-Marxist archaeology, see also Jir ̌í Macháček, “Marxisti, pseudomarxisti a neomarxisti v české archeologii,” in Marxismus a medievistika: spolec ̌né osudy? edited by Martin Nodl and Piotr Węcowski (Prague: Filosofia, 2020), pp. 47–58.

Conclusion

Standpoint feminism is not in fashion anymore. “Particularly among younger feminist theorists, feminist standpoint theory is frequently regarded as a quaint relic of feminism’s less sophisticated past.”1 Some have noted that the idea of “situated knowledge” implies that no perspective (or standpoint) is epistemologically privileged.2 Others believe that feminist standpoint theory contradicts the diversity of women’s lives and activities.3 There has been no critique of the Marxist underpinning of standpoint feminism, although “the inspiration for feminist standpoint theory, Marxism, has been discredited in both theory and practice.”4 Practice, and not theory, is in fact the critical element of discussion. In the Theses on Feuerbach, Marx claimed that “all social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.”5 The second thesis is even more direct: “Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.”6 If one takes Marx’s thesis seriously, therefore, the implications for standpoint feminism are troubling. Truth, according to Marx, cannot be determined by theory, as the latter can only be validated by practice. In other words, the verification of objective truth and its proof entails practice.7 Standpoint feminism maintains that the resistance of women to patriarchy “embodies a distress that requires a solution… a social synthesis,” which, like the proletarian standpoint in Marxism, “points beyond the present and carries a historically liberatory role.”8 At the moment when those words were © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6_8

139

140 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

written, political regimes in Eastern Europe had been busy implementing Marxist theory for several decades. In the Soviet Union, as well as in the satellite countries, the “historically liberatory role” was put in practice by means of an unprecedented campaign for the emancipation of women. That campaign involved, among other things, the elimination of illiteracy and the opening of access to education for all women, at all levels. Women have thus been called to contribute to the establishment of a new Communist society, in which they had equal rights with men, a principle embedded in the constitution. Despite the apparent success of such policies, especially in terms of opening access to education for all women, a true equality between men and women was never achieved in any Communist country. The social and historical practice did not validate the truth claims of the theory, as women were emancipated only to be turned into a valuable labor force, with limited access to politically important positions (for example, in the government), or to the highest echelons of the economic and cultural life. This is particularly true for women in archaeology. Out of 835 full members (academicians) of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR between 1925 and 1991, only eight were female—under 1 percent—and none of them was an archaeologist.9 In Bulgaria, out of 118 full members of the Academy of Sciences elected between 1945 and 1989, only one was a female.10 In Poland, out of 395 full members elected in the Academy of Sciences between 1952 and 1989, only nine were female—about 2.3 percent. Only six archaeologists became full members of the Academy, all male.11 Between 1825 and 2002, only 1.5 percent of all members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences were archaeologists. The average age of archaeologists elected to that body between 1948 and 2002 was 58.6 years. Although the first female member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences was elected in 1949 (followed by ten others between 1949 and 1989), there was not a single woman among the 35 archaeologists so far elected as members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.12 In Romania, out of 858 members of the Academy elected between 1866 and 2018 (both full and corresponding members), only 20 were female—2.33 percent. However, only four women were elected to the Academy in 44 years between 1945 and 1989, as opposed to 16 in 29 years between 1989 and 2018.13 There are only men among the 15 archaeologists elected members of the Academy. The situation in the Academy was definitely not unique; gender inequality was obvious at the top of government administration, national research,

 CONCLUSION 

141

higher education, and policy-making in every country with a Marxist state ideology. The glass ceiling was apparently much too strong to break only at the impact of the revolution and the establishment of a society modeled after Marxist theory.14 Theory was obviously at odds with social practice. If, on the one hand, one views standpoint theory only as an epistemological tool for understanding domination, and not for social or political activism, then that is definitely an inadequate tool for understanding the social practice under Communism. Standpoint theory cannot map the way in which social and political disadvantage turn into epistemic, scientific, and political advantage, because under Communism there are supposedly no social and political disadvantages. Despite gender inequality at different levels in society, it would be a serious mistake to view women under Communism as marginalized or as an oppressed category. This is also true for women archaeologists, who did not occupy a social location that could possibly be viewed as epistemically superior to others. Women’s viewpoints cannot explain why Helena Zoll-Adamikowa succeeded where Zhivka Văzharova failed. Both Văzharova and Ágnes Cs. Sós built their own archaeological fiefs, which they jealously defended against male rivals, but with very different consequences. Some of those archaeologists were married women, with children, and they fared better than those who remained unmarried, even when considerably handicapped by infirmity, as in Sós’s case. Any attempt to square the life story of any of the five women considered in this book with the tenets of standpoint theory ends up with a great diversity of experiences that cannot be reduced to just a single, unified standpoint. Should one then adopt the explanatory frameworks advanced by third-­ wave feminism, especially the concern with the disciplinary culture and the factors involved in its development? A quick glimpse at the representation of female authors in the main journals of archaeology, such as those from Poland mentioned in the introduction, strongly suggests that women preferred certain topics over others, and stayed away from broad generalizations, surveys of topics, and theory—all themes reserved for male authors. However, all five women archaeologists considered in this book became top specialists in medieval archaeology, with a special emphasis on the (early) Slavs. That field of archaeology and that particular emphasis were of utmost significance for the ideological and propaganda efforts of the Communist regimes, and therefore received a great deal of attention and funding from state authorities.15 All five women were therefore positioned not on the margins, but right at the center of one of the politically most

142 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

relevant research fields in archaeology. Their works of outmost ideological importance were promoted (such as Maria Comşa’s chapter on the Slavs in the new treatise of Romanian history commissioned by the Communist Party) and rewarded (with such distinctions as the Order of the Socialist Culture twice bestowed upon Ágnes Sós).16 In fact, at a close examination of the publications of those five women, it becomes apparent that, throughout their respective careers, they all tackled very broad topics, as well as detailed analyses of sites and artifacts. In other words, there are no specific topics or materials (either pottery or textiles) on which any of those female archaeologists has concentrated her research. None of them shied away from discussions of economic, social, or religious issues pertaining to early medieval societies, and, at least in Maria Comşa’s case, from debates surrounding (Marxist) theory. Even if Irina Rusanova’s reputation came to be associated with the half-derogatory label of gorshkoved, her research interests expanded far beyond the formal analysis of handmade pottery. Furthermore, both Zhivka Văzharova and Ágnes Sós are still remembered for exceptional physical strength and stamina, as well as for the ability to withstand tough conditions of fieldwork, which male archaeologists could supposedly not endure. Describing work conditions as “Spartan” (in Văzharova’s case) or a physically impaired woman (Ágnes Sós) as intimidating because of her ruggedness and smoking-driven hoarseness may well be a rhetorical device calling to mind attributes of ideal masculinity that were associated with the disciplinary culture of archaeology.17 However, both Maria Comşa and Helena Zoll-Adamikowa published the results of their respective fieldwork, without earning a similar reputation of being tough. In that respect, as well as in terms of scholarly output, there are absolutely no differences between those five women and contemporary male archaeologists in their respective countries. How then to explain that three out of the five women could not reach through the glass ceiling? Why did Sós and Zoll-Adamikowa receive recognition, while Văzharova and Comşa were slowly, but steadily marginalized? And why did Rusanova not receive the same recognition in her discipline as Valentin Sedov? Like Zoll-Adamikowa, she had the support of a powerful man, 20 years her senior. Boris Rybakov may have disagreed with her ideas about the Slavic ethnogenesis, but in the early 1980s, when his books on Slavic paganism came out, he approved of Rusanova’s research on Slavic sanctuary sites in the Middle Dniester and Upper Prut region.18 Moreover, at that same

 CONCLUSION 

143

time, Rusanova’s husband, Boris Timoshchuk (ten years her senior) was able to defend his dissertation at, and then move to the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow from a provincial university in the Ukraine. This feat would not have been possible without the support of Rybakov, who was the director of that Institute at the time. Between 1983 and 1997, Timoshchuk was a senior researcher in the Slavic-Rus’ department of the Institute, and in that capacity, a colleague not only of his wife, Irina Rusanova, but also of Valentin Sedov, who had been hired in that same Institute more than three decades earlier. Sedov, who was only five years older than Rusanova, had been the chief of the Institute’s archive (1974), then the chief of the department combining the archive with salvage excavations (1983), and, in 1988, he finally took over the department of fieldwork, structure, and control of the entire archaeological research in Russia (but not in the Ukraine).19 He must have felt threatened by Rusanova and Timoshchuk, who led excavations over which he had no direct supervision. The publication in 1984 of their monograph of the settlement site at Kodyn had pushed the origin of the Slavs both earlier than their first mention in the written sources, and away from the territories outside the Soviet Union (in Poland), from which Sedov wanted to bring the ancestors of the Slavs (with whom he identified the Przeworsk culture).20 It is most likely in the context of his rivalry with Rusanova and Timoshchuk that Sedov began to claim that the earliest presence of the Slavs in northwestern Russia (his archaeological fief) was not linked to eighth- or ninth-­ century immigrants from the south, but to a migration from Central Europe that took place in the fifth century, the same date that had been assigned to the earliest assemblages in northern Bukovina that Rusanova and Timoshchuk had excavated and attributed to the Slavs.21 After Erast Symonovich’s death in 1983, it was Rusanova, and not Sedov, who became the editor-in-chief of the then most recent collection of studies on the early Slavs (which, however, was published only a decade later).22 Sedov must have felt slighted, as he had just published his monograph on the eastern Slavs, a book for which he was awarded the State Prize in 1984.23 He had also just launched the seminar series dedicated to the archaeology of Pskov and the Pskov region. The series turned into a successful periodical, for the first issue of which Sedov offered a study of the early Slavic burial customs, an aspect conspicuously neglected by Rusanova, but very popular at that time because of Helena Zoll-Adamikowa.24 In 1983, the year in which Timoshchuk defended his dissertation at the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow, Sedov published his critical views on

144 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

the interpretation of Kukharenko and Rusanova’s excavations in the Polesie.25 Sedov seized the opportunity to advance his own agenda after Rusanova’s protector, Boris Rybakov, was not director of the Institute of Archaeology any more. Beginning with 1989, he was increasingly critical of Rusanova’s works, the same that he had cited a few years earlier. During the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, Rusanova and Timoshchuk were effectively isolated, while Sedov’s star began to rise rapidly.26 As a consequence of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukraine’s declaration of independence in 1991, and given that during the Soviet era the Slavic homeland had been located within Ukraine, the issue of the early Slavs in northwestern Russia became of paramount interest. More than half of all studies that Sedov dedicated to this problem were published after 1991.27 Meanwhile, Boris Timoshchuk, still a member of the Institute of Archaeology, helped set up the Ukrainian Cultural Association “Slavutich” and the Ukrainian Historical Club in Moscow.28 The confrontations between Rusanova and Sedov, especially in meetings at the Institute or in editorial committees, had by then become quite frequent, and, at least according to some accounts, “quite bad.”29 At stake was neither the disciplinary culture, nor gender. Despite successfully blocking some of her publications, Sedov never questioned Rusanova’s skills as an archaeologist, her research methodology (particularly her classification of the early Slavic, handmade pottery), or interpretation of the archaeological evidence.30 His was an excellent example of what Pierre Bourdieu called the “struggle” for obtaining and maintaining scientific authority.31 Sedov capitalized on the changing political field—both in his discipline, and in post-Soviet society, in general. He may have attempted to secure the success of his ideas over those of Rusanova, but he did not make any effort to eliminate the latter, or to condemn them to oblivion.32 In that, and in many other respects, Rusanova’s case is in sharp contrast to Văzharova’s. Confronted from the very beginning with the competition of her arch-rival, Atanas Milchev, Zhivka Văzharova’s reputation began to fade away during her own lifetime.33 The effort to blacken that reputation had started very early. In retaliation for her omitting his doctoral degree in the list of participants in the excavations at Popina, Milchev wrote a review of the site’s monograph, in which he criticized everything, from methodology to conclusions. His was an attack on Văzharova’s credentials as archaeologist. A little more than a decade after returning from her doctoral studies in Moscow, she was accused of faulty methods of excavation, making up chronological phases for which no evidence existed, relying on

 CONCLUSION 

145

outdated theories and on an “obscure line of arguments.”34 Milchev did not spare any punches: with her sloppy work, and her obstinate focus on the (early) Slavs, Văzharova has ignored the contribution of the ancient and Byzantine culture to the history of Bulgaria, and in doing so, she has gone against the Marxist interpretation of history. When opposing the Slavs to the Bulgars, and labeling the latter as nomads, she has aligned herself with the fascist views of such prewar archaeologists as Géza Fehér and Bogdan Filov. The latter accusation was more than just lip service to the anti-fascist propaganda of the Communist regime. Milchev’s was a smart maneuver to outflank Văzharova’s solid pro-Soviet attitudes. The excavations in Pliska, a site regarded since the late nineteenth century as the capital of the Bulgar khans, had resumed after World War II, but the excavators initially distanced themselves from the old interpretation of the site. In the 1960s, in fashion was the theory that, instead of an early medieval, Bulgar town, Pliska was in fact a Roman camp: the fascist interpretation of Bulgarian history had falsified the archaeological record in order to adjust it to the distorted views of bourgeois historians.35 In the early years of Todor Zhivkov’s regime, this theory was meant not to diminish the role of the Slavs, but to elevate the significance of the local, pre-Slavic population of supposedly Thracian origin. Freshly promoted to the rank of full professor at the University of Sofia, but without any scholarly monograph or other publications of significant merit, Milchev may have therefore intended to pull the rug from under Văzharova’s feet. Instead of a thoroughly Soviet and exclusive emphasis on the Slavs, he may have thought that the time was now ripe for an autochthonist interpretation of Bulgarian history, in which the Thracian population civilized the Slavs, and not the other way around. However, his was just a Bulgarian version of Marr’s theories, which were already out of fashion in the 1960s. As a consequence, he was himself outflanked by those who insisted upon the role of the Bulgars, especially by Stancho Vaklinov, at that time the president of the university in Veliko Tărnovo. Since such a position meant that the Slavs played only a secondary role in the history of medieval Bulgaria, Văzharova’s ideas were tossed out as well. It is therefore no surprise that Milchev’s 1965 attack on Văzharova was reproduced two decades later, almost verbatim, by Vaklinov’s former student, Stanislav Stanilov: sloppy excavation, poor publication of finds, theoretical weakness, and serious errors of interpretation.36 Stanilov’s review of Văzharova’s monograph of the settlement site at Garvan was published in the context of the major change in the interpretation of the archaeological record of medieval

146 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Bulgaria brought about by the 1981 jubilee of Bulgaria’s 1300 years of statehood, which was organized by the then newly appointed minister of culture, Liudmila Zhivkova, the daughter of the Communist strongman in Sofia.37 As the emphasis now was not on Marxist orthodoxy, but on nationalist ideals, Stanilov, unlike Milchev, did not accuse Văzharova of misunderstanding Marx. Instead, he pointed out that citations from Marx were no substitute for solid arguments.38 This change is significant, because it solidified the character assassination that had begun with Milchev. Văzharova is remembered today as a sloppy archaeologist and a die-hard Communist. However, it is remarkable that, as shown in Chap. 4, her image is associated in the memory of those who have known her well—both men and women—with such masculine values as strength, iron discipline, resilience, and austerity. One reason for that selective memory may be that Văzharova never responded to attacks, at least not in writing: there is no reply from her either to Milchev or to her former student, Stanislav Stanilov.39 The Romanian Maria Comşa adopted a very different strategy in her own confrontation with Ion Nestor. Nestor had advanced the idea that groups of assemblages discovered on the territory of Romania (e.g., the so-called Hlincea 1 group) had nothing to do with archaeological cultures on the territory of the Soviet Union that had been attributed to the Slavs. In support of his idea that those were local, non-Slavic traits, he invoked the handmade pottery with finger impressions on the rim or the pottery thrown on a tournette, both ceramic categories documented in burial assemblages that he had excavated at Sărata Monteoru. “Professor I. Nestor, however, did not analyze in detail either the production technique, or the ceramic shapes” of the two groups, in order to convince anyone that the pottery found in Hlincea 1 had its origins in the pottery found in Sărata Monteoru.40 Nestor’s claim that no cultural differentiation existed among the Slavs before the ninth century was simply untenable.41 Comşa did not hesitate to question Nestor’s credentials as archaeologist, particularly his ability to recognize and identify the pottery. He had wrongly attributed the handmade pottery found in Sărata Monteoru and Suceava-Şipot to the Prague type.42 Moreover, he has misdated the pottery he had himself found at Suceava-Şipot, and in doing so, he has cited the wrong analogies from the work of the Soviet archaeologist Ivan Liapushkin.43 In fact, he was utterly incapable of distinguishing between the East Slavic pottery from settlement sites, such as Hlincea, and the West Slavic pottery from burial sites, such as Nuşfalău and Someşeni (both in

 CONCLUSION 

147

Transylvania).44 Moreover, he wrongly equated the Luka-Raikoveckaia group with the Romen-Borshevo culture, without understanding (or knowing) that the latter was restricted to Left-Bank Ukraine, and could not have therefore been linked to any archaeological assemblage discovered in Romania.45 According to documents in the archives of the secret police, Ion Nestor’s intention was to demonstrate that those who, like Maria Comşa, had studied in the Soviet Union were ignorant and had no training as archaeologists.46 If this was so, then he could have picked up a fight much earlier. Nothing seems to have announced this explosion of hostility. Maria Comşa respectfully referred to “Professor I. Nestor” (23 years her senior) in her first paper on the early medieval pottery.47 Nestor, however, had not mentioned her before his polemical article, the first salvo that opened the battle.48 He was the coeditor of the new treatise of Romanian history commissioned by the Communist government and published by the Academy of the People’s Republic of Romania. He must have been upset that the task of writing the chapter on the Slavs, perhaps one of the most important in political terms, was given to the young woman who had earned her PhD in Moscow. Moreover, he must have had access to the text of the chapter, because in his polemical article, he attacked precisely those points on which Maria Comşa insisted in her survey of the Slavic archaeology in Romania: only handmade pottery was found in Sărata Monteoru, with just a few sherds of pottery thrown on a tournette, which could only be dated to the last burial phase in the cemetery; the Hlincea 1 assemblages must be attributed to the Eastern Slavs; and the pottery found with cremations under the barrows excavated in Nuşfalău and Someşeni must be attributed to the Western Slavs.49 Thus, before the treatise was even published, most salvos had already been shot on both sides. Maria Comşa had the last word in the exchange that took place on the pages of the periodical Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche, but Nestor continued to insist upon the presence of the wheel-made pottery and its interpretation as a badge of a Roman(ized) identity. On the other hand, although she did not apparently start the fight, Maria Comşa was not afraid to finish it. Before the polemic erupted, Nestor had published a study based on his excavations at Dridu (near Urziceni, southern Romania). In that study, he claimed to have discovered the archaeological culture of the medieval Romanians. Comşa was convinced that the archaeological material that she had excavated on two sites in Bucov, a village near Ploieşti, was the true Romanian culture. In

148 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

response to Nestor’s idea of a Dridu culture, she therefore advanced the notion of the Balkan-Danubian culture, which he attributed to the Bulgar expansion north of the Lower Danube during the eighth and ninth centuries.50 Much like he had not been capable of distinguishing the hand- from the wheel-made pottery, Nestor wrongly believed that the Gray Ware with burnished ornament from sites of the so-called Dridu culture derived from the late antique Gray Ware.51 To Nestor’s ironical remarks about the Marxist archaeology being little more than Morgan’s evolutionism, with Engels’s additions, Comşa responded with a critical evaluation of Marxist theory in the light of the archaeological evidence pertaining to the first millennium on the territory of Romania.52 Nestor firmly believed that the pre-Roman, Dacian society was slave-based, while Comşa drew inspiration from Henri H. Stahl to advance the idea of a tributary mode of production.53 In all those cases, Comşa had the last word; Nestor never replied. In fact, after the 1960 polemic he simply ignored all of her work.54 According to archival sources, he had promised to destroy her career. He died in 1974, before being able to accomplish that. However, Comşa’s reputation of Soviet agent infiltrated in the Romanian archaeology persisted. Whether it originated with Nestor or not, Comşa’s main detractors after 1974 and until her death in 2002 were Nestor’s students. Dan Gh. Teodor dismissed Comşa’s idea of an early cultural division of the Slavs, and even the treatment of the Antes as Slavs.55 Her work on the “Slavic” bow fibulae is of little value, as she commented on groups that had already been established.56 She had misdated her own finds in Bucov, which are supposedly of a much later date.57 Radu Harhoiu was skeptical about Comşa’s idea of deriving the stamped decoration of the sixth- and seventh-­ century pottery in Transylvania from earlier, local traditions.58 Her attribution to the Cutrigurs of burials in fetal position was simply untenable.59 The coup de grâce came with Petre Diaconu’s review of Comşa’s monograph published four years after Nestor’s death. His accusations were mirror images of those that Comşa had once leveled at Nestor. Despite citing Charles H. Morgan’s monograph, Comşa was not familiar with the Byzantine pottery found at Corinth and in Athens, and especially with its chronology.60 She could not tell apart roof tiles from water pipes.61 However, Diaconu raised serious doubts about the excavation technique that Comşa had used at Bucov. She was not capable of distinguishing between stratigraphical layers with eighth- to ninth- and twelfth- to thirteenth-­century material, respectively.62 She even made up the superposition of house C6a and the sunken-floored building B2, given that the

 CONCLUSION 

149

former does not appear on the section drawing published in the book.63 There were also serious errors of judgment and interpretation in that book. Comşa used seven fish bones to argue in favor of fishing being part of the subsistence economy, even though no fishing implements had been found in Bucov.64 In support of her claim that an iron lock found at Bucov must be dated to the tenth century, she pointed to illustrations in the work of the Soviet archaeologist Boris A. Kolchin. However, she did not seem to have read the accompanying text, for she was unaware of the fact that Kolchin had dated such locks to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.65 Where appropriate analogies were lacking, Maria Comşa just made them up citing unpublished material or survey finds with no exact dates.66 Diaconu succeeded in casting doubts on Comşa’s interpretation of the settlement sites she had excavated in Bucov, particularly on her dating of the finds. For several decades, Romanian archaeologists avoided making any mention of Bucov, for fear that the site was truly of a much later date than Comşa believed. Only recently her conclusions have been reevaluated in light of the similar evidence of settlements from northwestern Transylvania.67 While Nestor’s students were busy tainting her reputation, Comşa had no students to defend her. For four decades after her polemic with Nestor, the cards were clearly stacked against her. In order to understand what happened, one needs to keep in mind Mircea Anghelinu’s observation, according to which archaeologists in Romania were “organized in a way very similar to that of a medieval guild. The cult of the method, which was promoted by the ‘professors’, quickly led to the cult of the persons capable of mastering it.”68 The status of a Romanian archaeologist, whether man or woman, was based on how much authority his or her “professor” had accumulated, which naturally led to a cult of hierarchy and clout. With no “professor” of her own to shield her against Nestor, Maria Comşa and her courageous stance had little, if any chance of success. Whether or not she had been right in her critique of Nestor was irrelevant, since what mattered was that she had dared to challenge him. Maria Comşa was “punished” because she questioned Nestor’s authority. That she was a young woman when doing that did not help, of course, but that was only secondary to the offense brought to the reputation of a “professor.” In other words, much like with Zhivka Văzharova, gender was not the determinant factor in the character assassination plot responsible for Maria Comşa’s negative reputation, which has survived her to this day. In fact, all those men who attacked her at that same time cited copiously from the works of

150 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Nestor’s female students, Eugenia Zaharia and Ligia Bârzu, who are still remembered as good archaeologists, with no critics. Equally significant in that respect is the infamous label of “Soviet agent” attached to Maria Comşa’s reputation. Like gender, nationalism did not play the most important role in the process of discrediting Maria Comşa, most likely because of her credentials linked to her calling the material culture found in Bucov the “culture of the medieval Romanians.” However, with the convergence of Marxist and nationalist teleologies in Ceauşescu’s version of national Communism, the idea that Comşa had tirelessly worked against the interests of national historiography (if not of the nation, as a whole) seems to have trounced any appeals to reason. Such suspicions were most likely behind the fierce opposition that Ágnes Cs. Sós met at the defense of her dissertation. György Györffy commented more on the opinions of the authors she had cited than on her work.69 He had little to say about Sós’s thesis, except to raise doubts about her attribution of sites excavated in and around Zalavár to the Western, as opposed to the Southern Slavs. He also insisted on the adequate term to apply to Great Moravia—principality, not empire or kingdom.70 To be sure, eight years older than Sós, Györffy had only occasionally written on the ninth century, the period to which Sós’s thesis was dedicated.71 Sós’s other opponent was István Bóna, who, five years younger than Sós, was at that time a professor of archaeology at the university in Budapest. He was not happy with Sós’s laying out different, often contradictory opinions about the history of ninth-century Pannonia, without taking any side.72 There was no justification for singling out the ninth century in the history of Hungary as the “age of (the Slavic princes) Pribina and Kocel,” because they had not been around for more than three decades. Nor was it appropriate to call Pribina a “prince,” since he had been just a duke in Frankish service.73 The Slavs over whom he ruled had recently arrived in the region. The Slavic cremations in urns that Sós had found in Pókaszepetk must be dated to the eighth century, because the Avars had been there earlier, as indicated by the seventh-century inhumation cemetery found on that same site.74 Moreover, she was wrong in seeking in Moravia the origins of those Slavs.75 Had she taken the time to read Maria Comşa, Sós would have immediately noted striking similarities between pots found in the environs of Zalavár and those found on sites in the Lower Danube region of Romania and Bulgaria. Bóna therefore invited Sós to ponder the implications of her archaeological material having South, not West Slavic parallels.76

 CONCLUSION 

151

Sós’s response was sharp and bold. She agreed that the cremation cemetery in Pókaszepetk was of a later date, possibly the second half of the eighth or even the early ninth century.77 If so, however, and if, as Bóna suggested, this was a cemetery used by immigrants from the northern Balkans, then one would have expected to see more pottery with East Slavic as well as Bulgar traits.78 Without mentioning Comşa, Sós turned the tables on Bóna: if one is to employ analogies from the Lower Danube region, one needs to remember that both Romanian and Bulgarian archaeologists insist on the strong East Slavic influence on the ceramic materials discovered in that region.79 Whatever the origin of the people who buried their dead in Pókaszepetk, it is beyond doubt that Moravians invaded and raided Pannonia several times in the late ninth century.80 At any rate, “the age of Pribina and Kocel” does not cover the entire ninth century, and the word “duke” has a variety of political meanings, each depending upon the context of usage.81 In closing her reply, Sós promised to continue to work on the topic of the Slavs in the early medieval history of Hungary, “as much as possible without prejudice.”82 The meaning of this exchange becomes apparent only when viewed against the background of the political relations between Hungary and Czechoslovakia during the first years of János Kádár’s regime, the years of “those who are not against us are with us,” of improving consumption and cautious liberalization.83 By contrast, in the early 1960s Czechoslovakia experienced a serious decline in economic performance. The Communist regime in Prague badly needed a good idea to divert attention from the crisis and to create a new focus of political loyalty. With Jozef Lenárt (of Slovak origin) as the new Prime Minister, a program of economic reforms was launched in 1963. At the same time, and with the tacit approval of Antonín Novotný, the party secretary, Lenárt capitalized on the unique opportunity to organize a secular celebration of the 1100th anniversary of Cyril and Methodius’ mission, which was supposed to demonstrate the positive impact of Great Moravia on the more recent history of unity between Czechs and Slovaks.84 A grand exhibit on Great Moravia, first organized in Brno and in Prague, then toured Europe carrying a clearly propagandistic message. Part of that message, clearly communicated with many maps of Central Europe accompanying the exhibit, was that the power of the Moravian rulers extended over Pannonia, the western part of Hungary.85 There was no reaction to those developments in Hungary.86 In fact, the first reaction is that of Györffy and Bóna at the defense of Sós’s thesis. The former was concerned with rejecting the notion of a Great

152 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Moravian Empire, the latter with the many maps accompanying the 1963 exhibit.87 Sós’s own merits were only measured against those standards. That is why her credentials as archaeologist were never in doubt, and her merit of having written the first work of synthesis on the ninth century was duly recognized.88 Sós’s ability and boldness to defend herself were sufficient to establish quickly a formidable reputation. Her work at Zalavár was especially of interest to those Hungarian historians and historians of art, who, either after World War II or after 1956, had chosen to live in Western Europe. Having dealt with Zalavár in the 1940s, Thomas von Bogyay (1909–1994), who at that time was in Munich working for Radio Free Europe, became very interested in Sós’s dissertation.89 He recommended it for publication in Germany in the series of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, the editor-in-chief of which was Joachim Werner.90 Moreover, at Werner’s recommendation, Sós was elected a correspondent member of the German Archaeological Institute. In that same year (1966), she was awarded the Order of the Socialist Culture in Hungary, in recognition of her outstanding work at Zalavár.91 The achievement was astounding, and Sós had all the reasons to rejoice, for she was the first woman archaeologist in Hungary to reach that pinnacle of success. Sós’s achievements can measure up to those of Helena Zoll-Adamikowa. The latter’s career, however, began on a much better footing. Only four years after graduating from the University of Poznań, she went on a fellowship to London.92 During the late 1950s and the early 1960s, Poland was remarkably open to cooperation in archaeological projects in Western Europe. Polish archaeologists participated in the excavation of deserted medieval villages in Great Britain and in France.93 Zoll-Adamikowa’s adviser in Poznań was Witold Hensel, who, when appointed director of the newly created Institute of the History of Material Culture in Warsaw, began favoring his students.94 With his assistance, Zoll-Adamikowa was hired in the Cracow branch of the newly created institute in 1962.95 Although her first publications were about cremations under barrows, her first book was a corpus of all inhumation cemeteries in Lesser Poland.96 This strongly suggests that she had been hired in Cracow to study the transition from cremation to inhumation as part of a general process of transformation brought about by the rise of the Piast state and the conversion to Christianity. Moreover, that may have been the “mission” assigned to Zoll-Adamikowa by Hensel in the context of the gigantic project launched in the early 1950s around the “Millennium idea.”97 That her contribution to that project was recognized results from her receiving the

 CONCLUSION 

153

Millennium Award in 1966, even though the actual interpretation of the material gathered in her first book was published a few years later.98 Following the publication of her two-volume book on the Slavic cremation cemeteries in Poland, she also got the Golden Medal of the Ministry of Culture and Art.99 Zoll-Adamikowa obtained her habilitation under Hensel’s supervision within his last year as director of the Institute of the History of Material Culture. After that, while she remained the authority in Poland (if not in the whole of East Central and Eastern Europe) on matters pertaining to burial practices in the early Middle Ages, Zoll-­ Adamikowa shifted her research interests to Stradów, the largest of all hillforts in southern Poland.100 The excavations that she directed on the site revealed a much later date for the visible ramparts than initially presumed (tenth to eleventh century), although dendrochronological analysis of wooden remains suggests that at least some of them may have been initially built in the ninth century.101 Equally surprising was the discovery of features inside the ramparts.102 Nonetheless, the recognition that she got later in life was also linked to her work on Slavic burial practices—the Golden Cross of Merit in 1994, and the election as corresponding member of the German Archaeological Institute in 1997.103 Zoll-Adamikowa became a professor a few months before her death, but several years after her writing the textbook on the burial customs of the early medieval Slavs for the students in archaeology at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow.104 Cited in works published in Russian, Hungarian, and German at least a decade before her death, Zoll-Adamikowa had already earned an international reputation and the respect of the European archaeologists dealing with the Middle Ages.105 Sós succeeded by confronting her opponents with the results of her own excavations, for they were unmatched in Hungary at that time in terms of historical significance. She adroitly exploited both the demands of the earlier Communist regime to turn the “problem of the Avar-Slavic-­ Hungarian relations” into a central topic of archaeological research, and the openness of the more recent regime headed by János Kádár toward relations with Western Europe. The publication of her book in West Germany was made possible by a Hungarian in exile who worked for Radio Free Europe. That should have put the book on the blacklist and turn its author into a persona non grata. Instead, Sós scored probably the greatest success of her career. By contrast, Zoll-Adamikowa did not need to develop any strategy about how best to play the fears of the Communist authorities in Poland. Instead, she knew very well how to fulfill a major

154 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

task of the Millennium project. As with Sós, her scholarly niche was unique, but she controlled a much wider field and her expertise reached much farther outside the political boundaries of her own country. Barriers to women archaeologists achieving power and success were much tougher elsewhere. While Zoll-Adamikowa and Sós managed to crack the glass ceiling, Comşa, Văzharova, and, to some extent, Rusanova, crashed right into it. There were clearly stickier floors in Romania, Bulgaria, and the Soviet Union.

Notes 1. Susan Hekman, “Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited,” Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22 (1997), no. 2, 341. 2. Helen E.  Longino, “Subjects, power, and knowledge: description and prescription in feminist philosophy of science,” in Feminist Epistemologies, edited by Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter (New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 106–07. 3. Hekman, “Truth and method,” p.  342. The underlying idea is that women cannot have privileged access to their own oppression, since each one of them experiences that in a different way, depending upon race, sexual orientation, and other identities. Maria Lugones and Elizabeth Spelman, “Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism, and the demand for ‘the woman’s voice’?” Women’s Studies International Forum 6 (1983), 573–81 went as far as to denounce feminist standpoint theory as the perspective of relatively privileged white women. 4. Hekman, “Truth and method,” p. 341. According to Cynthia Cockburn, “Standpoint theory,” in Marxism and Feminism, edited by Shahrzad Mojab (London: Zen Books, 2015), p. 341, Marx is irrelevant to social scientists educated in 1990s postmodernism. 5. Karl Marx, Selected Writings, edited by David McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 173, available online at http://marxists.org/ archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm (visit of February 23, 2020). 6. Marx, Selected Writings, p.  171. “Man,” of course, stands for German “Mensch,” which means “human (being).” In his introduction to Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, which pre-dates the Theses, Marx explained that “a theory will only be realized in a people in so far as it is the realization of what it needs” (Selected Writings, p. 78).

 CONCLUSION 

155

7. George E. McCarty, Marx and the Ancients. Classical Ethics, Social Justice, and Nineteenth-Century Political Economy (Savage: Rowman & Littlefield, 1990), pp. 100–01 and 283. Ironically, Nancy C. M. Hartsock, “Comment on Hekman’s ‘Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited’: truth or justice?” Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22 (1997), no. 2, 370 claims that in his second thesis on Feuerbach, Marx “argues an understanding of ‘things’ as ‘objects’, especially objects of contemplation.” This is simply a mis-interpretation of what Marx wrote: “In der Praxis, muß der Mensch die Wahrheit, i.e. die Wirklichkeit und Macht, Diesseitigkeit seines Denkens beweisen“ (Karl Marx, Werke, vol. 3 [Berlin: Dietz, 1969], p.  5). Neither Wahrheit, nor Wirklichkeit have anything to do with contemplation. 8. Nancy C.  M. Hartsock, Money, Sex, and Power (New York: Longman, 1983), pp. 232 and 246. 9. The first female academician in the Soviet Union was Lina S.  Stern (1875–1968), a biochemist, elected member in 1939. The following woman was not elected academician for 14 years, but she was a historian—Anna Pankratova (1897–1957). See “Akademiki AN SSSR,” at https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/13346 (visit of March 13, 2020). Only six members (0.72 percent) of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR were archaeologists, all male. The first was Iosif A.  Orbeli (1887–1961), a specialist in medieval Armenia, who was elected in 1935, followed by Boris A. Rybakov, who became member in 1958. 10. Raina Georgieva (1902–1983), a geneticist, who became full member in 1961. Four other women were elected corresponding members. See Bălgarska Akademiia na Naukite. Chlenove i rak̆ ovodstvo (1869–2004). Spravochnik, edited by Ivan Iukhnovski (Sofia: Centralna biblioteka, 2005), pp. 60 and 353–69; Valeri Kacunov, Dzheni Ivanova, and Cvetana Velichkova, Zhenite v istoriiata na akademichnata nauka v Bălgariia (Khabilitiranite zheni v BAN)(Sofia: Reprint, 2018), pp.  65, 74, 130, 220, and 234. Four women became full members of the Academy after 1989, but none of them was an archaeologist. After 1989, two female archaeologists became corresponding members: Henrietta TodorovaVaisova (1933–2015) in 2004, and Iordanka Iurukova (1936–2012) in 2008 (Kacunov, Ivanova, and Velichkova, Zhenite, pp. 286 and 320). 11. See “Członkowie Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Skorowidz,” at http:// czlonkowie.pan.pl/czlonkowie/sites/Skorowidz.html (visit of March 13, 2020). The slightly higher proportion of women (4 percent) indicated in “Wybory nowych członków odsetek kobiet podskoczył z 4 do 7 proc.,” in Nauka w Polsce of February 12, 2016 (available at http:// naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news%2C412247%2Cwybor y-­ nowych-­czlonkow-­pan-­odsetek-­kobiet-­podskoczyl-­z-­4-­do-­7-­proc.html,

156 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

visit of March 13, 2020) is most likely based on the total number of members (including corresponding and foreign members). See also Michał Rolecki, “PAN mało kobiecki. Jest na szarym końcu za Sudańska ̨ Akademia ̨,” in wbyorcza.pl of March 3, 2016 (available at http://wyborcza.pl/1,75400,19709904,nasz-­p an-­j est-­m alo-­k obiecy-­z ajmujemy-­ ostatnie-­miejsce-­na-­swiecie.html, visit of March 13, 2020). Nine women have been elected full members in 29 years between 1989 and 2018. The first archaeologist elected in 1952 as full member of the Academy was Kazimierz Michałowski (1901–1981), a renowned Egyptologist, followed five years later by Józef Kostrzewski (1885–1969) and Włodzimierz Antoniewicz (1893–1973), both prehistorians. The first female to be elected member of the Academy in the very year of its foundation was a historian—Natalia Ga ̨siorowska-Grabowska (1881–1964). The next woman to become full member was Jadwiga Ziemięcka (1891–1968), a microbiologist. She became member only six years after Ga ̨siorowska-­ Grabowska. For the history of the Polish Academy of Sciences, see Leszek Kuźnicki, Polska Akademia Nauk 1952–1998. Zamierzenia I realizacja (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Retro-Art, 2018). 12. Bartosiewicz, “Archaeology in Hungary,” pp.  202 and 204; 203 Table 9.1. The first woman to enter the Hungarian Academy of Sciences was Erzsébet Andics (1902–1986), a historian of the 1848 revolution. She was elected member in 1949 primarily because of her Communist activities. The next female member of the Academy—Magda Radnót (1911–1989), a reputed ophthalmologist—was elected only 12 years later. See József Tigyi, “Hol teremnek az akadémikusok? Az MTA tagjai számokban,” Magyar Tudományi (2006), no. 3, 351. 13. The first woman elected to the Academy after 1945 was Raluca Ripan (1894–1972), a chemist, in 1948. The next woman to become a member of the Academy 15 years later, Alice Săvulescu (1905–1970) was a botanist. Before 1945, only two women were elected honorary members of the Academy—Queens Elisabeta (1881) and Maria (1915). See http:// www.acad.ro/bdar/armembri.php (visit of March 13, 2020). Two women, Elena Ceauşescu and Suzana Gâdea, who had been granted membership in 1974 were excluded in 1990, the former after being executed in December 1989 together with her husband, Nicolae Ceauşescu. 14. Nobody has so far noticed that Marx’s second thesis on Feuerbach may apply to Marxism as well, which is, of course, a different matter altogether. 15. Curta, “Pots, Slavs,” pp. 368–75. For Poland, see Buko, “Early medieval archaeology,” pp. 368–74. For Bulgaria, see Chavdar Lalov, “Slavianskata arkheologiia v dneshna Severna Bălgariia,” Dobrudzha 24–25 (2013), 339–53. For the Soviet Union, see Nadezhda I. Platonova, “Problems of early medieval Slavonic archaeology in Russia (a view from St.

 CONCLUSION 

157

Petersburg),” Post-classical Archaeologies 6 (2016), 333–416. For Czechoslovakia, see Jan Klápště, “Die Archäologie des Mittelalters im Spannungsfeld verschiedener Identitäten: das Fallbeispiel Böhmen,” in Auf der Suche nach Identitäten: Volk  - Stamm  - Kultur  - Ethnos. Internationale Tagung der Universität Leipzig vom 8.-9. Dezember 2000 im Rahmen des Sonderforschungsbereiches 417 “Regionenbezogene Identifikationsprozesse. Das Beispiel Sachsen” und des Teilprojektes A5 der Professur für Urund Frühgeschichte “Ethnogenese und Traditionskonstruktion - archölogische Quellen und ihre Deutungen in der Historiographie des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts”, edited by Sabine Rieckhoff and Ulrike Sommer (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007), pp.  166–74. For Yugoslavia, see Milosavljević, Osvit arheologije, pp.  131–51. When the Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences was created in 1967, Aurél Bernáth (1895–1982) painted a monumental mural in the staircase of the building to which the new institute moved. The mural is titled History and contains the painter himself in the lower righthand corner, shown while working on a triptych with László Gerevich, the director of the Institute, in the center, and a woman archaeologist— Ágnes Salamon—to his right, holding a jug (Bartosiewicz, “Archaeology in Hungary,” p. 212 fig. 9.9). 16. However, some of the five women became specialists (even world-class specialists) in a field—Slavic archaeology—that men had in some cases avoided, for a variety of reasons. At the beginning of Ágnes Cs. Sós and Maria Comşa’s careers, the (early) Slavs were not a popular topic either of archaeological or of historical research in Hungary and Romania, and the situation was not very different in Bulgaria in the 1950s. 17. Sorely missing from the current research on (medieval) archaeology in East Central and Eastern Europe is a serious study of masculinity (or even machismo) as an ideal of disciplinary culture, combining both roles associated with patriarchal traditions and the Stakhanovite values of the new, Communist society. 18. See Rybakov, Iazychestvo drevnikh slavian and Iazychestvo drevnei Rusi. 19. Zhikh, “Valentin Vasilevich Sedov. Stranicy zhizni i tvorchestva slavianskogo podvizhnika. Chast 1,” p. 134. 20. Rusanova and Timoshchuk, Kodyn. 21. Sedov, “Nachalo,” pp.  14–15. This thesis was refined in later studies: Valentin V. Sedov, “Drevnosti Severo-zapadnoi chasti Vostochnoi Evropy vo vtoroi polovine I tysiacheletiia n. e.,” in Finny v Evrope. VI-XV veka. Pribaltiisko-finskie narody. istoriko-arkheologicheskie issledovaniia. I: Formirovanie pribaltiiskikh finnov, plemena Finliandii i Iugo-Vostochnoi Pribaltiki, edited by Anatolii N. Kirpichnikov and Evgenii A. Riabinin, vol. 1 (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii AN SSSR, 1990), pp.  28–29;

158 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Valentin V.  Sedov, “Nachalo slavianskogo rasseleniia v basseinakh ozer Il’mena i Pskovskogo.” Arkheologiia i istoriia Pskova i Pskovskoi zemli (1992), 23 (where the idea was first put forward that the immigrants had been attracted to northwestern Russia by a warming climate change); Valentin V. Sedov, “Pervyi etap slavianskogo raseleniia v basseinakh ozer Il’mena i Pskovskogo,” in Novgorodskie arkheologicheskie chteniia. Materialy nauchnoi konferencii, posviashchennoi 60-letiiu arkheologicheskogo izucheniia Novgoroda i 60-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia osnovatelia Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspedicii A.  V. Arcikhovskogo. Novgorod, 28 sentiabria-2 oktiabria 1992 g., edited by Valentin L.  Ianin and Petr G.  Gaidukov (Novgorod: Novgorodskii gosudarstvennyi obăedinennyi muzei-zapovednik, 1994), pp. 127–37; Valentin V. Sedov, Drevnerusskaia narodnost’. Istoriko-arkheologicheskoe issledovanie (Moscow: Iazykyi russkoi kul’tury, 1999), pp. 122–23; Valentin V. Sedov, “Stanovlenie kul’tury pskovskikh dlinnykh kurganov,” Stratum+ (2000), no. 5, 26–31; Valentin V.  Sedov, “Sever Vostochno-Evropeiskoi ravniny v period pereseleniia narodov i v rannem srednevekov’e (predyistoriia severnovelikorusov),” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN Rossii 218 (2005), 14–18. 22. Rusanova and Symonovich, Slaviane. 23. Sedov, Vostochnye slaviane. 24. Sedov, “Pogrebal’nye pamiatniki.” 25. Sedov, “Pripiatskoe Poles’e.” 26. Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba,” p. 201. Sedov was appointed the chair of the Russian committee of the International Council of Monuments and Sites in 1992, and a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1997 (he was elected full member in 2003). He was elected member in the Academy of Sciences of Latvia in 1994. 27. For Sedov’s notion of Slavic ethnogenesis and the political turmoil of the 1990s, see Kostiantyn Ivangorods’kyi, Etnichna istoriia skhidnykh slov’ian u suchasnyi istoriografii (ukrains’kyi, bilorus’kyi i rosyis’kyi dyskursy)(Cherkasy: Iu. Chabanenko, 2018), pp. 257–63. In the context of the rising Russian nationalism of the Yeltsin era, Sedov appeared as more patriotic than Rusanova, most likely because of his service in World War II. At any rate, her own publication record between 1991 and 1998 is quite thin. There are no publications between 1993 and 1998. Her last publication of 1998 (the year of her death) is an article on paganism and Christianity in Rus’ written together with her husband (Rusanova and Timoshchuk, “Religioznoe ‘dvoeverie’”). 28. Liubomyr P. Mykhaylyna and Sergei V. Pyvovarov, “Tymoshchuk Borys Onysymovych,” in Entsyklopediia istoryi Ukrainy, vol. 10 (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 2013), p. 77. 29. Igor Gavritukhin, e-mail of September 19, 2018 to Iurie Stamati.

 CONCLUSION 

159

30. As shown in Chap. 3, in many respects, Sedov’s ideas about the ethnogenesis of the Slavs coincided with Rusanova’s. However, he began distinguishing himself from her after 1990 not so much by criticizing as by neglecting her contributions. For his attempt to block the publication of a collection of studies on the early Slavic pottery edited by Rusanova, see Khoroshkevich, “Sud’ba,” p. 202. 31. Bourdieu, “La spécificité,” 91–92; and Les usages, p. 17. 32. It is important to note that although Sedov’s general theory of Slavic ethnogenesis became the orthodoxy in the medieval archaeology of post-­ Soviet Russia, his idea of bringing the Slavs from Central Europe (i.e., outside the territory of the former Soviet Union or of present-day Russia) is now opposed by autochthonist views. Such views are promoted by Rusanova’s former students. See Igor O. Gavritukhin, “Nachalo velikogo slavianskogo rasselenie na iug i zapad,” in Arkheologichni studii, edited by Petro P. Tolochko, vol. 1 (Kiev/Chernivtsi: Prut, 2000), pp. 72–90; Igor O. Gavritukhin, Nikolai V. Lopatin and Andrei M. Oblomskii, “Novye rezul’taty izucheniia ranneslavianskikh drevnostei lesnogo Podneprov’ia i Verkhnego Podvin’ia (tezisy k koncepcii slavianskogo etnogeneza),” in Slavianskii mir Poles’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi istoriko-arkheologicheskoi konferencii 19–20 oktiabria 2004 g., Gomel’, edited by O. A. Makushnikov (Homel’: Gomel’skii gosudarstvennyi universitet imeni Francisca Skoriny, 2004), pp. 39–50; Andrei M.  Oblomskii, “Formirovanie kolochinskoi i pen’kovskoi kul’tur,” in Vostochnaia Evropa v seredine I tys. n. e., edited by Igor O. Gavritukhin and Andrei M. Oblomskii (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 2007), pp. 28–30; Igor O. Gavritukhin, “Aktual’nye problemy izucheniia rannei istorii slavian i slavianskogo rasseleniia na iug i zapad (prazhskaia kul’tura),” in Trudy II (XVIII) vserossiiskoogo arkheologicheskogo săezda v Suzdale, edited by A. P. Derevianko and Nikolai A. Makarov (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 2008), pp. 206–08; Igor O. Gavritukhin, Igor O. “Poniatiie prazhskoi kul’tury,” in Slozhenie russkoi gosudarstvennosti v kontekste rannesrednevekovoi v kontekste rannesrednevekovoi istorii Starogo sveta. Materialy mezhdunarodnogo konferencii, sostoiavsheisia 14–18 maia 2007 goda v Gosudarstvennom Ermitazhe, edited by B.  S. Korotkevich, Dmitrii A. Machinskii and T. B. Senichenkova (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 2009), pp. 7–25; Andrei M. Oblomskii, “O rannesrednevekovykh slavianskikh drevnostiakh v basseine Dona,” Stratum+ (2011), no. 5, 51–60; Igor O. Gavritukhin, “K atribucii slavianskikh pamiatnikov V-VII vekov na Iuzhnom Buge,” in Evropa od Latena do Srednevekov’ia: varvarskii mir i rozhdenie slavianskikh kul’tur. K 60-letiiu A.  M. Oblomskogo, edited by Vlasta E.  Rodinkova and O. S. Rumianceva (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 2017), pp. 51–62.

160 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

33. Only a year older than Văzharova, Milchev earned his PhD from the Soviet Union two years before her. Their rivalry may also reflect that between the Moscow and Leningrad schools of Soviet archaeology, from which they took their training and ideas. 34. Milchev, Review. 35. The first to push the idea that Pliska had Roman origins was Stamen Mikhailov, “Za proizkhoda na antichnite materiali ot Pliska,” Arkheologiia 2 (1960), no. 1, 15–22. However, the most radical arguments were presented by Dimităr Krăndzhalov, who went as far as to claim that Bulgarian nationalism was the only reason for identifying the ruins near the village of Aboba with Pliska. See Dimităr Krăndzhalov, “Teoriia o prabolgarskom proiskhozhdenii kreposti u derevni Aboby (Pliska) v severovostochnoi Bolgarii,” Sborník Filozofickej fakulty Univerzity Komenského - Historica 15 (1964), 31–45; Dimităr Krăndzhalov, “Is the fortress at Aboba identical with Pliska, the oldest capital of Bulgaria?” Slavia Antiqua 13 (1966), 444–45. Krăndzhalov accused the excavators at Pliska of falsifying their data and hiding evidence in order to promote what he saw as the myth of Bulgar Pliska. He succeeded in fostering skepticism about Pliska’s Bulgar origins and in injecting among Bulgarian scholars a grain of self-­ consciousness about “bourgeois and nationalist tendencies.” Without ever citing Krăndzhalov (because he was one of the excavators of Pliska that Krăndzhalov accused of falsification), Milchev shared his skepticism about the Bulgar character of the medieval culture in Bulgaria. See Atanas Milchev, “Zur Frage der materiellen Kultur und der Kunst der Slawen und Protobulgaren in den bulgarischen Ländern während des frühen Mittelalters,“ Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift 8 (1967), 119–50. For Văzharova’s reaction to Mikhailov and Krăndzhalov’s theories, see Văzharova, “K voprosu.” 36. Stanilov, Review. Stanilov had been Văzharova’s doctoral student, and his attack must have been particularly hurtful. 37. Todor Zhivkov and Liudmila Zhivkova, 13th Centennial Jubilee of the Bulgarian State (Sofia: Sofia Press, 1981). A very popular personality during the last decade of Bulgarian Communism, Liudmila Zhivkova was responsible for an almost occult emphasis on the Bulgar component of Bulgarian history. For her life and activity, see Bogomil Raionov, Liudmila: mechti i dela (Sofia: Kameliia, 2003). 38. Stanilov, Review, p. 65. 39. Something of that professional ethics may have been transmitted to her only female student, Liudmila Doncheva-Petkova. Her monograph, Praba ̆lgarskiiat nekropol pri Balchik. (Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov”, 2016), was reviewed very harshly by KomatarovaBalinova, “‘Prabălgarite’.” To this day, Doncheva-Petkova has not

 CONCLUSION 

161

responded to that devastating critique. Instead, the reply came from Mariia Khristova-Penkova, “Za ‘priiatelite na Sokrat’ i prabălgarite pri Balchik (po povod edna recenziia),” Prinosi kam ̆ ba ̆lgarskata arkheologiia 9 (2019), 165–90. However, unlike Văzharova’s adversaries, DonchevaPetkova’s detractor and defender are both relatively young female archaeologists. 40. Comşa, “Slavii pe teritoriul RPR,” p. 68; Comşa, “Discuţii,” p. 163 n. 3. Comşa accused Nestor of denying the existence of the Eastern Slavs on the territory of Romania (Comşa, “Slavii pe teritoriul RPR,” p. 68 n. 3). This was a serious charge, as the Eastern Slavs were regarded at that time as the ancestors of the Slavic peoples inside the Soviet Union (Russians, Bielorussians, and Ukrainians). The implication of Comşa’s charge was that Nestor denied the (beneficial) influence of the Soviet Union over Romania. 41. Comşa, “Slavii pe teritoriul RPR,” p. 76 n. 2. 42. Comşa, “Discuti̧ i,” pp. 159–60. Nestor’s insistence on the Prague type derives from his desire to deny any influence of the eastern Slavs. The pottery from Sărata Monteoru may have been Slavic, but it was West, not East Slavic. 43. Maria Chişvasi-Comşa, “Unele concluzii istorice pe baza ceramicii din secolele VI–XII,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 8 (1957), nos. 1–4, 268 with n. 9. 44. Comşa, “Discuţii,” pp. 161–62. Moreover, Nestor could not even grasp the concept that the West Slavic pottery from Nuşfalău and Someşeni was wheel-, not handmade. 45. Comşa, “Discut ̧ii,” p. 164 n. 5. 46. Ioan Opriş, Istoricii şi securitatea, vol. 1. (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 2004), p. 64. 47. Comşa, “Nekotorye istoricheskie vyvody,” p. 309. 48. Nestor, “Slavii.” 49. Comşa, “Slavii,” pp. 734, 740, and 744. 50. Maria Comşa, “Contribuţii la cunoaşterea culturii străromâne în lumina săpăturilor de la Bucov, Studii şi cercetar̆ i de istorie veche 10 (1959), no. 1, 81–99; Comşa, “Cu privire la evolut ̧ia.” 51. Comşa, “La civilisation balkano-danubienne,” p. 427. 52. Ion Nestor, “Cu privire la dezvoltarea cercetării istoriei comunei primitive în România,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 16 (1965), no. 3, 423; Comşa, “Cu privire la caracterul organizării social-economice.” Copiously citing from the treatise of Romanian history, Comşa’s response does not even mention Nestor’s name, much less citing his works. 53. Nestor, “Principalele realizări,” p.  13. See Curta, “Marksizm” for Comşa’s Marxism and her use of Stahl’s theories.

162 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

54. To be sure, in the immediate aftermath of the polemic, Nestor, “L’établissement,” p. 447 rejected the idea of a blanket attribution of all “Slavic” bow fibulae to the Slavs, and especially to those Antes supposedly based in the Middle Dnieper region. He cited Comşa and Ionescu, “O fibulă ‘digitată’,” p.  420 as illustration of that wrong attribution. However, the main target of that criticism was Joachim Werner, “Slawische Bügelfibeln des 7. Jahrhunderts,” in Reinecke Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke am 25. September 1947, edited by G.  Behrens (Mainz: E.  Schneider, 1950), pp.  150–72, and Joachim Werner, “Neues zur Frage der slawischen Bügelfibeln aus süd-­ osteuropäischen Ländern,” Germania 38 (1960), 120. 55. Dan Gh. Teodor, “Slavii la nordul Dunării de Jos în secolele VI-VII d. H.,” Arheologia Moldovei 27 (1994), 225 with n. 13. 56. Dan Gh. Teodor, “Fibule ‘digitate’ din secolele VI-VII în spati̧ ul carpato-­ dunăreano-­pontic,” Arheologia Moldovei 15 (1992), 120 with n. 12. 57. Dan Gh. Teodor, “Apartenenta̧ etnică a culturii Dridu,” Cercetări istorice 4 (1973), 130 with n. 34. The idea of Comşa misdating the two sites she had excavated in Bucov was then repeated by Petre Diaconu in his review of her monograph of the site (Diaconu, Review, 472–73). It is important to note that Teodor had initially adopted Comşa’s ideas about the Balkan-­ Danubian culture; see Dan Gh. Teodor, “Le haut féodalisme sur le territoire de la Moldavie à la lumière des données archéologiques,” Dacia 9 (1965), 334 with n. 77. 58. Radu Harhoiu, “Quellenlage und Forschungsstand der Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens im 6.-7. Jahrhunderts,” Dacia 43–45 (1999–2001), 115 with n. 57. 59. Harhoiu, “Quellenlage,” 137 with n. 192. 60. Diaconu, Review, pp. 474–75. 61. Diaconu, Review, p. 470. Comşa claimed to be the first to derive the early medieval potter’s marks on the bottom of vessels thrown on a tournette from Roman pottery. Petre Diaconu had to remind her that he was the first to make that discovery (Diaconu, Review, p. 472 with n. 13). 62. Diaconu, Review, p. 473. This may have well been some kind of payback for Maria Comşa’s dismissing in an earlier study Diaconu’s dating to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries of the ceramic material from settlement sites in Bucharest that were otherwise dated to the sixth and seventh centuries. See Comşa, “Slavii pe teritoriul RPR,” p. 66 n. 5, in reference to Petre Diaconu, “Observat ̧ii asupra ceramicii din secolele XII-XIII de pe teritoriul oraşului Bucureşti,” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 9 (1958), no. 2, 451–59. 63. Diaconu, Review, p. 474.

 CONCLUSION 

163

64. Diaconu, Review, p. 471. By means of an interrobang in that same paragraph, Diaconu mocks Comşa’s far-fetched conclusion that the inhabitants of Bucov were also extracting oil. 65. Diaconu, Review, p. 473 with n. 15. To be sure, Diaconu’s own bibliographical reference is wrong. He cites an article (no title is indicated) of Kolchin supposedly published in 1958  in volume 38 of the series Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR. The volume with that number in that series is S.  N. Bibikov, Rannetripol’skie poselenie LukaVrubleveckaia na Dnestre: k istorii rannikh zemeledel’chesko-skotovodcheskikh plemen na i­ ugo-­vostoke Evropy. There is no article by Boris A. Kolchin in that book, which was published in 1953, not 1958. 66. Diaconu, Review, p. 473 with n. 19. 67. Ioan Stanciu, Așezarea de la Lazuri-Lubi tag (jud. Satu Mare). Aspecte ale locuirii medievale timpurii în nord-vestul României (Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2016), pp. 73 and 219–20. 68. Anghelinu, “Failed revolution,” p. 31. Those with positions of authority in archaeology and with “clients” eager to promote their ideas formed a restricted group of “cultural mandarins” (Anghelinu, “Failed revolution,” p. 20). 69. Györffy and Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény,” p. 114. 70. Györffy and Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény,” p. 113. This is strikingly similar to what Imre Boba, Moravia’s History Reconsidered. A Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971), p. 2 had to say about the “patrimonial principality” of Moravia. 71. The only item in his list of publications that is somehow related to the topic of ninth-century Pannonia was published in the same year as Sós’s thesis defense: György Györffy, “Die Erinnerung an das großmährische Fürstentum,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17 (1965), 41–45. 72. Györffy and Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény,” p. 115. Bóna had defended his own thesis in 1961 and had been appointed assistant professor at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. In 1965, the year of Sós’s defense, he had just taken over the teaching of archaeology, after the retirement of János Banner. 73. Györffy and Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény,” p. 116. 74. Györffy and Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény,” p. 118. Sós is to be chided for not going “deeper” into the question of the non-Slavic population of Pannonia—the Avars (Györffy and Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény,” p.  117). This remark is the first sign of ideas championed in the late 1960s. According to Gyula László, “A ‘kettős honfoglalás’-ról,” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 97 (1970), 161–90, the Avar population survived the Frankish onslaught in Pannonia to be later assimilated with the

164 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

Hungarians. Thus, the arrival of the Magyars in the late ninth century was a “second conquest,” with the Avars now effectively claimed as ancestors of modern Hungarians. 75. Györffy and Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény,” p. 119. According to Bóna, those were Southern Slavs coming from the northwestern Bulgaria or northeastern Yugoslavia, pushed out of their lands by the Bulgars. 76. Györffy and Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény,” p. 119. Bóna refers here to Comşa’s concept of Balkan-Danubian culture, which was meant to counter Nestor’s Dridu culture (Comşa, “La civilisation balkano-danubienne”). 77. Ágnes Cs. Sós, “Válasz György Györffy és Bóna István opponensi birálataira,” Archaeologiai Értesitő 95 (1968), 121. 78. Sós, “Válasz,” p. 122. 79. Sós, “Válasz,” p. 121. Sós played Comşa against Bóna to reach conclusions similar to those that have inspired Nestor to oppose Comşa. In both the Hungarian and the Romanian case, “our Slavs” are Western, not Eastern Slavs, because the latter are associated with Russians and the Soviet occupation. Sós, “Válasz,” p.  123 mentioned having consulted Comşa as a specialist in early medieval pottery. 80. Sós, “Válasz,” p. 123, sarcastically noted that archaeological sources play a very important role in gauging the social level of Moravian society in the ninth century, whether that is done by qualified or less qualified scholars. 81. Sós, “Válasz,” p. 123. 82. Sós, “Válasz,” p. 124. 83. Melinda Kalmár, Ennivaló és hozomány. A kora kádárizmus ideológiája (Budapest: Magvető kiadó, 1998). The slogan of the Kádár era was meant in contrast to that of the previous, Stalinist era—“those who are not with us are against us.” 84. Stefan Albrecht, Geschichte der Grossmährenforschung in den Tschechischen Ländern und in der Slowakei (Prague: Slovanský ústav AV Č R/ Euroslavica, 2003), p. 203. 85. For the exhibit, see The Great Moravia Exhibition: 1100 Years of Tradition of State and Cultural Life, edited by Jan Filip (Prague: Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 1964). 86. The only Hungarian scholar taking interest in the Czechoslovak excavations on Moravian sites was Béla Szőke, “Staré Město középkori temetője,” Archaeologiai Értesitő 83 (1956), 227–30. Moreover, until that moment the entire discussion about Slavs in the medieval history of Hungary was based primarily on linguistic sources (place names and Slavic loans in the Hungarian language). This was the observation from which Sós began the research leading to her thesis. See István Kniezsa, “A honfoglalás előtti szlávok nyelve a Dunántúlon.” Magyar tudományos

 CONCLUSION 

165

Akadémia Társadalmi. Történeti tudományok osztályának közleményei 3 (1952), 373–97; Elemer Moór, “Zur Geschichte südslawischer Völkerschaften im Karpatenbecken.” Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8 (1962), 267–312. 87. Györffy and Bóna, “Opponensi vélemény,” pp. 113 and 116. 88. Her merits continued to be recognized after 1965, the year of her defense. Only a few years later, István Bóna, “Ein Vierteljahrhundert Völkerwanderungszeitforschung in Ungarn,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 23 (1971), 303 and 305 cited Sós as a scholarly authority on things Slavic in Hungary. Doubts about her excavation methods were raised only a decade later, and criticism of her interpretation came first from an art historian (Sándor Tóth), and only later from an archaeologist (Béla Miklós Szőke). It is important to note that Sós responded angrily to the latter, but not to the former. 89. Thomas von Bogyay, “Szent István korabeli oltár töredéke Zalavárról a Vasvármegyei Múzeumban,” Dunántúli szemle 8 (1941), 88–93; “Izkopavanja v Zalavaru in nijhova zgodovinska razlaga,” Zbornik na umetnostno zgodovino 2 (1952), 211–48; “Mosapurc und Zalavár.” Südost-­Forschungen 14 (1955), 52–70; Thomas von Bogyay, “Kontinuitätsprobleme im karolingischen Unterpannonien. Methodios’ Wirken in Mosapurc im Lichte der Quellen und Funde,” in Das östliche Mitteleuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Acta Congressus historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis in memoriam SS. Cyrilli et Methodii anno 1963 celebrati, edited by Franz Zagiba (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1966), pp.  62–68. Sós, Die Ausgrabungen, p.  118 mentioned Bogyay’s works and the fact that his arguments rooted in art history confirmed her own conclusions derived from the archaeological research. For Bogyay and Zalavár, see also Béla Miklós Szőke, “Bogyay Tamás és a Karoling-kori Mosaburg/Zalavár,” Ars Hungarica 38 (2012), 62–76. 90. Zsolt K.  Lengyel, Der gelehrsame Exilant. Eine kleine Biographie des Historikers Thomas von Bogyay (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 2018), pp. 168–69. Although a persona non grata in Hungary because of his work for Radio Free Europe, Bogyay maintained close contacts with many Hungarian historians and archaeologists. 91. In addition, she received both the prize of the Ministry of Culture and the Bálint Kuszinszky Award after the publication of her book in Germany (Sós, Die slawische Bevölkerung). 92. Zoll-Adamikowa obtained her graduate degree from Poznań at a moment of great impetus in the development of archaeology in Poland. The years 1955 and 1956 are the graduation peak of the 35-year period (1945–1980) during which seven universities in the country offered degrees in that discipline. Although the discipline was male-dominated, the ratio of male

166 

F. CURTA AND I. STAMATI

and female graduates was almost 1:1. The largest number of female graduates specialized in medieval archaeology. See Ludomir R. Lozny, “Polish archaeology in retrospective,” in Comparative Archaeologies. A Sociological view of the Science of the Past. Edited by Ludomir R. Lozny (New York: Springer, 2011), pp. 197 and 202; 198 fig. 2 and Table 1; 208 fig. 14. 93. Ga ̨ssowski, “Archaeology and Marxism,” p. 109. See also Buko, “Early medieval archaeology,” p. 371. 94. Ga ̨ssowski, “Archaeology and Marxism,” p. 112. Hensel became director of the Institute in 1955, the same year in which Zoll-Adamikowa obtained her graduate degree from Poznań. When moving to Warsaw, he insisted on keeping his teaching position, and “arranged for the o ­ rganization of the Chair of Slavic Archaeology at Warsaw University for him” (Ga ̨ssowski, “Archaeology and Marxism,” p. 115). 95. Dekówna, “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamik,” p. 141. 96. Zoll-Adamikowa, Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzyska szkieletowe ́ Małopolski. Zródła. Prior to Zoll-Adamikowa’s book, the only few publications dedicated to that topic were simple information notes about recent excavations: Wojciech Szymański, “Badania wykopaliskowe na wczesnośredniowiecznym cmentarzysku szkieletowym w Goryslawicach, pow. Busko w 1958 roku,” Wiadomoscí Archeologiczne 26 (1959), 316–18; Wojciech Szymański, “Badania na cmentarzysko szkieletowym w Goryslawicach, pow. Busko, w 1959 r., Wiadomos ́ci Archeologiczne 28 (1962), 81–82; Henryk Wiklak, “Cmentarzysko z XII w. w Da ̨browie Zielonej, pow. Radomsko,” Wiadomoscí Archeologiczne 29 (1963), 360. 97. At stake may have also been the question of whether unlike the rest of Poland, Lesser Poland received the influence of Christianity from Great Moravia a century before the conversion of Duke Mieszko (966), and if so, whether or not the Old Church Slavonic liturgy was used in the lands north of the Carpathian Mountains. See Stanisław Rospond, “Problem liturgii słowiańskiej w południowej Polsce,” Silesia antiqua 9 (1967), 128–42; Zoll-Adamikowa, “Zur Frage.” For the desire of the Communist authorities of Poland to derail the Catholic Church’s initiative to celebrate the Sacrum Poloniae Millennium by means of a rival state jubilee, which stressed either secular developments or Christian influences from the “East” (as opposed to Rome), see Bartłomiej Noszczak, “History as a tool in the state’s struggle against the Catholic Church during the OneThousand Years of the Polish State (1956–1966/1967),” in The Dawning of Christianity in Poland and across Central and Eastern Europe. History and the Politics of Memory. Edited by Igor Ka ̨kolewski, Przemyslaw Urbánczyk and Christian Lübke (Berlin/Bern: Peter Lang, 2020), pp. 241–77.

 CONCLUSION 

167

98. Zoll-Adamikowa, Wczesnos ́redniowieczne cmentarzyska szkieletowe Małopolski. Analiza. The award (Odznaka 1000-lecia Państwa Polskiego) was introduced in 1960 by the National Committee of the Unity Front of the Nation for individuals who had distinguished themselves in the social activities surrounding the celebration of the Millennium. Many other women received the award—former participants in the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, workers, farmers, actresses, explorers, judges, biochemists, doctors, ethnographers, educators, poets, and historians, in addition to three archaeologists (Helena Cehak-Hołubiczowa, Wanda Sarnowska, and Zofia Podkowińska). However, all were between three and 39 years older than Zoll-Adamikowa. Only 35 in 1966, she was the youngest female recipient of the award. 99. Zoll-Adamikowa, Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzyska ciałopalne Słowian ́ na terenie Polski. Zródła and Wczesnos ́redniowieczne cmentarzyska ciałopalne Słowian na terenie Polski. Analiza. Instituted in 1962, the award “for monument preservation” was bestowed upon several other women—historians and art historians, museum curators, geologists, ethnographers, and painters, both older and younger than Zoll-Adamikowa. She was one of only two female recipients who were archaeologists (the other being Wanda Sarnowska). 100. Elżbieta Da ̨browska, Wielkie grody dorzecza górnej Wisły. Ze studiów nad rozwojem organizacji terytorialno-plemiennej w VIII-X wieku (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973). 101. Marek Kra ̨piec, “Bezwględne datowanie zwęglonego drewna z walu 3b wczesnośredniowiecznego grodziska w Stradowie,” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 50 (1998), 265–70; Zoll-Adamikowa, “Problem datowania.” 102. Zoll-Adamikowa, “Wczesnośredniowieczne półziemianki.” 103. The Golden Cross of Merit is the highest grade of a state decoration established in Poland in 1923 to recognize services to the state. Zoll-­ Adamikowa was the first female archaeologist to receive the decoration after 1989. 104. Dekówna, “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamik,” p. 143. 105. Sedov, “Pogrebal’nyi obriad,” p.  175; Béla Miklós Szőke and László Vándor, “8–9. századi birituális temető Zalakomár határában,” Zalai Gyűjtemény 18 (1993), 84; Sebastian Brather, “‘Germanische’, ‘slawische’ und ‘deutsche’ Sachkultur des Mittelalters—Probleme ethnischer Interpretation,” Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift 37 (1996), 193–94.

Bibliography

Abramowicz, Andrzej. Historia archeologii polskiej. XIX i XX wiek. Warsaw/Łódź: Ossolineum, 1991. Adams, William Y. “On migration and diffusion as rival paradigms.” In Diffusion and Migration: Their Roles in Cultural Development, edited by P.  G. Duke, J.  Ebert, G.  Langemann, and A.  P. Buchner, 1–5. Calgary: University of Calgary, 1978. Aksareeva, V. G. “Gendernyi vzgliad na memuary Praskov’i Sergeevny Uvarovoi.” Vestnik Udmurtskogo Universiteta (2009), no. 2: 138–47. Aksenova, E. P. “Slavianskaia ideia i sovetskoe slavianovedenie pered Vtoroi mirovoi voiny.” In Slavianskaia ideia: istoriia i sovremennost’, edited by V. A. D’iakov, 160–73. Moscow: Logos, 1998. Aksenova, E.  P. Ocherki iz istorii otechestvennogo slavianovedeniia 1930e gody. Moscow: Institut slavianovedeniia RAN, 2000. Aladzhov, Zhivko. “Dimităr Savov Ovcharov na 65 zhodini i 40 godini tvorcheska deinost.” Arkheologiia 38 (1996), nos. 2–3: 95–97. Albrecht, Stefan. Geschichte der Grossmährenforschung in den Tschechischen Ländern und in der Slowakei. Prague: Slovanský ústav AV Č R/Euroslavica, 2003. Alpatov, Vladmir M. Istoriia odnogo mifa. Marr i marrizm. Moscow: Nauka, 2011. Ananieva, Nora. “Women and science in Bulgaria: the long hurdle-race.” In Women in Science, Token Women or Gender Equality?, edited by Veronica Stolte-­ Heiskanen, Feride Acar, Nora Ananieva, and Dorothea Gaudart, 95–117. Oxford/New York: BERG 1991. Ananieva, Elena, and Evka Razvigorova. “Women in state administration in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria.” Women & Politics 11 (1991), no. 4: 31–40. Anderson, Perry. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: N. L. B., 1974a. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6

169

170 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Perry. Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. London: NLB, 1974b. Angelov, Dimităr. Spomeni. Sofia: Paradigma, 2004. Angelov, Dimităr, and Dimităr Ovcharov. “Slawen, Protobulgaren und das Volk der Bulgaren.” In Welt der Slawen. Geschichte, Gesellschaft, Kultur, edited by Joachim Herrmann, 57–80. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1986. Angelova, Stefka. “Profesor Atanas Milchev na 80 godini.” In Sbornik izsledvaniia v chest na profesor Atanas Milchev, edited by Stefka Angelova, Zlatozara Gocheva, and Tatiana Stefanova, 7–21. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Okhridski”, 2002. Anghelinu, Mircea. Evoluti̧ a gândirii teoretice în arheologia din România. Concepte şi modele aplicate în preistorie. Târgovişte: Cetatea de Scaun, 2003. Anghelinu, Mircea. “Failed revolution: Marxism and the Romanian prehistoric archaeology between 1945 and 1989.” Archaeologia Bulgarica 11 (2007), no. 1: 1–36. Artamonov, Mikhail I. “Trudy tovarishcha Stalina po voprosam iazykoznaniia i sovetskaia arkheologiia.” Sovetskaia arkheologiia 15 (1951): 7–16. Babeş, Mircea. “Marile etape ale dezvoltării arheologiei în România.” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 32 (1981), no. 3: 319–30. Bailey, Douglass W. “Bulgarian archaeology. Ideology, sociopolitics and the exotic.” In Archaeology under Fire. Nationalism, Politics, and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, edited by Lynn Meskell, 87–110. London/New York: Routledge, 1998. Bakó, Géza “Despre organizarea obştilor săteşti ale epocii feudale timpurii în sud-­ estul României.” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie 26 (1975), no. 3: 371–80. Bardolph, Dana N. “A critical evaluation of recent gendered publishing trends in American archaeology.” American Antiquity 79 (2014), no. 3: 522–40. Barford, Paul M. “Paradigms lost: Polish archaeology and post-War politics.” Archaeologia Polona 31 (1993): 257–70. Barford, Paul M. “Marksizm w archeologii polskiej w latach 1945–1975.” Archeologia Polski 40 (1995): 7–75. Barford, Paul M. “Reflections on J. Lech’s vision of the history of ‘Polish’ archaeology.” Archaeologia Polona 40 (2002): 171–84. Barford, Paul M., and Stanisław Tabaczyński. “Polish archaeology: reality and challenges of the 1990s.” World Archaeological Bulletin 8 (1996): 153–76. Bartosiewicz, László. “Archaeology in Hungary, 1948–1989.” In Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 195–233. Cham: Springer, 2016. Bartosiewicz, László, Dóra Mérai, and Péter Csippán. “Dig up-dig in: practice and theory in Hungarian archaeology.” In Comparative Archaeologies. A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 273–337. New York: Springer, 2011.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

171

Bârzu, Ligia. Ein gepidisches Denkmal aus Siebenbürgen. Das Gräberfeld 3 von Bratei. Cluj-Napoca: Accent, 2010. Baumann, Mariusz. “From problems of the origin and collapse of Yugoslavian zadruga.” Ethnologia Polona 8 (1982): 131–41. Beleckii, Sergei V., and Ol’ga A. Shcheglova. “Svetloi pamiati Marii Vladimirovny i Valentina Vasil’evicha Sedovykh.” Stratum+ (2005–2009), no. 5: 11–17. Bender, Susan J. “Marian E. White: pioneer in New York archaeology.” In Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen, 85–95. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. Birtašević, Marija. “Pechati na slovenskoj keramici u nekim muzejma Srbije i Vojvodine.” Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja 5 (1956): 159–62. Boba, Imre. Moravia’s History Reconsidered. A Reinterpretation of Medieval Sources. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971. Bobrinskii, Aleksandr A. Goncharstvo Vostochnoi Evropy. Istochniki i metody izucheniia. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. Bogyay, Thomas von. “Szent István korabeli oltár töredéke Zalavárról a Vasvármegyei Múzeumban.” Dunántúli szemle 8 (1941): 88–93. Bogyay, Thomas von. “Izkopavanja v Zalavaru in nijhova zgodovinska razlaga.” Zbornik na umetnostno zgodovino 2 (1952): 211–48. Bogyay, Thomas von. “Mosapurc und Zalavár.” Südost-Forschungen 14 (1955): 52–70. Bogyay, Thomas von. “Kontinuitätsprobleme im karolingischen Unterpannonien. Methodios’ Wirken in Mosapurc im Lichte der Quellen und Funde.” In Das östliche Mitteleuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Acta Congressus historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis in memoriam SS. Cyrilli et Methodii anno 1963 celebrati, edited by Franz Zagiba, 62–68. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1966. Boia, Lucian. Istorie şi mit în conştiint ̦a românească. Bucharest: Humanitas, 1997. Bolger, Diane L. “Ladies of the expedition: Harriet Boyd Hawes and Edith Hall at work in Mediterranean archaeology.” In Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen, 41–50. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. Bóna, István. “Opponensi vélemény. Cs. Sós Ágnes, ‘A Dunántúl IX. századi szláv népessége’ c. kandidátusi értekezéséről.” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 95 (1968): 112–24. Bóna, István. “Ein Vierteljahrhundert Völkerwanderungszeitforschung in Ungarn.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 23 (1971): 265–336. Bourdieu, Pierre. “La spécificité du champ scientifique et les conditions sociales du progrès de la raison.” Sociologie et sociétés 7 (1975): 91–118. Bourdieu, Pierre. Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie clinique du champ scientifique. Paris: INRA Editions, 1997.

172 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowler, Sandra, and Genevieve Clune. “That shadowy band: the role of women in the development of Australian archaeology.” Australian Archaeology 50 (2000): 27–35. Brather, Sebastian. “‘Germanische’, ‘slawische’ und ‘deutsche’ Sachkultur des Mittelalters  - Probleme ethnischer Interpretation.” Ethnographisch-­ archäologische Zeitschrift 37 (1996): 177–216. Brown, Heather H. Marx on Gender and the Family. A Critical Study. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2012. Bruche-Schulz, Gisela. “Marr, Marx and linguistics in the Soviet Union.” Historiographia Linguistica 20 (1993), nos. 2–3: 455–72. Bruevich, N.  G. “O plane nauchno-issledovatel’skikh rabot Akademii nauk na 1946 god.” In Obshchee sobranie Akademii nauk SSSR 15–19 ianvaria 1946 goda, 129–39. Moscow/Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akdaemii Nauk SSSR, 1946. Buckley, Mary. Women and Ideology in the Soviet Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1989. Buko, Andrzej. “Ceramology and medieval pottery research in Poland.” Archaeologia Polona 30 (1992): 5–25. Buko, Andrzej. “Early medieval archaeology in Poland: the beginnings and development stages.” Post-classical Archaeologies 2 (2012): 361–78. Č ernohorský, Karel. “Keramika a feudalismus.” Č eský lid 40 (1953): 21–31. Chaianov, Aleksandr V. Organizaciia sievernago krest’ianskago khoziaistva. Iaroslavl’: Iaroslavskii kreditnyi soiuz kooperativov, 1918. Chernecov, Aleksei V. “Valentin Vasil’evich Sedov.” Rossiiskaia arkheologiia (2004), no. 4: 5–7. Chernecov, Aleksei V. “Krupnyi uchenyi, nepovtorimaia lichnost. K 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia akademika B. A. Rybakova.” Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk 78 (2008), no. 6: 538–43. Chetraru, Nicolae. Din istoria arheologiei Moldovei. Chişinău: Ştiint ̦a, 1994. Childe, Vere Gordon. Scotland Before the Scots. London: Methuen, 1946. Chimiak, Galia. “Bulgarian and Polish women in the public sphere.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 5 (2003): 3–27. Chirică, Vasile, and Dan Aparaschivei. Institutul de Arheologie Iaşi. Iaşi: Helios, 2004. Chişvasi-Comşa, Maria. Review of “Edin starinen nekropol pri Novi Pazar” by Stamen Mikhailov, Izvestiia Institut XX, 1955. Dacia 1 (1957a): 369–71. Chişvasi-Comşa, Maria. “Unele concluzii istorice pe baza ceramicii din secolele VI-XII.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 8 (1957b), nos. 1–4: 267–94. Chişvasi-Comşa, Maria. “O jucărie în formă de pîine descoperită la Garvăn.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 9 (1958), no. 2: 425–27. Chişvasi-Comşa, Maria. “Contribuţii la cunoaşterea culturii străromâne în lumina săpăturilor de la Bucov.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 10 (1959a), no. 1: 81–99.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

173

Chişvasi-Comşa, Maria. “Săpăturile de la Bucov (r. şi reg. Ploieşti).” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 5 (1959b): 495–500. Chişvasi-Comşa, Maria. “Cîteva date arheologice în legătură cu stăpînirea bulgară la nordul Dunării.” In Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu prilejul împlinirii a 60 ani, 69–81. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RPR, 1960a. Chişvasi-Comşa, Maria. “Săpăturile de la Bucov (r. şi reg. Ploieşti).” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 6 (1960b): 567–78. Cholov, Petăr. Bălgarski istorici. Biografichno-bibliografski spravochnik. Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov”, 1999. Ciupercă, Bogdan. “Maria Comșa și arheologia mileniului I de la Curbura Carpat ̦ilor.” In Arheologia mileniului I p. Chr. IV. Nomazi și autohtoni în mileniul I p. Chr., edited by Bogdan Ciupercă, 19–32. Brăila: Istros, 2015. Classsen, Cheryl. “Homophobia and women archaeologists.” World Archaeology 32 (2000), no. 2: 173–79. Coblenz, Werner. “Archaeology under Communist control: the German Democratic Republic, 1945–1990.” In Archaeology, Ideology, and Society. The German Experience, edited by Heinrich Härke, 304–38. Frankfurt a.M./ Berlin/Bern: Peter Lang, 2000. Cockburn, Cynthia. “Standpoint theory.” In Marxism and Feminism, edited by Shahrzad Mojab, 331–46. London: Zen Books, 2015. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990. Coltofean, Laura. “Zsófia Torma: a pioneer of prehistoric archaeology in nineteenth-­century Transylvania.” In Adalbert Cserni and his Contemporaries. The Pioneers of Archaeology in Alba Iulia and Beyond, edited by Csaba Szabó, Viorica Rusu-Bolindeţ, Gabriel Tiberiu Rustoiu, and Mihai Gligor, 327–54. Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2017. Comşa, Alexandra. “Introduction. Eugen Comşa.” In Western-Pontic Culture and Ambience and Pattern. In Memory of Eugen Comşa, edited by Lolita Nikolova, Marco Merlini, and Alexandra Comşa, xiv–xvi. Warsaw/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017. Chişvasi-Comşa, Maria. “Nekotorye istoricheskie vyvody v sviazi s neskol’kimi arkheologicheskimi pamiatnikami VI-XII vv. n. e. na territorii RNR.” Dacia 1 (1957c): 309–27. Comşa, Maria. “Contributi̧ i la cunoaşterea culturii străromâne în lumina săpăturilor de la Bucov.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 10 (1959a), no. 1: 81–99. Comşa, Maria. “Kurganyi mogil’nik s truposozhzheniem v Nushfaleu.” Dacia 3 (1959b): 525–34. Comşa, Maria. “Slavii pe teritoriul RPR în sec. VI-X în lumina cercetărilor arheologice.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 10 (1959c), no. 1: 65–80. Comşa, Maria. “Die bulgarische Herrschaft nördlich der Donau während des IX. und X.  Jhs. im Lichte der archäologische Forschung.” Dacia 4 (1960a): 395–422.

174 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comşa, Maria. “Discut ̧ii în legătură cu pătrunderea şi aşezarea slavilor pe teritoriul RPR.” Studii şi cercetar̆ i de istorie veche 11 (1960b), no. 1: 159–66. Comşa, Maria. “Slavii.” In Istoria Romîniei, edited by Constantin Daicoviciu, Emil Condurachi, Ion Nestor, and Gheorghe Ştefan, vol. 1, 728–54. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RPR, 1960c. Comşa, Maria. “Cu privire la semnificaţia mărcilor de olar din epoca feudală timpurie.” Studii şi cercetar̆ i de istorie veche 12 (1961a), no. 2: 291–305. Comşa, Maria. “Două fibule digitate descoperite în Oltenia.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 12 (1961b), no. 1: 105–07. Comşa, Maria. “Eindringungen der Slawen in das Gebiet der RVR im 6.-9. Jahrhundert u. Z.” In Bericht über den V. internationalen Kongreß für Vor- und Frügeschichte, Hamburg vom 24. bis 30. August, 1958, 197–200. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961c. Comşa, Maria. “O znachenii goncharnykh kleit rannefeodal’noi epoch.” Dacia 5 (1961d): 449–61. Comşa, Maria. “Săpăturile de la Bucov (r. şi reg. Ploieşti).” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 7 (1961e): 541–50. Comşa, Maria. “Săpăturile de la Nuşfalău (r. Şimleu, reg. Oradea).” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 7 (1961f): 519–29. Comşa, Maria. “Semne din epoca feudală timpurie incizate pe o coloană romano-­ bizantină.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 13 (1962a), no. 1: 177–90. Comşa, Maria. “Znaki rannefeodal’noi epokhi, vrezannie na rimsko-vizantiiskoi kolonne.” Dacia 6 (1962b): 257–68. Comşa, Maria. “Cu privire la evoluţia culturii balcano-dunărene în sec. IX-XI (studiu preliminar).” Studii şi cercetar̆ i de istorie veche 14 (1963a), no. 1: 107–22. Comşa, Maria. “La civilisation balkano-danubienne (IX-e-XI-e siècles) sur le territoire de la RP Roumanie (origine, évolution et appartenance ethnique).” Dacia 7 (1963b): 413–38. Comşa, Maria. “Novye svedeniia o rasselenii slavian na territorii RNR.” Romanoslavica 9 (1963c): 505–29. Comşa, Maria. “Frühmittelalterliche Schriftzeichen auf einer römisch-­ byzantinischen Säule.” Bibliotheca Classica Orientalia 9 (1964a): 330–31. Comşa, Maria. “K voprosu istolkovaniia nekotorykh graffiti iz Basarabi.” Dacia 8 (1964b): 363–70. Comşa, Maria. “Slaves et autochtones sur le territoire de la RP Roumaine aux VI-e et VII-e siècles d. n. è.” In Atti del VI Congresso internazionale delle scienze preistoriche e protoistoriche, edited by Massimo Pallotino and Luigi Cardini, vol. 2, 162–66. Florence: Sansoni, 1965. Comşa, Maria. “Frühawarenzeitliche Funde aus Valea lui Mihai.” Sborník Narodního musea v Praze. Historie 20 (1966), nos. 1–2: 173–74.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

175

Comşa, Maria. “Cu privire la caracterul organizării social-economice şi politice de pe teritoriul ţării noastre în epoca migraţiilor.” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 18 (1967), no. 3: 431–42. Comşa, Maria. “L’influence romaine provinciale sur la civilisation slave l’époque de la formation des états.” Romanoslavica 16 (1968a): 447–60. Comşa, Maria. “Sur l’origine et l’évolution de la civilisation de la population romane et ensuite protoroumaine aux VI-e-X-e siècles sur le territoire de la Roumanie.” Dacia 12 (1968b): 355–80. Comşa, Maria. “Cercetările de la Slon şi importanta̧ lor pentru studiul formării relaţilor feudale la sud de Carpaţi.” Studii şi materiale privitoare la trecutul istoric al judeţului Prahova 2 (1969a): 21–29. Comşa, Maria. “Die Forschungen von Slon und ihre Bedeutung für das Studium der Entwicklung der Feudalbeziehungen südlich der Karpaten.” In Siedlung, Burg und Stadt. Studien zu ihren Anfängen, edited by Karl-Heinz Otto and Joachim Herrmann, 232–38. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1969b. Comşa, Maria. “Ein Begräbnis-Fundverband aus dem 9.-10. Jh. in Fîntînele.” Dacia 13 (1969c): 417–37. Comşa, Maria. “Contribution la question de la pénétration des Slaves au sud du Danube durant les VIe-VIIe siècles d’après quelques données archéologiques de Dobroudja.” In I. Międżynarodowy kongres archeologii słowiańskej. Warszawa 14–18 IX 1965, edited by Witold Hensel, vol. 3, 322–30. Wrocław/Warsaw/ Cracow: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1970a. Comşa, Maria. “Sur le caractère de l’organisation sociale-économique et politique sur le territoire de la Roumanie durant la période de passage la féodalité.” In Nouvelles études d’histoire, vol. 4, 31–46. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1970b. Comşa, Maria. “Töpferöfen aus dem IX.-X. Jahrhundert freigelegt bei Dragosloveni (Kreis Vrancea).” Slovenská Archeológia 18 (1970c), no. 1: 119–27. Comşa, Maria. “Töpferei aus dem 10. Jh. bei Radovanu.” Archeologia Polski 16 (1971), nos. 1–2: 385–99. Comşa, Maria. “Quelques considérations sur l’origine et l’appartenance ethnique des complexes fibules digitées de type Gîmbaş-Coşoveni.” Mitteilungen des archäologischen Instituts der ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1 (1972): 35–40. Comşa, Maria. “Die Slawen im karpatischen-donauländischen Raum im 6.-7. Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für Archäologie 7 (1973a): 197–223. Comşa, Maria. “L’origine des marques de potier sur la céramique slave.” In Berichte über den II. internationalen Kongre für slawische Archäologie. Berlin, 24.-28. August 1970, edited by Joachim Herrmann and Karl-Heinz Otto, vol. 3, 167–73. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973b. Comşa, Maria. “Quelques donnees relatives la chronologie et l’appartenance ethnique des nécropoles de type Moreşti et Band.” In Actes du VIII-e Congrès

176 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Beograd 9–15 septembre 1971, edited by Grga Novak, vol. 3, 309–18. Belgrade: Comité National d’Organisation, 1973c. Comşa, Maria. “Unele consideraţii cu privire la originea şi apartenenţa etnică a complexelor cu fibule digitate de tip Gîmbaş (jud. Alba)-Coşoveni (jud. Dolj).” Apulum 11 (1973d): 259–72. Comşa, Maria. “Unité et diversité de la civilisation slave des VI-e-VII-e siècles.” In VII. Międżynarodowy kongres sławistów, Warszawa, 21–27 VIII 1973. Streszczenia referatówi komunikatów, edited by Witold Doroszewski, 972–73. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1973e. Comşa, Maria. “Einige Betrachtungen über die Ereignisse im 6.-7. Jahrhundert an der unteren Donau.” Slavia Antiqua 21 (1974a): 61–81. Comşa, Maria. “Unele consideraţii privind situaţia de la Dunărea de Jos în secolele VI-VII.” Apulum 12 (1974b): 300–18. Comşa, Maria. Review of Ágnes Cs. Sós, Die slawische Bevölkerung Westungarns im 9. Jahrhundert, Munich, 1973. Dacia 19 (1975a): 330–31. Comşa, Maria. “Socio-economic organisation of the Dacoromanic and Slav population on the Lower Danube during the 6th and 7th centuries.” In Relations Between the Autochthonous Population and the Migratory Populations on the Territory of Romania, edited by Miron Constantinescu, Ştefan Pascu, and Petre Diaconu, 171–200. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1975b. Comşa, Maria. “Unele date privind aşezarea din sec. VI-VII de la Radovanu, jud. Ilfov.” Muzeul Naţional 2 (1975c): 335–41. Comşa, Maria. “La céramique de type byzantin de Bucov-Ploieşti.” In Actes du XIV-e Congrès international des études byzantines, Bucarest, 6–12 septembre 1971, edited by Mihai Berza and Eugen Stănescu, vol. 3, 295–97. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1976. Comşa, Maria. Cultura materiala ̆ veche româneasca ̆ (Aşezările din secolele VIII-X de la Bucov-Ploieşti). Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1978a. Comşa, Maria. “Les formations politiques (cnézats de la vallée) du VIe siècle sur le territoire de la Roumanie.” Prace i materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łódżi 25 (1978b): 109–17. Comşa, Maria. “Tipuri de locuinţe din secolele VIII-X din sudul Munteniei.” In Ilfov-file de istorie, 111–15. Bucharest: (no publisher), 1978c. Comşa, Maria. “Un knézat roumain des X-e-XII-e siècles Slon-Prahova (Etude préliminaire).” Dacia 22 (1978d): 303–17. Comşa, Maria. “Vostochnye elementy v pogrebal’nom obriade kurgannykh mogil’nikov u.s. Nushfaleu i Somesheni (Severo-Zapadnaia Rumyniia).” In Drevniaia Rusi i slaviane, edited by Tat’iana V. Nikolaeva, 96–100. Moscow: Nauka, 1978e. Comşa, Maria. “Ceramica alanică din sec. VIII descoperită în centrul Dobrogei.” Pontica 12 (1979a): 151–56.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

177

Comşa, Maria. “Die örtliche Keramik aus den Siedlungen des 8.-10. Jhs. von Bucov-Ploieşti.” Dacia 23 (1979b): 231–64. Comşa, Maria. “Romans, Germains et Slaves dans le territoire de la Roumanie aux VI-VII-e siècles.” Zbornik narodnog muzeja 9–10 (1979c): 103–20. Comşa, Maria. “Die Keramik von byzantinischen Typus aus den Siedlungen von Bucov-Ploieşti.” Dacia 24 (1980a): 323–39. Comşa, Maria. “Grădinăritul în mileniul I e.n. pe teritoriul României.” Pontica 13 (1980b): 164–84. Comşa, Maria. “Cetatea de lemn din sec. VIII-IX de la Slon-Prahova.” Muzeul Naţional 5 (1981a): 133–36. Comşa, Maria. “Cuptoare de ars oale din secolele VI-VII descoperite la Radovanu-­ Ilfov.” In Studii şi comunicări de istorie a civilizat ̧iei populare din România, edited by Cornel Irimie, Corneliu Bucur, Cornelia Gangolea, and Hedwiga Ruşdea, 241–48. Sibiu/Bucharest: Muzeul Brukenthal/Centrul special de perfecţionare a cadrelor, 1981b. Comşa, Maria. “Contribuţii arheologice privind existenţa unor cnezate şi stabilirea unui drum comercial între Carpaţi şi Dunăre în sec. IX-X.” Muzeul Naţional 6 (1982): 143–47. Comşa, Maria. “Cu privire la originea tipului de bordei cu cuptor scobit din epoca feudală timpurie în zona extracarpatică a României.” Hierasus 5 (1983a): 148–57. Comşa, Maria. “Raport preliminar asupra săpăturilor executate la Slon (jud. Prahova).” Materiale şi cerceta ̆ri arheologice 15 (1983b): 437–38. Comşa, Maria. “Ceramica din pastă caolinoasă din Cîmpia Română şi unele probleme privind legăturile teritoriului de la nord de Dunăre cu Dobrogea în secolele IX-X.” Cultură şi civilizat ̧ie la Duna ̆rea de Jos 1 (1985a): 93–104. Comşa, Maria. “Ritualuri de origine geto-dacă în mormintele de incinerati̧ e din secolele VIII-X din Dobrogea.” Symposia thracologica 3 (1985b): 169. Comşa, Maria. “Einige Betrachtungen über den Kontakt zwischen den slawischen und den bodenständigen romanischen Gemeinschaften im Donau-Karpaten-­ Raum (6. und 7. Jahrhundert).” In Studia nad etnogeneza ̨ Słowian i kultura ̨ Europy wczesnos ́redniowiecznej. Praca zbiorowa, edited by Gerard Labuda and Stanisław Tabaczyński, vol. 1, 65–70. Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/Gdańsk/ Łódż: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1987a. Comşa, Maria. “Izdeliia drevnerusskikh gorodov na territoriiakh k Iugo-Zapadu ot Kievskoi Rusi.” In Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa slavianskoi arkheologii, Kiev 18–25 sentiabria 1985 g., edited by Boris A.  Rybakov, vol. 3, 100–10. Moscow: Institut arkheologii AN SSSR, 1987b. Comşa, Maria. “Romanen, Rumänen und Walachen - Stompfeiler der Antike in der neuen Welt.” Zeitschrift für Archäologie 21 (1987c): 179–92. Comşa, Maria. “Slawen und Awaren auf rumänischem Boden, ihre Beziehungen zu der bodenständigen und späteren frührumänischen Bevölkerung.” In Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert, edited by Bernhard Hänsel, 219–30. Berlin: Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, 1987d.

178 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comşa, Maria. “Tipuri de locuinţe din secolele IX-X de la Radovanu-‘Valea lui Petcu’.” Cultura ̆ şi civilizati̧ e la Dunărea de Jos 5–7 (1988): 143–52. Comşa, Maria. “Betrachtungen über das Diadem von Bălteni im Zusammenhang mit den Ereignissen der Jahre 670/680.” Problemi na prabălgarskata istoriia i kultura 1 (1989a): 77–86. Comşa, Maria. “Rolul mediului natural (munţi, păduri, bălţi) în menţinerea elementului autohton la nord de Dunăre în secolele III-VII.” Hierasus 7–8 (1989b): 259–68. Comşa, Maria. “Considérations relatives à la communauté villageoise en territoire roumain aux VI-VII-e siècles.” In Actes du XII-e Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Bratislava, 1–7 septembre 1991, edited by Juraj Pavuj, vol. 4, 15–17. Bratislava: Institut archéologique de l’Académie Slovaque des Sciences Nitra, 1993. Comşa, Maria. “Consideraţii privind păstoritul pe teritoriul României de la sfârşitul secolului al III-lea până către sfârşitul secolului al XIII-lea.” Litua 6 (1994): 56–70. Comşa, Maria. “Câteva date referitoare la folosirea lutului ars şi nears în ritualul funerar al unor morminte de incinerat ̧ie din secolele VI-X de pe teritoriul României.” Acta Musei Napocensis 33 (1996): 225–37. Comşa, Maria. “Structuri socio-economice din secolele VI-X pe teritoriul României.” Carpica 26 (1997), no. 1: 195–203. Comşa, Maria. “Inscripti̧ ile runice din secolele IX-X descoperite la Slon-Prahova. Notă preliminară.” Muzeul Nat ̧ional 11 (1998a), no. 2: 615–22. Comşa, Maria. “Rolul mediului natural (munţi, păduri, bălţi) în menţinerea elementului autohton la nord de Dunăre în secolele III-VII.” Carpica 27 (1998b): 54–65. Comşa, Maria. “Date privind agricultura în sudul Munteniei în secolele VIII-X.” In Istro-Pontica. Muzeul tulcean la a 50-a aniversare 1950–2000. Omagiu lui Simion Gavrilă la 45 de ani de activitate, 1955–2000, edited by Mihaela Iacob, Ernest Oberländer-Târnoveanu, and Florin Topoleanu, 355–62. Tulcea: Consiliul Judet ̧ean Tulcea, 2000. Comşa, Maria, and Gheorghe Bichir. “Date preliminarii cu privire la necropola de la Păuleasca.” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 24 (1973), no. 2: 317–20. Comşa, Maria, and Gheorghe Constantinescu. “Depozitul de unelte şi arme din epoca feudală timpurie descoperit la Dragosloveni (jud. Vrancea).” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 20 (1969), no. 3: 425–36. Comşa, Maria, and Constantin Deculescu. “Un depozit de unelte şi arme descoperit la Curcani (jud. Ilfov).” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 23 (1972), no. 3: 469–74. Comşa, Maria, and Elena Gheannopoulos. “Unelte şi arme din epoca feudală timpurie descoperite la Radovanu (jud. Ilfov).” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 20 (1969), no. 4: 617–21.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

179

Comşa, Maria, and Doina Ignat. “Gräber aus dem 6. Jh. in Mediaş.” Dacia 15 (1971): 349–51. Comşa, Maria, and Barbu Ionescu. “O fibulă ‘digitată’ descoperită la Căscioarele.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 11 (1960), no. 2: 419–21. Comşa, Maria, Adrian Rădulescu, and Nicolae Harţuche. “Necropola de incineraţie de la Castelu.” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 8 (1962): 649–60. Constantinescu, Miron. “Despre format ̧iunea social-economică tributală.” Probleme economice 26 (1973), no. 4: 51–68. Constantinescu, Nicolae. Coconi. Un sat din Cîmpia Româna ̆ în epoca lui Mircea cel Ba ̆trân. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Române, 1972. Crişan, Ion Horati̧ u. Statul geto-dac. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, 1977. Curta, Florin. “The changing image of the Early Slavs in the Rumanian historiography and archaeological literature. A critical survey.” Südost-Forschungen 53 (1994): 225–310. Curta, Florin. “Pots, Slavs, and ‘imagined communities’: Slavic archaeology and the history of the early Slavs.” European Journal of Archaeology 4 (2001a), no. 3: 367–84. Curta, Florin. The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001b. Curta, Florin. “From Kossinna to Bromley: ethnogenesis in Slavic archaeology.” In On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Andrew Gillett, 201–18. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. Curta, Florin. “Medieval archaeology in South-Eastern Europe.” In Reflections: 50 Years of Medieval Archaeology, 1957–2007, edited by Roberta Gilchrist and Andrew Reynolds, 191–223. London: Maney Publishing, 2009. Curta, Florin. “With brotherly love: the Czech beginnings of medieval archaeology in Bulgaria and Ukraine.” In Manufacturing Middle Ages. Entangled History of Medievalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe, edited by Patrick J. Geary and Gábor Klaniczay, 377–96. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Curta, Florin. “Marksizm v trudakh Marii Komsha.” Stratum+ (2020a), no. 5, 29–41. Curta, Florin. Slavs in the Making. History, Linguistics, and Archaeology in Eastern Europe (ca. 500–ca. 700). London/New York: Routledge, 2020b. Da ̨browska, Elżbieta. Wielkie grody dorzecza górnej Wisły. Ze studiów nad rozwojem organizacji terytorialno-plemiennej w VIII-X wieku. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1973. Da ̨browska, Elżbieta, and Jan Gromnicki. “Grodzisko wczesnośredniowieczne w miejscowości Stradów, pow. Kazimierza Wielka.” Wiadomoscí Archeologiczne 25 (1958): 367–70. Da ̨mbski, Jerzy. Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzysko w Końskich. Wrocław: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955.

180 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dechev, Stefan. “Between Slavs and Old Bulgars: ‘ancestors’, ‘race’ and identity in late nineteenth-century Bulgaria.” In Manufacturing Middle Ages. Entangled History of Medievalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe, edited by Patrick J. Geary and Gábor Klaniczay, 347–76. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013a. Dechev, Stefan. “Who are the Bulgarians? ‘Race’, science and politics in fin-de-­ siècle Bulgaria.” In We, the People. Politics of National Peculiarities in South-­ East Europe, edited by Diana Mishkova, 3–29. Budapest: CEU Press, 2013b. Dekówna, Maria. “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamik (27.03.1931–8.09.2000).” Archeologia Polski 45 (2000), nos. 1–2: 141–53. Diaconu, Petre. “Observat ̧ii asupra ceramicii din secolele XII-XIII de pe teritoriul oraşului Bucureşti.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 9 (1958), no. 2: 451–59. Diaconu, Petre. Review of “Cultura materială veche românească (Aşezările din secolele VIII-X de la Bucov- Ploieşti)” by Maria Comşa, Bucureşti 1978. Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche şi arheologie 30 (1979), no. 3: 469–71. Dmitriev, S.  S. “Nachal puti v drevniuiu Rus’.” Novaia i noveishiia istoriia 3 (1988): 223–25. Distelberger, Anton. Österreichs Awarinnen. Frauen aus Gräbern des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts. St. Pölten: Niederösterreichischer Institut für Landeskunde, 2004. Dobroliubskii, A.  O. Kochevniki Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ia v epokhu srednevekov’ia. Kiev: Naukov Dumka, 1986. Dommasnes, Liv Helga, and Sandra Monton-Subías. “European gender archaeologies in historical perspective.” European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2012), no. 3: 367–91. Doncheva-Petkova, Liudmila. “Zhivka Văzharova - zhivot i tvorcheska deinos,.” Prinosi kăm ba ̆lgarskata arkheologiia 5 (2009): 5–12. Doncheva-Petkova, Liudmila. Praba ̆lgarskiiat nekropol pri Balchik. Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov”, 2016. Dostál, Bor ̌ivoj. “Znački na slovanské keramice ve Znojmě-Hradišti.” Podyjí (1958): 144–48. Dragoman, Radu-Alexandru. Materialitatea experimentului Piteşti. Eseu arheologic despre memoria represiunii şi rezistentȩ i în România comunistă. Baia Mare: Eurotip, 2015. Dragoman, Alexandru, and Sorin Oanţă-Marghitu. “Archaeology in Communist and post-Communist Romania.” Dacia 50 (2006): 57–76. Dumanov, Boian. “Klasovite osnovi na drevnotrakiiskiia element v bălgarskata narodnost i opoziciiata na arkheolozite.” In Sa ̆protivata sreshtu komunisticheskiia rezhim v Bal̆ gariia (1944–1989). Sbornik dokladi ot nauchna konferenciia 23–24.03.2012. Nov Bal̆ garski universitet, 201–20. Sofia: Nov Bălgarski universitet, 2012. Dumanov, Boian. “The idea about ‘trinity’ in formation of Bulgarian nation: Communist perspective and resistance.” In Politichka istorija Slovena izmedu̵ ̵ mita i stvarnosti. Zbornik radova sa medunarodne nauchne konferencije odrzhane

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

181

15. novembra 2019. godine, edited by Sanja Suljagić, 89–110. Belgrade: Institut za političke studije, 2019. Dut ̧u, Aurelia. “Scurt istoric al muzeelor şi colecţiilor din România.” In Muzee şi colect ̧ii din România, edited by Irina Oberländer-Târnoveanu and Aurelia Duţu, 6–12. Bucharest: Institutul de Istorie Culturală, 2009. Eisner, Ján. Devínska Nová Ves. Slovanské pohrě bište ̌. Bratislava: Nákladem Slovanskej Akadémie Vied a Umení, 1952. Ewing, E.  Thomas. “Maternity and modernity: Soviet women teachers and the contradictions of Stalinism.” Women’s History Review 19 (2010), no. 3: 451–77. Fabritius, I. V. Arkheologicheskaia karta Prichernomor’ia Ukrainskoi SSSR. Kiev: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Ukrainskoi SSR, 1951. Fedorov, Georgii B. Brushchatka. Dokumental’nye povesti i rasskazy. Moscow: LIBR, 1997. Fehér, Géza. “Les fouilles de Zalavár (1951–1953). Rapport préliminaire.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4 (1954): 201–65. Fidelis, Małgorzata. Women, Communism, and Industrialization in Postwar Poland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Filip, Jan (ed.). The Great Moravia Exhibition: 1100 Years of Tradition of State and Cultural Life. Prague: Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 1964. Flerov, Valerii S. “S. A. Pletneva (1926–2008).” In Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A. Makarov, 279–81. Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019. Fodor, István. “Száz éve született id. Fehér Géza.” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 117 (1990): 256–57. Formozov, Aleksandr A. Ocherki po istorii russkoi arkheologii. Moskow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1961. Formozov, Aleksandr A. “Arkheologiia i ideologiia (20–30-e gody).” Voprosy filosofii (1993), no. 2: 70–82. Formozov, Aleksandr A. Chelovek i nauka. Iz zapisei arkheologa. Moscow: Znak, 2005. Formozov, Aleksandr A. Russkie arkheologi v period totalitarizma. Istoriograficheskie ocherki. Moscow: Znak, 2006. Fülep, Ferenc. “The five-year-plan of Hungarian archaeology.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1 (1951): 10–14. Fuszara, Małgorzata, and Beata Grudzińska. “Women in Polish academe.” In The Gender Gap in Higher Education, edited by Suzanne Stiver Lie, Lynda Malik, and Duncan Harris, 139–48. London/Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994. Gaidukov, Petr G., Irina V.  Belozerova, and Sergei V.  Kuz’minykh. “Iz istorii Instituta arkheologii RAN v 1920–1940-e gody.” In Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by N.A. Makarov, 11–25. Moskva: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 2019.

182 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ga ̨ssowski, Jerzy. “Archaeology and Marxism in Poland: a personal account.” In Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 101–21. Cham: Springer, 2016a. Ga ̨ssowski, Jerzy. “Introduction to archaeology of the Communist era.” In Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 1–8. Cham: Springer, 2016b. Gavritukhin, Igor O. “Nachalo velikogo slavianskogo rasselenie na iug i zapad.” In Arkheologichni studii, edited by Petro P.  Tolochko, vol. 1, 72–90. Kiev/ Chernivtsi: Prut, 2000. Gavritukhin, Igor O. “Predislovie. Ob avtorakh etoi knigi.” In Iazycheskie sviatilishcha drevnikh slavian, edited by Irina P. Rusanova and Boris A. Timoshchuk, 2nd edition, 9–11. Moscow: Ladoga-100, 2007. Gavritukhin, Igor O. “Aktual’nye problemy izucheniia rannei istorii slavian i slavianskogo rasseleniia na iug i zapad (prazhskaia kul’tura).” In Trudy II (XVIII) vserossiiskoogo arkheologicheskogo saĕ zda v Suzdale, edited by A. P. Derevianko and Nikolai A. Makarov, 206–08. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 2008. Gavritukhin, Igor O. “Poniatiie prazhskoi kul’tury.” In Slozhenie russkoi gosudarstvennosti v kontekste rannesrednevekovoi v kontekste rannesrednevekovoi istorii Starogo sveta. Materialy mezhdunarodnogo konferencii, sostoiavsheisia 14–18 maia 2007 goda v Gosudarstvennom Ermitazhe, edited by B. S. Korotkevich, Dmitrii A.  Machinskii, and T.  B. Senichenkova, 7–25, 629. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 2009. Gavritukhin, Igor O. “K atribucii slavianskikh pamiatnikov V-VII vekov na Iuzhnom Buge.” In Evropa od Latena do Srednevekov’ia: varvarskii mir i rozhdenie slavianskikh kul’tur. K 60-letiiu A.  M. Oblomskogo, edited by Vlasta E.  Rodinkova and O.  S. Rumianceva, 51–62. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 2017. Gavritukhin, Igor O. “I. P. Rusanova (1929–1998).” In Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A. Makarov, 282–84. Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019. Gavritukhin, Igor O., and Andrei M.  Oblomskii. “Rusanova Irina Petrovna (1929–1998).” In Institut arkheologii, istoriia i sovremennost’. Sbornik nauchnykh biografii, edited by V. I. Guliaev, 207–10. Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2000. Gavritukhin, Igor O., Nikolai V.  Lopatin, and Andrei M.  Oblomskii. “Novye rezul’taty izucheniia ranneslavianskikh drevnostei lesnogo Podneprov’ia i Verkhnego Podvin’ia (tezisy k koncepcii slavianskogo etnogeneza).” In Slavianskii mir Poles’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi istoriko-arkheologicheskoi konferencii 19–20 oktiabria 2004 g., Gomel’, edited by O.  A. Makushnikov, 39–50. Homel’: Gomel’skii gosudarstvennyi universitet imeni Francisca Skoriny, 2004.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

183

Gening, Vladimir F. “Programma statisticheskoi obrabotki keramiki iz arkheologicheskikh raskopok.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1973), no. 1: 114–35. Georgieva, Sonia. “K voprosu o material’noi kul’ture slavian i prabolgar na Nizhnem Dunae.” In Izsledvaniia v chest na Marin S.  Drinov, edited by Aleksandăr Burmov, Dimităr Angelov, and Ivan Duichev, 357–68. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1960. Georgieva-Kazandzhieva, Sonia. “K voprosu o material’noi kul’ture slavian i prabolgar na Nizhnem Dunae.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1961), no. 2: 96–102. Gero, Joan. “Socio-politics of archaeology and the woman at home ideology.” American Antiquity 50 (1985): 342–50. Gero, Joan. “Gender division of labor in the construction of archaeological knowledge in the United States.” In Social Construction of the Past. Representation as Power, edited by G.  C. Bond and A.  Gilliam, 144–53. New  York: Routledge, 1994. Gillis, Stacy, Gillian Howie, and Rebecca Munford (eds.), Third Wave Feminism. A Critical Exploration, 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Godycki, Michał. Wczesnos ́redniowieczne cmentarzysko na Ostrowie Lednickim. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk, 1956. Goldman, Wend. Women, the State, and Revolution. Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917–1936. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Golotvin, A. N. “D. Ia. Samokvasov i razvitie slaviano-russkoi arkheologii.” Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 2 (2007), no. 2: 173–78. Gorianov, A.  N. “Slavianskaia vzaimnost’ v traktovke sovetskoi istoriografii 1920–1930kh godov.” In Slavianskaia ideia: istoriia i sovremennost’, edited by V. A. D’iakov, 147–59. Moscow: Logos, 1998. Goriunov, E. A. “K 75-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Petra Nikolaevicha Tret’iakova.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1984), no. 2: 268–73. Grünert, Heinz. “Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Bestattungssitten in der Sicht antiker und mittelalterlicher Autoren.” In Bestattungswesen und Totenkult in urund frühgeschichtlicher Zeit, edited by Fritz Horst and Horst Keiling, 285–316. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991. Guga, Ştefan. Sociologia istorică a lui Henri H. Stahl. Cluj-Napoca: Tact, 2015. Guliaev, V. I. “Vvdenie.” In Institut arkheologii: istoriia i sovremennost’. Sbornik nauchnykh biografii, edited by V. I. Guliaev, 3–23. Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2000. Györffy, György. “Die Erinnerung an das großmährische Fürstentum.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17 (1965): 41–45. Györffy, György, and István Bóna. “Opponensi vélemény. Cs. Sós Ágnes, ‘A Dunántúl IX. századi szláv népessége’ c. kandidátusi értekezéséről.” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 95 (1968): 112. Haidle, Mirial Noël, and Linda R. Owen. “Ur- und Frühgeschichtlerinnen nach der Promotion: eine schützenswerte Spezies?” Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift 39 (1998): 563–94.

184 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Haraszthy, Ágnes. “Equal opportunities for women? Women in science in Hungary.” In Women in Science, Token Women or Gender Equality?, edited by Veronica Stolte-Heiskanen, Feride Acar, Nora Ananieva, and Dorothea Gaudart, 193–98. Oxford/New York, BERG, 1991. Harding, Sandra. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986. Harhoiu, Radu. “Quellenlage und Forschungsstand der Frühgeschichte Siebenbürgens im 6.-7. Jahrhunderts.” Dacia 43–45 (1999–2001): 97–158. Hartsock, Nancy C. M. Money, Sex, and Power. New York: Longman, 1983a. Hartsock, Nancy C.  M. “The feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism.” In Discovering Reality. Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, edited by Sandra Harding and Merrill Hintikka, 283–310. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983b. Hartsock, Nancy C.  M. “Comment on Hekman’s ‘Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited’: truth or justice?” Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22 (1997), no. 2: 367–74. Hartsock, Nancy C.  M. The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998. Hays-Gilpin, Kelley. “Feminist scholarship in archaeology.” In Feminist Views of the Social Sciences, edited by Christine L. Williams, 89–106. Thousand Parks: Sage, 2000. Hekman, Susan. “Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited.” Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22 (1997), no. 2: 341–65. Hensel, Witold. “Potrzeba przygotowania wielkej rocznicy (O niektórych zagadnieniach polskiej protohistorii).” Przegla ̨d Wielkopolski 2 (1946), nos. 7–8: 193–206. Hensel, Witold. “Metoda datowania ceramiki wczesnodziejowej na podstawie znaków garncarskich na dnach naczyń.” Sprawozdania z czynnos ́ci i posiedzeń Akademii Umiejętnoscí w Krakowie 51 (1950), no. 2: 71–74. Himmelweit, Susan. “Reproduction and the materialist conception of history: a feminist critique.” In The Cambridge Companion to Marx, edited by Terrell Carver, 196–221. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Hoffman, David L. “Mothers in the motherland: Stalinist pronatalism in its pan-­ European context.” Journal of Social History 34 (2000), no. 1: 35–54. Hołubowicz, Włodżimierz. “Garncarskie techniki lepienia na terenie ziem północno-wschodnich Polski w świetle ostatnich wykopalisk.” Ateneum Wileńskie 13 (1938), no. 1: 197–210. Hołubowicz, Włodzimierz. Garncarstwo wiejskie zachodnich terenów Bialorusi. Toruń: Nakład Towarzystwo Naukowego, 1950. Hołubowicz, Włodzimierz. Garncarstwo wczesnos ́redniowieczne Słowian. Wrocław: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1965.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

185

Hrubý, Vilém. Staré Me ̌sto. Velkomoravské pohr ̌e ̌bište ̌ “Na Valách”. Prague: Nakladelství Č eskoslovenske Akademie Věd, 1955. Hutson, Scott R. “Gendered citation practices in American Antiquity and other archaeology journals.” American Antiquity 67 (2002), no. 2: 331–42. Iakimova, Irina. “Zhinki v arkheologichnyi nautsi Ukraini v drugyi polovini XIX – u kintsi 30-kh rr. XX st.: bioistoriografichnyi aspekt.” Visnyk Dnipropetrovs’kogo universitetu. Seriia “Istoria ta arkheologiia” 22 (2014): 153–59. Iakimova, Irina. “Zhinka-arkheolog  – poiava novoi identichnosti.” Visnyk Dnipropetrovs’kogo universitetu. Seriia “Istoriia ta arkheologiia” 23 (2015a): 213–21. Iakimova, Irina. “Zhinki-amatori v Ukrains’kyi arkheologichnyi nautsi (1800–1917 rr.).” Materialy i doslidzhennia z arkheologii Prykarpattia I Volyni 9 (2015b): 34–39. Ilic, Melanie. Women Workers in the Soviet Interwar Economy. From “Protection” to “Equality”. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. Iukhnovski, Ivan (ed.). Ba ̆lgarska Akademiia na Naukite. Chlenove i rak̆ ovodstvo (1869–2004). Spravochnik. Sofia: Centralna biblioteka, 2005. Ivangorods’kyi, Kostiantyn. Etnichna istoriia skhidnykh slov’ian u suchasnyi istoriografii (ukrains’kyi, bilorus’kyi i rosyis’kyi dyskursy). Cherkasy: Iu. Chabanenko, 2018. Ivaniček, Franjo. Staroslavenska nekropola u Ptuju. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 1951. Janik, Liliana, and Hanna Zawadzka. “Gender politics in Polish archaeology.” In Exacavating Women. A History of Women in European Archaeology, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, 86–104. London/ New York: Routledge, 1998. Jinga, Luciana M. Gen și reprezentare în România comunista ̆ 1944–1989. Femeile în cadrul Partidului Comunist Român. Bucharest: Politom, 2015. Joyce, Rosemary A. “Dorothy Hughes Popenoe: Eve in an archaeological garden.” In Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen, 51–66. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. Kacunov, Valeri, Dzheni Ivanova, and Cvetana Velichkova. Zhenite v istoriiata na akademichnata nauka v Bal̆ gariia (Khabilitiranite zheni v BAN). Sofia: Roprint, 2018. Kadrow, Sławomir. “The German influence on Polish archaeology.” In A History of Central European Archaeology. Theory, Methods, and Politics, edited by Alexander Gramsch and Ulrike Sommer, 125–42. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2011. Kalmár, Melinda. Ennivaló és hozomány. A kora kádárizmus ideológiája. Budapest: Magvető kiadó, 1998. Kashina, E. A., and M. M. Iakushina. “M. E. Foss i Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei: muzeinaia deiatel’nost’ issledovatel’nicy po materialam lichnogo arkhiva.” Ural’skii istoricheskii vestnik 48 (2015), no. 3: 37–43.

186 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kastelić, Jozo. Slovanska nekropola na Bledu. Arheološko in antropološko poroc ̌ilo za leto 1948. Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti, 1950. Kemenczei, Tibor. “Dr. Cs. Sós Ágnes, 1925–1993.” Folia Archaeologica 44 (1995): 23–24. Khazbulatova, O.  A. “Zhenshchiny i obrazovanie v Rossii: istoricheskii obzor (1860–2000).” Zhenshchiny v rossiiskom obshchestve (2003), nos. 1–2: 31–35. Khazbulatova, O. A. “Dvizhenie zhenshchin-obshchestvenic v 1930-e gody kak tekhnologiia gosudarstvennoi politiki po vovlecheniiu domashnikh khoziaek v obshchestvennoe proizvodstvo.” Zhenshchiny v rossiiskom obshchestve (2004), nos. 1–2: 43–56. Khoroshkevich, Anna L. “Sud’ba - arkheologiia. Issledovateli slavianskoi istorii Irina Petrovna Rusanova i Boris Anisimovich Timoshchuk.” Slavia Antiqua 41 (2000): 191–210. Khoroshkevich, Anna L. “Rossiiskaia vlast’, fundamental’naia nauka i budushchee strany (A.  A. Formozov. Russkie arkheologi v period totalitarizma. Istoriograficheskie ocherki).” Otechestvennye zapiski 20 (2004), no. 5, available online at http://www.strana-oz.ru/2004/5/rossiyskaya-vlast-fundamentalnaya-nauka-i-budushchee-strany-a-a-formozov-russkie-arheologi-v-periodtotalitarizma-istoriograficheskie-ocherki (visit of January 7, 2020). Khristova-Penkova, Mariia. “Za ‘priiatelite na Sokrat’ i prabălgarite pri Balchik (po povod edna recenziia).” Prinosi kam ̆ ba ̆lgarskata arkheologiia 9 (2019): 165–90. Khudiakov, G. Dorevolucionnaia russkaia arkheologiia na sluzhbe ekspluatatorskikh klassov. Leningrad: GAIMK, 1933. Kirilov, Chavdar. “Nabliudeniia vărkhu khronologiiata i kharaktera na kăsnoantichnoto i srednovekovnoto selishte v m. ‘Kaleto’ krai s. Nova Cherna, obsht. Tutrakan, obl. Silistra.” In Sbornik v pamet na akademik D. P. Dimitrov, edited by Kostadin Rabadzhiev, Khristo Popov, Margarit Damianov, and Veselka Kacarova, 602–15. Sofia: Sofiiski Universitet “Sv. Kliment Okhridski”, Istoricheski fakultet, Katedra Arkheologiia, 2013. Klápště, Jan. “Die Archäologie des Mittelalters im Spannungsfeld verschiedener Identitäten: das Fallbeispiel Böhmen.” In Auf der Suche nach Identitäten: Volk Stamm - Kultur - Ethnos. Internationale Tagung der Universität Leipzig vom 8.-9. Dezember 2000 im Rahmen des Sonderforschungsbereiches 417 “Regionenbezogene Identifikationsprozesse. Das Beispiel Sachsen” und des Teilprojektes A5 der Professur für Ur- und Frühgeschichte “Ethnogenese und Traditionskonstruktion  - archölogische Quellen und ihre Deutungen in der Historiographie des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts”, edited by Sabine Rieckhoff and Ulrike Sommer, 166–74. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007. Klein, Lev S. Arkheologicheskaia tipologiia. Moscow: Nauka, 1991. Klein, Lev S. Fenomen sovetskoi arkheologii. St. Petersburg: FARN, 1993. Klein, Lev S. Trudno byt’ Kleinom. Avtobiografiia v monologakh i dialogakh. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2008.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

187

Klein, Lev S. “Akademik Rybakov i partiinaia liniia.” Troickii variant 73 (2011a): 14. Klein, Lev S. Istoriia arkheologicheskoi mysli. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 2011b. Klein, Lev S. Soviet Archaeology. Schools, Trends, and History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Klein, Lev S. Istoriia rossiiskoi arkheologii: ucheniia, shkoly i lichnosti. St. Petersburg: Evraziia, 2014. Klein, Lev S., and I. L. Tikhonov. “The beginnings of university archaeology in Russia.” In Die Anfänge der ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie als akademisches Fach (1890–1930) im europäischen Vergleich. Internationale Tagung an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin vom 13.-16. März, edited by Johan Callmer, Michael Meyer, Ruth Struwe, and Claudia Theune, 197–207. Rahden: Marie Leidorf, 2006. Klimetzek, Volker. “Lothar Zotz im Spiegel seiner Veröffentlichungen.” In Politik und Wissenschaft in der prähistorischen Archäologie. Perspektiven aus Sachsen, Böhmen und Schlesien, edited by Judith Schachtmann, Michael Strobel, and Thomas Widera, 99–109. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2009. Kniezsa, István. “A honfoglalás előtti szlávok nyelve a Dunántúlon.” Magyar tudományos Akadémia Társadalmi. Történeti tudományok osztályának közleményei 3 (1952): 373–97. Kobyliński, Zbigniew. “Theoretical orientations in archaeology in Poland (1945–1995).” In Theory and Practice of Archaeological Research, edited by Witold Hensel, Stanisław Tabaczyński, and Przemysław Urbańczyk, vol. 3, 225–58. Warsaw: Scientia, 1998. Kobyliński, Zbigniew, and Grażyna Rutkowska. “Propagandist use of history and archaeology in justification of Polish rights to the ‘recovered territories’ after World War II.” Archaeologia Polona 43 (2005): 51–124. Kochkina, E. V. “Politicheskaia sistema preimushchestv dlia grazhdan muzhskogo pola v Rossii, 1917–2002 gg.” In Gendernaia rekonstrukciia politicheskikh sistem, edited by N.M.  Stepanova, and M.  M. Kirichenko, E.  V. Kochkina, 477–523. St. Petersburg: ISPG-Aleteia, 2003. Koenker, Diane. “Men against women on the shop floor in early Soviet Russia: gender and class in the socialist workplace.” American Historical Review 100 (1995), no. 5: 1438–64. Koleva, Rumiana. “Za datiraneto na slavianskata grupa ‘Popina-Garvan’ v severoiztochna Bălgariia i severna Dobrudzha.” Godishnik na Sofiiskiia Universitet “Kliment Ohridski”. Istoricheski Fakultet 84–85 (1992): 163–82. Komatarova-Balinova, Evgeniia. “Issues and myths in the Bulgarian early medieval archaeology.” In Stepi Vostochnoi Evropy v srednie veka. Sbornik pamiati Svetlany Aleksandrovny Pletnevoi, edited by I. L. Kyzlasov, 258–88. Moscow: Avtorskaia kniga, 2016.

188 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Komatarova-Balinova, Evgeniia. “‘Prabălgarite’ pri Balchik i nomadite v poleto na ‘prabălgarskata’ arkheologiia.” Prinosi ka ̆m bălgarskata arkheologiia 8 (2018): 47–92. Koperkiewicz, Arkadiusz. “Zwia ̨zek płci z orientacja ̨ grobu we wczesnym średniowieczu na przykładzie cmentarzyska w Daniłowie Małym, w woj. podlaskim.” In Kobieta, smierć ́ , męzċ zyzna, edited by Wojciech Dzieduszycki and Jacek Wrzesiński, 307–24. Poznań: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, 2003. Korošec, Josip. “Prvo posvetovanje jugoslovanskih arheologov.” Zgodovinski c ̌asopis 4 (1950a): 212–15. Korošec, Josip. Staroslovenska grobišc ̌a v Severni Sloveniji. Celje: Tiskarna družbe Sv. Mohorja, 1947. Korošec, Josip. Staroslovansko grobišc ̌e na Ptujskem gradu. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 1950b. Kotowicz, Piotr N. “Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnośredniowiecznym ciałopalnym obrza ̨dkiem pogrzebowym na terenie województwa lubelskiego.” Archeologia Polski srodkowowschodniej ́ 7 (2005): 156–72. Koval, Vitalina. “Soviet women in science.” In Women in Science, Token Women or Gender Equality?, edited by Veronica Stolte-Heiskanen, Feride Acar, Nora Ananieva, and Dorothea Gaudart, 119–33. Oxford/New York: BERG, 1991. Kovelia, Valerii V. “M. N. Tikhomirov i ego nauchnoe nasledie. Razvitie nauchnykh koncepcii i vleianie politiko-ideologicheskogo faktora.” Ph. D. dissertation for “candidate in the historical science.” Institute of History. St. Petersburg, 2016. Koziuba, Vitalyi K. “Fotografii ta maliunki rozkopok V. V. Khvoyky 1907–1908 rr. v sadybi M.  M. Petrovs’kogo u Kyevi.” In Naukovo-doslidnyts’ka ta prosvitnits’ka diial’nist’ Vikentiia Khvoyky do 160-richchia z dnia narozhdennia. Materialy naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii s. Khalep’ia, 19 liutogo 2010 roku, 59–78. Trypillia: Kyivs’koi oblasnoi derzhavnoi administratsii KZKOR “Kyivs’kyi oblasnyi arkheologichnyi muzei”, 2010. Kostrzewski, Józef. “Znaki na dnach naczyń wczesnohistorycznych z Wielkopolski.” In Niederlu ̊v sborník, edited by Josef Schraníl, 117–30. Prague: Společnosti československých praehistoriků, 1925. Kowalewski, Jacek. “Materialne wyznaczniki płci na wczesnośredniowiecznych cmentarzyskach szkieletowych z ziem polskich. Rzecz o aksjomatach naoczności archeologicznej.” In Kobieta, smierć ́ , męzċ zyzna, edited by Wojciech Dzieduszycki and Jacek Wrzesiński, 227–35. Poznań: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, 2003. Kramarek, Janusz. “Znaki garncarskie na ceramice wrocławskiej z XII i pocza ̨tku XIII w.” Silesia antiqua 1 (1959): 219–37.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

189

Krăndzhalov, Dimităr. “Teoriia o prabolgarskom proiskhozhdenii kreposti u derevni Aboby (Pliska) v severovostochnoi Bolgarii.” Sborník Filozofickej fakulty Univerzity Komenského - Historica 15 (1964): 31–45. Krăndzhalov, Dimităr. “Is the fortress at Aboba identical with Pliska, the oldest capital of Bulgaria?” Slavia Antiqua 13 (1966): 444–45. Kra ̨piec, Marek. “Bezwględne datowanie zwęglonego drewna z walu 3b wczesnośredniowiecznego grodziska w Stradowie.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 50 (1998): 265–70. Krekovič, Eduard, and Martin Bača. “Marxism, Communism and Czechoslovak archaeology.” Anthropologie 51 (2013), no. 2: 261–70. Krivosheev, Iu. V., and A. Iu. Dvornichenko. “Izgnanie nauki: rossiskaia istoriografiia v 20kh-nachale 30kh godov XX veka.” Otechestvennaia istoriia (1994), no. 3: 146–53. Kukharenko, Iurii V. “O pamiatnikakh ranneslavianskogo vremeni na Poles’e USSR.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN USSR 4 (1955a): 48. Kukharenko, Iurii V. “Slavianskie drevnosti V-IX vekov na territorii Pripiatskogo Poles’ia.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 57 (1955b): 33–38. Kukharenko, Iurii V. “Raskopki na gorodishche i selishche Khotomel.” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 68 (1957): 90–97. Kukharenko, Iurii V. “Pamiatniki prazhskogo tipa na territorii Pridneprov’ia.” Slavia Antiqua 7 (1960): 111–24. Kukharenko, Iurii V. Srednevekovye pamiatniki Poles’ia. Moscow: Nauka, 1961. Kukharenko, Iurii V. Arkheologiia Pol’shi. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. Kukharenko, Iurii V. “Razvedki Polesskogo otriada.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1978 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov, 440. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. Kulcsár, Rózsa. “The socioeconomic conditions of women in Hungary.” In Women, State, and Party in Eastern Europe, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Alfred G. Meyer, 195–213. Durham: Duke University Press, 1985. Kurila, Laurynas. “Socialinis statusas ir lytis: Geležies amžiaus Rytų Lietuvos socialinės organizacijos analyze.” Lietuvos archeologija 35 (2009): 153–92. Kurnatowska, Zofia. “Witold Hensel – twórca polskiej mediewistyki archeologicznej.” Nauka 1 (2008): 167–74. Kutzián, Ida. A Körös-kultúra. Budapest: Király Magyar Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetem Éremés régisétani Intézete, 1944. Kuźnicki, Leszek. Polska Akademia Nauk 1952–1998. Zamierzenia i realizacja. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Retro-Art, 2018. Lalov, Chavdar. “Slavianskata arkheologiia v dneshna Severna Bălgariia.” Dobrudzha 24–25 (2013): 339–53. László, Gyula. “A ‘kettős honfoglalás’-ról.” Archaeologiai Értesitő 97 (1970): 161–90.

190 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lazar, Irena, Tina Kompare, Heleen van Londen, and Tine Schenk. “The archaeologist of the future is likely to be a woman: age and gender patterns in European archaeology.” Archaeologies 10 (2014), no. 3: 257–80. Lebedev, Gleb S. Istoriia otechestvennoi arkheologii, 1700–1917 gg. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 1992. Lebedev, Gleb S. “Peterburgskaia shkola Rossiiskoi arkheologii.” In Ladoga i istoki russkoi gosudarstvennosti i kul’tury. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchno-prakticheskaia konferenciia provedena v Staroi Ladoge Leningradskoi oblasti pod egidoi Organizacii oba ̆edinennykh nacii po voprosam obrazovaniia, nauki i kul’tury, 30 iuniia-2 iuliia 2003 g., edited by Anatolii N.  Kirpichnikov, 142–56. St. Petersburg: Vesti, 2003. Lech, Jacek. “Małowierni. Spór wokól marksizmu w archeologii polskiej lat 1945–1975.” Archeologia Polski 42 (1997): 175–228. Lech, Jacek. “Between captivity and freedom: Polish archaeology in the 20th century.” Archaeologia Polona 35–36 (1997–1998): 25–222. Lech, Jacek. “On Polish archaeology in the 20th century: remarks and polemic.” Archaeologia Polona 40 (2002): 185–252. Lengyel, Zsolt K. Der gelehrsame Exilant. Eine kleine Biographie des Historikers Thomas von Bogyay. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 2018. Lesman, Iurii M. “Variazhskoe nasledie v zhenskoi subkul’ture drevnei Rusi.” In Skify, khazare, slaviane, drevniaia Rus’. Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaia konferenciia, posviashchennaia 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia professora Mikhaila Illarionovicha Artamonova. Sankt-Petersburg, 9–12 dekabria 1998 g. Tezisy dokladov, edited by A.  D. Stoliar, 158–62. Sankt-Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, 1998. Levine, Mary Ann. “Creating their own niches: career styles among women in Americanist archaeology between the wars.” In Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen, 9–40. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. Liubchanskii, Iliia E. “Keramicheskii kompleks i formal’no-statisticheskie metody ego obrabotki.” Vestnik Cheliabinskogo Gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriia (2005), no. 1: 125–35. Longino, Helen E. “Subjects, power, and knowledge: description and prescription in feminist philosophy of science.” In Feminist Epistemologies, edited by Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter, 101–20. New York: Routledge, 1993. Lozny, Ludomir R. “Polish archaeology in retrospective.” In Comparative Archaeologies. A Sociological view of the Science of the Past, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 195–220. New York: Springer, 2011. Lozny, Ludomir R. “Sickle, hammer, and trowel: theory and practice of archaeology under Communism.” In Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 9–58. Cham: Springer, 2016.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

191

Lucas, Jack A. “The significance of diffusion in German and Austrian historical ethnology.” In Diffusion and Migration: Their Roles in Cultural Development, edited by P.  G. Duke, J.  Ebert, G.  Langemann, and A.  P. Buchner, 30–44. Calgary: University of Calgary, 1978. Lugones, Maria, and Elizabeth Spelman. “Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism, and the demand for ‘the woman’s voice’?” Women’s Studies International Forum 6 (1983): 573–81. Luleva, A. “Konstruirovanie gendera v bolgarskom socialisticheskom proekte: zhenskii vopros.” Zhenshchina v rosiiskom obshchestve (2008), no. 1: 3–24. Macrea, Mihai. “Slavianskii mogil’nik v Someshen’.” Dacia 2 (1958): 351–70. Madgearu, Alexandru. “The Dridu culture and the changing position of Romania among the Communist states.” Archaeologia Bulgarica 11 (2007), no. 2: 51–59. Maj, Urszula. Stradów, stanowisko 1. Ceramika wczesnos ́redniowieczna. Cracow: Secesja, 1990. Maj, Urszula, and Helena Zoll-Adamikowa. “W kwestii chronologii wczesnośredniowiecznego grodzisko w Stradowie.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 44 (1992): 273–96. Makarov, Nikolai A. “V.  V. Sedov (1924–2004).” In Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A. Makarov, 288–90. Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019. Makarov, Nikolai A., and A.  R. Artem’ev. “Valentin Vasil’evich Sedov.” In Vostochnaia Evropa v srednevekov’e. K 80-letiiu Valentina Vasil’evicha Sedova, edited by Nikolai A. Makarov, Aleksei V. Chernecov, and Nikolai V. Lopatin, 3–13. Moscow: Nauka, 2004. Mangelsdorf, Günter. “Zur Lage der Mittelalterarchäologie in Ostdeutschland, Polen und Tschechien.” Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 25–26 (1997): 39–47. Marinescu-Bîlcu, Silvia. “Hortensia Dumitrescu, 1901–1982.” Dacia 27 (1983), nos. 1–2: 195–98. Marx, Karl. Werke. Vol. 3. Berlin: Dietz, 1969. Marx, Karl. Selected Writings. Edited by David McLellan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Massino, Jill. “Workers under construction: gender, identity, and women’s experiences of work in state socialist Romania.” In Gender Politics and Everyday Life in State Socialist Eastern and Central Europe, edited by Shana Penn and Jill Massino, 13–31. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. McCarty, George E. Marx and the Ancients. Classical Ethics, Social Justice, and Nineteenth-Century Political Economy. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield, 1990. McIntyre, Robert J. “Demographic policy and sexual equality: value conflicts and policy appraisal in Hungary and Romania.” In Women, State, and Party in Eastern Europe, edited by Sharon L.  Wolchik and Alfred G.  Meyer, 270–85. Durham: Duke University Press, 1985.

192 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Medynceva, Albina A. “B.  A. Rybakov (1908–2001).” In Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A. Makarov, 285–87. Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019. Mikhailov, Stamen. “Za proizkhoda na antichnite materiali ot Pliska.” Arkheologiia 2 (1960), no. 1: 15–22. Milchev, Atanas. “Problemite na bălgarskoto ezikoznanie v svetlinata na Stalinovoto uchenie za ezika.” In Problemite na ba ̆lgarskoto ezikoznanie v svetlinata na stalinskoto uchenie za ezika. Nauchna sesiia na Istoriko-filologicheskiia fakultet, posvetena na truda na I.  V. Stalin “Marksizmat̆ i vap̆ rosite na ezikoznanieto”, săstoiala se na 4 I 5 dekemvri 1950 god, 152–57. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1951a. Milchev, Atanas. “Za marksistko-leninska arkheologicheska nauka.” In Par̆ va nauchna arkheologicheska sesiia, 262–75. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1951b. Milchev, Atanas. “Postizheniiata na săvetskata arkheologicheska nauka za 40 godini.” In Sbornik po sluchai 40 godini ot Oktomvriiskata socialisticheska revoliuciia, 182–92. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1955. Milchev, Atanas. Review of Zhivka N.  Văzharova, Slavianski i slavianobălgarski selishta v bălgarskite zemi VI-XI v. (Sofia, 1965). Arkheologiia 7 (1965), no. 3: 67–70. Milchev, Atanas. “Zur Frage der materiellen Kultur und der Kunst der Slawen und Protobulgaren in den bulgarischen Ländern während des frühen Mittelalters.” Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift 8 (1967): 119–50. Milchev, Atanas. “Zur Frage der materiellen Kultur und Kunst der Slawen und Protobulgaren in den bulgarischen Ländern während des frühen Mittelalters (VI.-X. Jh.).” In I. Międżynarodowy Kongres archeologii słowiańskiej. Warszawa 14–18 IX 1965, edited by Witold Hensel, vol. 3, 20–61. Wrocław/Warsaw/ Cracow: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1970. Milchev, Atanas. “Der Einfluss der Slawen auf die Feudalisierung von Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert.” In Studien zum 7. Jahrhundert in Byzanz. Probleme der Herausbildung des Feudalismus, edited by Helga Köpstein and Friedhelm Winkelmann, 53–58. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976. Milchev, Atanas. “Materialna i dukhovna kultura v bălgarskite zemi prez rannoto srednovekovieto  - VI-X v.” In Vtori mezhdunaroden kongres po bălgaristika, Sofiia, 23 mai-3 iuni 1986 g. Dokladi 6: Ba ̆lgarskite zemi v drevnostta Bălgariia prez srednovekovieto, edited by Khristo Khristov, Pantelei Zarev, Vladimir Georgiev et  al., 448–93. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1987. Milchev, Atanas, and Stefka Angelova. “Razkopki i prouchvaniia v m. ‘Kaleto’ pri s. Nova Cherna, Silistrenski okrăg, prez 1967 g.” Arkheologiia 11 (1969), no. 3: 31–48. Milchev, Atanas, and Stefka Angelova. “Arkheologicheski razkopki i prouchvaniia v mestnostta ‘Kaleto’ pri s. Nova Cherna, Silistrenski okrăg, prez 1967–1969

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

193

g.” Godishnik na Sofiiskiia Universitet. Istoriko-filologicheski fakultet 63 (1970a), no. 3: 1–214. Milchev, Atanas, and Stefka Angelova, “Razkopki i prouchvaniia v m. Kaleto krai s. Nova Cherna.” Arkheologiia 12 (1970b), no. 1: 26–38. Milisauskas, Sarunas. “Observations on Polish archaeology 1945–1995.” Archaeologia Polona 35–36 (1997–1998): 223–36. Milisauskas, Sarunas. “Historical observations on archaeology in the Polish People’s Republic, 1945–1989.” In Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 123–50. Cham: Springer, 2016. Milosavljević, Monika. Osvit arheologije. Geneza kulturno-istorijskog pristupa u arheologiji Srbije. Belgrade: Dosjie studio, 2020. Mioc, Damaschin. “Institutul de istorie şi arheologie – Cluj.” In Enciclopedia istoriografiei româneşti, edited by Ştefan Ştefănescu, 366–67. Bucharest: Editura ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică, 1978. Mirea, Pavel. “Doamne ale arheologiei româneşti în jud. Teleorman.” Muzeul Judet ̦ean Teleorman 3 (2014), no. 2: 17–18. Mishina, T. N. “T. S. Passek (1903–1968).” In Institut arkheologii RAN: 100 let istorii, edited by Nikolai A.  Makarov, 275–78. Moscow: Institut arkheologii RAN, 2019. Mishkova, Diana. “Differentiation in entanglement. Debates on antiquity, ethnogenesis, and identity in nineteenth-century Bulgaria.” In Multiple Antiquities Multiple Modernities. Ancient Histories in Nineteenth Century European Cultures, edited by Gábor Klaniczay, Michael Werner, and Ottó Gecser, 213–45. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, 2011. Mishtal, Joanna Z. “How the Church became the State: the Catholic regime and reproductive rights in state socialist Poland.” In Gender Politics and Everyday Life in State Socialist Eastern and Central Europe, edited by Shana Penn and Jill Massino, 133–49. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Moór, Elemer. “Zur Geschichte südslawischer Völkerschaften im Karpatenbecken.” Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8 (1962): 267–312. Mordovin, Maxim. “The building history of Zalavár-Récéskút church.” Annual of Medieval Studies at the CEU 12 (2006): 9–32. Moser, Stephanie. “On disciplinary culture: archaeology as fieldwork and its gendered associations.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14 (2007): 235–63. Müller, Robert. Die Gräberfelder vor der Südmauer der Befestigung von Keszthely-­ Fenékpuszta. Budapest/Leipzig: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Régészeti Intézet/Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, 2010.

194 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mykhaylyna, Liubomyr P. and Sergei V.  Pyvovarov. “Tymoshchuk Borys Onysymovych.” In Entsyklopediia istoryi Ukrainy, vol. 10, 77–81. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 2013. Mykhaylyna, Liubomyr P., Irina P. Rusanova, and Boris O. Timoshchuk. “Raskopki slavianskogo goroda na r. Prut.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1977 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov, 358. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. Mykhaylyna, Liubomyr P., Irina P. Rusanova, and Boris O. Timoshchuk. “Selishcha i gorodishcha Revnoe I.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1978 g., edited by Boris A. Rybakov, 370–71. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. Mykhaylyna, Liubomyr P., Irina P. Rusanova, and Boris O. Timoshchuk. “‘Dlinnyi’ dom X v. na gorodishche Revno I.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1981 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov, 289–90. Moscow: Nauka, 1983. Natansohn, Iosif, and Natalia Simion. “Despre existenţa aşa-numitului ‘mod de producţie asiatic’.” Revista de filozofie 13 (1966), no. 2: 228–38. Nekrich, Aleksandr M. Otreshis’ ot strakha. Vospominaniia istorika. London: Overseas Publications Interchange, 1979. Nestor, Ion. “Despre cercetările şi săpăturile arheologice executate în 1948 în regiunile extracarpatice ale Republicii Populare Romîne.” Studii. Revista ̆ de ştiinţa ̆ şi filosofie 1 (1949): 152–59. Nestor, Ion. “La nécropole slave d’époque ancienne de Sărata Monteoru.” Dacia 1 (1957): 289–95. Nestor, Ion. “Slavii pe teritoriul RPR în lumina documentelor arheologice.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 10 (1959), no. 1: 49–64. Nestor, Ion. “Principalele realizări ale arheologiei româneşti în anii regimului democrat-popular.” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 11 (1960), no. 1: 7–23. Nestor, Ion. “L’établissement des Slaves en Roumanie à la lumière de quelques découvertes archéologiques récentes.” Dacia 5 (1961): 429–48. Nestor, Ion. “Cu privire la dezvoltarea cercetării istoriei comunei primitive în România.” Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche 16 (1965), no. 3: 421–30. Neustupný, Evžen. “Czech archaeology under Communism.” In Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 151–66. Cham: Springer, 2016. Nikolova, Lolita, and Diana Gergova, “Contemporary Bulgarian archaeology as a social practice in the later twentieth to early twenty-first century.” In Archaeology of the Communist Era. A Political History of Archaeology of the 20th Century, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 177–93. Cham: Springer, 2016. (no author). “Ocena kadry kierowniczej PAN przez MSW (rok. 1985).” available at https://lustronauki.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/ocena-kadry-kierowniczej-pan-przez-msw-rok-1985/ (visit of January 7, 2020a). (no author). “Od redakcji.” Archeologia Polski 32 (1987), no. 1: 12. (no author). “Şantierul Sărata-Monteoru.” Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche 4 (1953), nos. 1–2: 83–86.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

195

(no author). “Sós Ágnes, Cs.” In Névpont, available at http://www.nevpont.hu/ view/11222 (visit of January 7, 2020b). (no author). “Budapest tejipar története,” available at http://bptejipartortenete. blogspot.com/2014/10/az-orszagos-magyar-tejszovetkezeti.html (visit of January 7, 2020c). Nosek, Elżbieta M. “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa (27.03.1931–08.09.2000).” Materiały archeologiczne 32 (2001): 260. Nosek, Stefan. “Sprawozdanie z badań wykopaliskowych prowadzonych w latach 1958–1962 w Stradowie, pow. Kazimierza Wielka.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 16 (1964): 330–44. Noszczak, Bartłomiej. “History as a tool in the state’s struggle against the Catholic Church during the One-Thousand Years of the Polish State (1956–1966/1967).” In The Dawning of Christianity in Poland and across Central and Eastern Europe. History and the Politics of Memory, edited by Igor Ka ̨kolewski, Przemyslaw Urbánczyk, and Christian Lübke, 241–77. Berlin/Bern: Peter Lang, 2020. Novaković, Predrag. “Archaeology in five states. A peculiarity or just another story at the crossroads of ‘Mitteleuropa’ and the Balkans: a case study of Slovene archaeology.” In Archäologien Europas. Geschichte, Methoden und Theorien, edited by Peter F. Biehl, Alexander Gramsch, and Arkadiusz Marciniak, 323–52. Münster: Waxmann, 2002. Oblomskii, Andrei M. “Formirovanie kolochinskoi i pen’kovskoi kul’tur.” In Vostochnaia Evropa v seredine I tys. n. e, edited by Igor O.  Gavritukhin and Andrei M. Oblomskii, 28–30. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 2007. Oblomskii, Andrei M. “O rannesrednevekovykh slavianskikh drevnostiakh v basseine Dona.” Stratum+ (2011), no. 5: 51–60. Olteanu, Ştefan. De la comunitatea obştească teritoriala ̆ la constituirea statelor medievale româneşti de la mijlocul secolului al XIV-lea. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2017. Olteanu, Ştefan. “Maria Comşa, 1928–2002.” Thraco-Dacica 23 (2002), nos. 1–2: 324–27. Opriş, Ioan. Istoria muzeelor din România. Bucharest: Mouseion, 1994. Opriş, Ioan. Istoricii şi securitatea. Vol. 1. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 2004. Oshibkina, S. V. “O znachenii trudov M. E. Foss.” In Drevnosti Oki, edited by G. F. Poliakova, 173–78. Moscow: Gosudartsvennyi istoricheskii muzei, 1994. Ovcharov, Dimităr. “Prabălgarite v bălgarskata istoriia i kultura (VII-IX v.).” Vekove (1979), no. 4: 28–37. Palincaş, Nona. “Public patriarchy in contemporary Romanian archaeology and the image of women in the Romanian Neolithic and Bronze Age.” Studii de preistorie 5 (2008): 159–70. Palincaş, Nona. “Living for the others: gender relations in prehistoric and contemporary archaeology of Romania.” In Situating Gender in European Archaeologies,

196 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

edited by Liv Helga Dommasnes, T.  Hjørungdal, Sandra Monton-Subías, M.  Sánchez-Romero, and Nancy Wicker, 93–116. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2010. Pawleta, Michał. “Where do we stand? Exploring the contours of gendered archaeology.” Archaeologia Polona 44 (2006): 231–53. Peikovska, Penka. “Géza Fehér v Bălgariia (1922–1944).” In Ungaristichni izsledvaniia. Iubileen sbornik po povod 30 goini ot săzdavaneto na specialnost “Ungarska filologiia” SU Sv. Kliment Okhridski, edited by Ionka Naidenova, Liliiana Lesnichkova, and Indra Markova, 187–219. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2014. Pető, Andrea. “Stories of women’s lives: feminist genealogies in Hungary.” In Gender Relations in South Eastern Europe. Historical Perspectives on Womanhood and Manhood in 19th and 20th Century, edited by Slobodan Naumović and Miroslav Jovanović, 211–28. Münster: Lit, 2004. Piotrowska, Danuta. “Biskupin 1933–1996: archaeology, politics, and nationalism.” Archaeologia Polona 35–36 (1997–1998): 255–85. Platonova, Nadezhda I. Istoriia arkheologicheskoi mysli v Rossii. Vtoraia polovina XIX-pervaia tret’ XX veka. St. Petersburg: Nestor Istoriia, 2010. Platonova, Nadezhda I. “Problems of early medieval Slavonic archaeology in Russia (a view from St. Petersburg).” Post-classical Archaeologies 6 (2016): 333–416. Pletneva, Svetlana A. “Stratigraficheskie issledovaniia v drevnei bolgarskoi stolice – Pliske.” In Problemy izucheniia drevnikh poselenii v arkheologii. Sociologicheskii aspekt, edited by V. I. Guliaev and G. E. Afanas’ev, 99–127. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1990. Pletneva, Svetlana A. “Pamiati Iriny Petrovny Rusanovoi (1929–1998).” Rossiiskaia arkheologiia (1999), no. 2: 246–49. Pletneva, Svetlana A., and Tatiana I.  Makarova. “Pamiati Iriny Petrovny Rusanovoi.” Stratum+ (2001–2002), no. 5: 10–12. Pletneva, Svetlana A., T.  V. Nikolaeva, R.  I. Goriacheva, I.  M. Zareckaia, and G. T. Serova. Boris Aleksandrovich Rybakov. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. Plichta, Paweł. “Rodzina wizytówka ̨ miasta. Przypadek Krakowa.” Pogranicze. Studia Społeczne 24 (2014): 97–116. Postică, Gheorghe. “Obşti săteşti din perioada medieval timpurie în spati̧ ul pruto-­ nistrean.” Destin românesc 2 (2007), nos. 1–2: 188–214. Preidel, Helmut. “Die Witwenverbrennung bei den slawischen Völkern.” Stifter-­ Jahrbuch 7 (1962): 275–92. Priakhin, A.  D. Istoriia sovetskoi arkheologii (1917-seredina) 30kh g. Voronezh: Izdatel’stvo Voronezhskogo universiteta, 1986. Prokop’eva, S. “Eto byl ochen’ sre’eznyi orientir v nashei zhizni. Pskovskie kollegi vspominaiut V. V. Sedova.” Pskovskaia guberniia Online 38 (2004), no. 208, available online at http://gubernia.pskovregion.org/number_208/07.php (visit of January 7, 2020).

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

197

Pushkareva, N.  L. “‘Zhenskii’ vopros v teorii marksizma (pochemu brak marksizma s feminizmom okazalsia neschastlivym?).” Zhenshchiny v rossiiskom obshchestve (2002), no. 1: 2–13. Pushkareva, N.  I. “‘Akademiki v chepce?’ Istoriia diskriminacionnykh praktik v otnoshenii rossiiskikh zhenshchin-uchenykh.” Zhenshchina plius 1 (2004), available at http://www.owl.ru/win/womplus/2004/01_11.htm (visit of January 7, 2020). Pushkareva, N. I. “Zhenshchiny v sovetskoi nauke 1917–1980-e gg.” Voprosy istorii (2011), no. 11: 92–102. Raionov, Bogomil. Liudmila: mechti i dela. Sofia: Kameliia, 2003. Randall, Amy. “Legitimizing Soviet trade: gender and feminization of the retail workforce in the Soviet 1930s.” Journal of Social History 37 (2004): 965–90. Rashev, Rasho. “Bibliografiia na trudovete na prof. d-r Stancho Vaklinov za perioda 1943–1981.” In Sbornik v pamet na prof. Stancho Vaklinov, edited by Vasil Giuzelev, 246–49. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1984. Rashev, Rasho. “Geza Feher - izsledovatel na prabălgarskata ezicheska kultura.” Minalo (1998), no. 2: 69–74. Ritoók, Ágnes. “The Zalavár collection.” In Two Hundred Years’ History of the Hungarian National Museum and its Collections, edited by János Pintér, 67–71. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2004. Robinson, M.  A. Sud’ba akademicheskoi elity. Otechestvennoe slavianovedenie, 1917-nachalo 1930kh godov. Moscow: Indrik, 2004. Rodinkova, Vlasta E. Valentin Vasil’evich Sedov. Moscow: Nauka, 2004. Rospond, Stanisław. “Problem liturgii słowiańskiej w południowej Polsce.” Silesia antiqua 9 (1967): 128–42. Rozov, B.  S. “Uchenie zvaniia i stepeni.” In Bol’shaia sovetskaia enciklopediia, edited by A.  M. Prokhorov, vol. 27, 157. Moscow: Sovetskaia enciklopediia, 1977. Rubio, Sandra Lozana Rubio. “Gender thinking in the making: feminist epistemology and gender archaeology.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 44 (2011), no. 1: 21–39. Rusanova, Irina P. “Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletii n.e. na territorii drevlian.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1958), no. 4: 33–46. Rusanova, Irina P. “Territoriia drevlian po arkheologicheskim dannym.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1960), no. 1: 63–69. Rusanova, Irina P. “Poselenie u s. Korchaka na r. Tetereve.” In Slaviane nakanune obrazovaniia Kievskoi Rusi, edited by Boris A.  Rybakov, 39–50. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963. Rusanova, Irina P. “Iazycheskoe svialitishche na r. Gnilopiat’ pod Zhitomirom.” In Kul’tura drevnei Rusi. Posviashchaetsia 40-letiiu nauchnoi deiatel’nost Nikolaia Nikolaevicha Voronina, edited by A.  L. Mongait, 233–37. Moscow: Nauka, 1966a.

198 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rusanova, Irina P. Kurgany polian X-XII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1966b. Rusanova, Irina P. “Keramika ranneslavianskikh poselenii Zhitomirshchiny.” Archeologické rozhledy 20 (1968a): 576–82. Rusanova, Irina P. “O keramike rannesrednevekovykh pamiatnikov Verkhnego i Srednego Podneprov’ia.” In Slaviane i Rus’. Sbornik statei. K shestdesiatiletiiu akad. B.  A. Rybakova, edited by E.  I. Krupnov, Viktor I.  Buganov, Svetlana A.  Pletneva, Irina P.  Rusanova, and G.  F. Solov’eva, 143–50. Moscow: Nauka, 1968b. Rusanova, Irina P. “Karta raspostraneniia pamiatnikov tipa Korchak (VI-VII vv. n. e.).” In Drevnie slaviane i ikh sosedi, edited by Iurii V. Kukharenko and Petr N. Tret’iakov, 93–96. Moscow: Nauka, 1970. Rusanova, Irina P. “Zhilishche VIII-IX vv. u sela Buki na Zhitomirshchine.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 125 (1971): 46–51. Rusanova, Irina P. “Pogrebal’nye pamiatniki vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n. e. na territorii Severo-Zapadnoi Ukrainy.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 135 (1973a): 3–9. Rusanova, Irina P. Slavianskie drevnosti VI-IX vv. mezhdu Dneprom i zapadnym Bugom. Moscow: Nauka, 1973b. Rusanova, Irina P. “Severnye elementy na pamiatnikakh tipa Korchak.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 139 (1974): 3–7. Rusanova, Irina P. Review of Ion C. Vynokur, Istoriia ta kul’tura cherniakhivs’kikh plemen Dnistro-Dniprovs’kogo mezhirichchia II-V st. n. e., Kiev, 1972. Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1975a), no. 4: 301–04. Rusanova, Irina P. Slavianskie drevnosti VI-VII vv. Kultura prazhskogo tipa. Moscow Nauka, 1976. Rusanova, Irina P. “O rannei date pamiatnikov prazhskogo tipa.” In Drevniaia Rus’ i slaviane, edited by Tat’iana V.  Nikolaeva, 138–43. Moscow: Nauka, 1978a. Rusanova, Irina P. “Pamiatniki tipa Pen’kovki.” Problemy arkheologii 2 (1978b): 114–18. Rusanova, Irina P. “Pamiati Iuriia Vladimirovicha Kukharenko.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1981), no. 2: 318. Rusanova, Irina P. “Klassifikaciia keramiki tipa Korchak.” Slavia Antiqua 30 (1984–1987): 93–100. Rusanova, Irina P. “Kultovye mesta i iazycheskie sviatilishcha slavian VI–XIII.” Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia 4 (1992): 50–67. Rusanova, Irina P. “Khlebnye pechi u slavian.” In Arkheologiia i istoriia iugo-­ vostoka Drevnei Rusi (materialy nauchnoi konferencii), edited by Anatolii Z.  Vinnikov, A.  D. Priakhin, and Mikhail V.  Cybin, 56–59. Voronezh: Izdatel’stvo Voronezhskogo universiteta, 1993.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

199

Rusanova, Irina P. Review of Ion C. Vynokur, “Istoriia ta kul’tura cherniakhivs’kikh plemen Dnistro-Dniprovs’kogo mezhirichchia II-V st. n.e.” (Kiev, 1972). Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1975b), no. 4: 100–04. Rusanova, Irina P., and Erast A. Symonovich (eds.). Slaviane i ikh sosedi v konce I tysiacheletiia do n.e.-pervoi polovine I tysiacheletiia n. e. Moscow: Nauka, 1993. Rusanova, Irina P., and Boris O. Timoshchuk. Drevnerusskoe Podnestrov’e. Istoriko-­ kraevedcheskii ocherki. Uzhhorod: Karpaty, 1981. Rusanova, Irina P., and Boris O. Timoshchuk. “Issledovanie slavianskikh poselenii VIII-X vv. v Chernovickoi oblasti.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1981 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov, 313–14. Moscow: Nauka, 1983. Rusanova, Irina P., and Boris O.  Timoshchuk. “Zbruchskoe sviatilishche (predvaritel’noe soobshchenie).” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1986), no. 4: 90–99. Rusanova, Irina P., and Boris O. Timoshchuk. “Gnezdo slavianskikh poselenii u s. Chernovka, Chernovickoi obl.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 179 (1984a): 19–25. Rusanova, Irina P., and Boris O. Timoshchuk. Kodyn, slavianskie poseleniia V-VIII vv. na r. Prut. Moscow: Nauka, 1984b. Rusanova, Irina P., and Boris O.  Timoshchuk. “Slavianskie gorodishcha-­ sviatilishcha i iazycheskii khram.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1982 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov, 325–26. Moscow: Nauka, 1984c. Rusanova, Irina P., and Boris O.  Timoshchuk. Iazycheskie sviatilishche drevnikh slavian. Moscow: Nauchno-issledovanyi arkheologicheskii centr “ARkhE”, 1993. Rusanova, Irina P., and Boris O. Timoshchuk. “Religioznoe ‘dvoeverie’ na Rusi v XI-XIII vv. (po materialam gorodishch-sviatilishch).” In Kul’tura slavian i Rus’, edited by Iu. S. Kukushkin, T. B. Kniazevskaia, and Tat’iana I. Makarova, 144–63. Moscow: Nauka, 1998. Rusanova, Irina P., and Boris A.  Timoshchuk. Iazycheskie sviatilishcha drevnikh slavian, 2nd edition. Moscow: Ladoga-100, 2007. Rusanova, Irina P., Boris O.  Timoshchuk, Liubomyr P.  Mykhaylyna, and A. M. Malevanyi. “Poselenie Kodyn-II v basseine r. Prut.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1976 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov, 364–65. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. Rutkowska, Grażyna. “Czy archeologia służyła ideologii PRL? Tematyka archeologiczna na łamach ‘Trybuny ludu’ w latach 1948–1970.” In Hereditatem cognoscere. Studia i szkice dedykowane Profesor Marii Miskiewicz, ́ edited by Zbigniew Kobyliński, 308–33. Warsaw: Wydział nauk historycznych i społecznych Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, 2004. Rybakov, Boris A. “Ranniaia kul’tura vostochnykh slavian.” Istoricheskii zhurnal 11–12 (1943): 73–80. Rybakov, Boris A. “Mesto slaviano-russkoi arkheologii v sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauke.” Sovetskaia arkheologiia (1957), no. 4: 57–65.

200 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rybakov, Boris A. “Sviatovit-rod.” In Liber Iosepho Kostrzewski octogenario a veneratoribus dicatus, edited by Konrad Jażdżewski, 390–94. Wrocław/Warsaw/ Cracow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1968. Rybakov, Boris A. Iazychestvo drevnikh slavian. Moscow: Nauka, 1981. Rybakov, Boris A. Iazychestvo drevnei Rusi. Moscow: Nauka, 1987. Rybakov, Boris A. Le paganisme des anciens Slaves. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994. Rybakov, Boris A., and Erast A.  Symonovich. “Ot redaktora.” In Po sledam drevnikh slavianskikh plemen, edited by Petr N.  Tret’iakov, 3–4. Leningrad: Nauka, 1982. Salamon, Ágnes, and Ágnes Cs. Sós. “Pannonia - fifth to ninth centuries.” In The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, edited by Alfonz Lengyel and George T.  Radan, 397–425. Lexington/Budapest: University Press of Kentucky/ Akadémiai kiadó, 1980. Sarama, Leszek. Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzysko w Samborcu. Wrocław: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1956. Sedov, Valentin V. “Drevnerusskoe iazycheskoe sviatilishche v Peryni.” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 50 (1953): 92–103. Sedov, Valentin V. “Iazycheskaia bratchina v drevnem Novgorode.” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 65 (1956): 138–41. Sedov, Valentin V. “Goncharnaia pech iz raskopok v g. Vladimire.” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 72 (1958): 78–83. Sedov, Valentin V. “Iazycheskie sviatilishcha smolenskikh krivichei.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 87 (1962): 57–64. Sedov, Valentin V. “Dregovichi.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1963), no. 3: 112–25. Sedov, Valentin V. “Rannie kurgany viatichei.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 135 (1973): 10–16. Sedov, Valentin V. “Slaviane srednego Podneprov’ia (po dannym paleoantropologii).” Sovetskaia Etnografiia (1974), no. 1: 16–31. Sedov, Valentin V. Proiskhozhdenie i ranniaia istoriia slavian. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. Sedov, Valentin V. “Pagan sanctuaries and idols of the Eastern Slavs.” Slavica Gandensia 7–8 (1980–1981): 69–85. Sedov, Valentin V. “Pogrebal’nye pamiatniki slavian v V-VII vv.” Arkheologiia i istoriia Pskova i Pskovskoi zemli (1982a): 39–40. Sedov, Valentin V. Vostochnye slaviane v VI-XIII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1982b. Sedov, Valentin V. “Pripiatskoe Poles’e v slavianskom etnogeneze po arkheologicheskim dannym.” In Poles’e i etnogenez slavian. Predvaritel’nye materialy i tezisy konferencii, edited by Nikita I. Tolstoi, 22–24. Moscow: Nauka, 1983.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

201

Sedov, Valentin V. “Teoreticheskie problemy rekonstrukcii drevneishei slavianskoi dukhovnoi kul’ture. Otvety na voprosy (zavershenie diskussii).” Sovetskaia Etnografiia (1984), no. 4: 67–69. Sedov, Valentin V. “Pogrebal’nyi obriad slavian v nachale srednevekov’ia.” In Konferenciia “Balto-slavianskie etnokul’turnye i arkheologicheskie drevnosti pogrebal’nyi obriad”. Tezisy dokladov, edited by V. V. Ivanov and L. G. Nevskaia, 76–78. Moscow: Institut slavianovedeniia i balkanistiki, 1985. Sedov, Valentin V. “Kul’t kamnia v iazychestve vostochnykh slavian.” Balcanoslavica 13–15 (1986–1988): 33–47. Sedov, Valentin V. “Formirovanie vostochnoslavianskoi narodnosti.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 198 (1987a): 10–15. Sedov, Valentin V. “Origine de la branche du nord des Slaves orientaux.” In Studia nad etnogeneza ̨ Słowian i kultura ̨ Europy wczesnosredniowiecznej. ́ Praca zbiorowa, edited by Gerard Labuda and Stanisław Tabaczyński, vol. 1, 161–65. Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/ Gdańsk/Łódż: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1987b. Sedov, Valentin V. “Pervaia volna slavianskogo osvoeniia Severo-Zapada.” Arkheologiia i istoriia Pskova i Pskovskoi zemli (1987c): 46–48. Sedov, Valentin V. “Problema proiskhozhdeniia i nachal’noi istorii slavian.” Slaviano-russkie drevnosti 1 (1988): 7–21. Sedov, Valentin V. “Nachalo slavianskogo osvoeniia territorii Novgorodskoi zemli.” In Istoriia i kul’tura drevnerusskogo goroda, edited by German A.  Fedorov-Davydov, E.  A. Ryvina, and Aleksandr S.  Khoroshev, 12–17. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1989a. Sedov, Valentin V. “Problema etnogeneza slavian v arkheologicheskoi literature 1979–1985 gg.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 195 (1989b): 3–9. Sedov, Valentin V. “Drevnosti Severo-zapadnoi chasti Vostochnoi Evropy vo vtoroi polovine I tysiacheletiia n. e.” In Finny v Evrope. VI-XV veka. Pribaltiisko-­ finskie narody. istoriko-arkheologicheskie issledovaniia. I: Formirovanie pribaltiiskikh finnov, plemena Finliandii i Iugo-Vostochnoi Pribaltiki, edited by Anatolii N.  Kirpichnikov and Evgenii A.  Riabinin, vol. 1, 26–35. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii AN SSSR, 1990a. Sedov, Valentin V. “Etnogenez slavian po arkheologicheskim dannym. Fakty i gipotezy.” In VI Mezhdunarodnyi kongress slavianskoi arkheologii, g. Prilep, Iugoslaviia, 1990 g. Tezisy dokladov, podgotovlennykh sovetskimi issledovateliami, edited by Valentin V. Sedov, 80–86. Moscow: Nauka, 1990b. Sedov, Valentin V. “Pogrebal’nyi obriad slavian v nachale srednevekov’ia.” In Issledovaniia v oblasti balto-slavianskoi dukhovnoi kul’tury. Pogrebal’nyi obriad, edited by Viacheslav V.  Ivanov and L.  G. Nevskaia, 170–82. Moscow: Nauka, 1990c.

202 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sedov, Valentin V. “Nachalo slavianskogo rasseleniia v basseinakh ozer Il’mena i Pskovskogo.” Arkheologiia i istoriia Pskova i Pskovskoi zemli (1992): 22–24. Sedov, Valentin V. “Etnogenez slavian po arkheologicheskim dannym.” In Slavianskaia arkheologiia 1990. Etnogenez, rasselenie i dukhovnaia kul’tura slavian, edited by Valentin V. Sedov and Aleksei V. Chernecov, 34–55. Moscow: Nauka, 1993a. Sedov, Valentin V. “Stanovlenie i etnogenez slavian (po dannym arkheologii i gidronimii).” In Istoriia, kul’tura, etnografiia i fol’klor slavianskikh narodov. XI Mezhdunarodnyi săezd slavistov, Bratislava, sentiabr’ 1993 g. Doklady rossiiskoi delegacii, edited by Gennadii G. Litavrin, 119–30. Moscow: Nauka, 1993b. Sedov, Valentin V. “Pervyi etap slavianskogo raseleniia v basseinakh ozer Il’mena i Pskovskogo.” In Novgorodskie arkheologicheskie chteniia. Materialy nauchnoi konferencii, posviashchennoi 60- letiiu arkheologicheskogo izucheniia Novgoroda i 60-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia osnovatelia Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspedicii A.  V. Arcikhovskogo. Novgorod, 28 sentiabria-2 oktiabria 1992 g, edited by Valentin L.  Ianin and Petr G.  Gaidukov, 127–37. Novgorod: Novgorodskii gosudarstvennyi obăedinennyi muzei-zapovednik, 1994a. Sedov, Valentin V. Slaviane v drevnosti. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii Rossiskoi Akademii Nauk, 1994b. Sedov, Valentin V. Slaviane v ranem srednovekov’e. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 1995. Sedov, Valentin V. “Slavianskii mir nakanune raspada iazykovoi obshchnosti.” In Slavianskie literatury, kul’tura i fol’klor slavianskikh narodov. XII mezhdunarodnyi săezd slavistov (Krakov, 1998). Doklady rossiiskoi delegacii, edited by Sergei V. Nikol’skii, 277–86. Moscow: Nasledie, 1998. Sedov, Valentin V. Drevnerusskaia narodnost’. Istoriko-arkheologicheskoe issledovanie. Moscow: Iazykyi russkoi kul’tury, 1999. Sedov, Valentin V. “Stanovlenie kul’tury pskovskikh dlinnykh kurganov.” Stratum+ (2000), no. 5: 26–31. Sedov, Valentin V. “Sever Vostochno-Evropeiskoi ravniny v period pereseleniia narodov i v rannem srednevekov’e (predyistoriia severnovelikorusov).” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii AN Rossii 218 (2005): 12–22. Shchavelev, S. P. Istorik russkoi zemli. Zhizn’ i trudy D. Ia. Samokvasova. Kursk: Izdatel’stvo Kurskogo medicynskogo Universiteta, 1998. Shmidt, Evgenii A. “K 60-letiiu Petra Nikolaevicha Tret’iakova.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1969), no. 4: 120–25. Shnirel’man, Viktor A. “Zlokliucheniia odnoi nauki: etnogeneticheskie issledovaniia is stalinskaia nacional’naia polityka.” Etnograficheskoe obozrenie (1993), no. 3: 52–68. Shnirel’man, Viktor A. “From internationalism to nationalism: forgotten pages of Soviet archaeology in the 1930s and 1940s.” In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by Philip Kohl and Clare Fawcett, 120–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

203

Shnirel’man, Viktor A. “The faces of nationalist archaeology in Russia.” In Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Timothy C. Champion, 218–42. Boulder/San Francisco: Westview Press, 1996. Shovkoplias, G.  M. “Vikentiy V’iacheslavovych Khvoyka  - vidatnyi ukrains’kyi arkheolog.” In Vikentiy V’iacheslavovych Khvoyka ta iogo vnesok u vitchyznianu arkheologiiu (do 150- richchia vid dnia narodzhennia). Tematichnyi zbirnyk naukovykh prats’, edited by N. G. Kovtaniuk, 4–25. Kiev: Natsional’nyi muzei istorii Ukrainy, 2000. Siemieńska, Renata. “Women in academe in Poland: winners among losers.” Higher Education in Europe 25 (2000), no. 2: 163–72. Sikora, Przemysław. “Płeć a orientacja pochówków na wczesnośredniowiecznych cmentarzyskach Białorusi.” In Kobieta, smierć ́ , męzċ zyzna, edited by Wojciech Dzieduszycki and Jacek Wrzesiński, 299–306. Poznań: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich, 2003. Slapšak, Božidar, and Predrag Novaković. “Is there national archaeology without nationalism? Archaeological tradition in Slovenia.” In Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Timothy C. Champion, 256–93. Boulder/San Francisco: Westview Press, 1996. Slezkine, Yuri. “N.  Ia. Marr and the national origins of Soviet ethnogenetics.” Slavic Review 55 (1996), no. 4: 826–62. Smith, Dorothy. “Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology.” In Feminism and Methodology, edited by Sandra Harding, 84–96. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Rapport préliminaire des fouilles executées autour de la chapelle du château de Zalavár.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4 (1954): 267–73. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Fehér Géza (1890–1955).” Múzeum Hiradó (1955): 179–83. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Le deuxième cimetière avare d’Ullő.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6 (1956): 193–227. Sós, Ágnes Cs. A keceli avarkori temetők. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum/ Történeti Múzeum, 1958a. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Das frühawarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Oroszlány.” Folia Archaeologica 10 (1958b): 105–24. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Wykopaliska w Zalavár.” Slavia Antiqua 7 (1960): 211–303. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 13 (1961a): 247–305. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Újabb avar kori leletek Csepel-szigetről.” Archaeologiai Értesitő 88 (1961b): 32–51. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “O vengerskikh issledovaniiakh v oblasti slavianskoi arkheologii.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1962a), no. 4: 105–14. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Vorläufige Mitteilungen über die Ausgrabungen in Pókaszepetk.” Folia Archaeologica 14 (1962b): 67–82.

204 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Bemerkungen zur Frage des archäologischen Nachlasses der awarenzeitlichen Slawen in Ungarn.” Slavia Antiqua 10 (1963a): 301–29. Sós, Ágnes Cs. Die Ausgrabungen Géza Fehérs in Zalavár. Budapest: Akademiai kiadó, 1963b. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Ausgrabungen von Zalavár.” In Cyrillo-Methodiana. Zur Frühgeschichte des Christentum bei den Slaven, 863–1963, edited by Manfred Hellmann, Reinhold Olesch, Bernhard Stasiewski, and Franz Zagiba, 222–61. Cologne/Graz: Böhlau, 1964. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Archäologische Beiträge zur Frage der Gestaltung der Zentrale des Pribina-Besitzes.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17 (1965): 87–93. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “A dunaszekcsői avarkori temető.” Folia Archaeologica 18 (1966a): 91–122. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Über die Fragen des frühmittelalterlichen Kirchenbaues in Mosapurc-Zalavár.” In Das östliche Mitteleuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Acta Congressus historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis in memoriam SS.  Cyrilli et Methodii anno 1963 celebrati, edited by Franz Zagiba, 69–86. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1966b. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Archäologische Angaben zur Frage der Frühperiode des awarisch-­ slawischen Zusammenlebens.” Študijné zvesti 16 (1968a): 221–25. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Bemerkungen zur Problematik des Kirchenbaus des 9. Jahrhunderts in Transdanubien (Pannonien).” In Liber Iosepho Kostrzewski octogenario a veneratoribus dicatus, edited by Konrad Jażdżewski, 377–89. Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1968b. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Das slawische Urnengräberfeld von Pókaszepetk, Pannonien.” In Studien zur europäischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte, edited by Martin Claus, Werner Haarnagel, and Klaus Raddatz, 282–85. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz, 1968c. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Frühmittelalterliche Keramik in römischer Tradition.” Rei cretariae romanae fautorum acta 10 (1968d): 35–51. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Válasz György Györffy és Bóna István opponensi birálataira.” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 95 (1968e): 120 Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen von Zalavár-­ Récéskut in den Jahren 1961–1963.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21 (1969): 51–103. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Mosaburg-Zalavár im 9. Jahrhundert.” Arheološki vestnik 21–22 (1970): 81–94. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Neue Angaben zur Frage der Kontinuität der mittelalterlichen Festungssysteme in Mosaburg-Zalavár.” Archeologia Polski 16 (1971): 347–62. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Knochenbearbeitungswerkstatt in Mosaburg-Zalavár.” Č asopis Moravského musea 57 (1972): 189–93.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

205

Sós, Ágnes Cs. Die slawische Bevölkerung Westungarns im 9. Jahrhundert. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1973a. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Jelentés a pókaszepetki ásatásokról.” Archaeologiai Értesitő 100 (1973b): 66–77. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Zur Problematik der Awarenzeit in der neueren ungarischen archäologischen Forschung.” In Berichte über den II. internationalen Kongreß für slawische Archäologie. Berlin, 24.–28. August 1970, edited by Joachim Herrmann and Karl-Heinz Otto, vol. 2, 85–102. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1973c. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Megyegyzések a zalavári ásatások jelentöségéről és problematikájáról.” Zalai Gyűjtemény 6 (1976): 105–40. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Frühmittelalterliche Brandbestattung mit Feinwaage in Pókaszepetk.” Slovenská Archeológia 26 (1978a), no. 2: 423–30. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Neue Daten zur Siedlungsgeschichte von Mosaburg-Zalavár.” In Archäologie des westpannonischen Raumes: Urgeschichte, Römerzeit, Mittelalter; Kurzfassungen der Referate anlässlich der von der Österreichischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und dem Burgenländischen Landesmuseum veranstalteten Tagung vom 14.-19. Juni 1978  in Eisenstadt, 115–16. Vienna: Österreichische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- u. Frühgeschichte, 1978b. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Előzetes jelentés a Zalavár-kövecsesi mentőásatásaról.” Folia Archaeologica 31 (1980): 175–87. Sós, Ágnes Cs. Zalavár-Kövecses. Ausgrabungen 1976–1978. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 1984. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Zalavár-Mosaburg, das befestigte Herrschafts- und Kulturzentrum des 9. Jahrhunderts in Pannonien.” Kirilo-metodievski studii 4 (1987): 148–59. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Neuere archäologische Angaben zur Frage der Kirchen von Mosaburg-Zalavár des 9. Jahrhunderts.” In Szlávok-Protobolgárok-Bizánc, edited by Nino Nikolov, Samu Szádeczky-Kardoss, and Teréz Olajos, 79–94. Szeged: József Attila University, 1986. Sós, Ágnes Cs. “Zalavár az újabb ásatások tükrében.” In Honfoglalás és régészet, edited by László Kovács, 85–90. Budapest: Balassi, 1994. Sós, Ágnes Cs., and Nándor Parádi. “A csátalji Arpád-kori temető és település.” Folia Archaeologica 22 (1971): 105–41. Sós, Ágnes Cs., and Agnés Salamon. Cemeteries of the Early Middle Ages (6th-9th Centuries A.D.) at Pókaszepetk. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1995. Smith, Claire, and Heather Burke. “Glass ceilings, glass parasols, and Australian academic archaeology.” Australian Archaeology 62 (2006): 13–25. Sretenova, Nicolina. “The nation’s showcase: Bulgarian academic women, between the Scylla of totalitarianism and the Charybdis of change.” In The Gender Gap in Higher Education, edited by Suzanne Stiver Lie, Lynda Malik, and Duncan Harris, 33–45. London/Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 1994.

206 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stahl, Henri H. Contribut ̧ii la studiul satelor deval̆ maşe romîneşti, 3 vols. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Populare Romîne, 1958–1965. Stahl, Henri H. Les anciennes communautés villageoises roumaines: asservissement et pénétration capitaliste. Bucharest: Editions de l’Académie de la République Socialiste de Roumanies, 1969. Stahl, Henri H. Teorii şi ipoteze privind sociologia orânduirii tributale. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, 1980a. Stahl, Henri H. Traditional Romanian Village Communities. The Transition from the Communal to the Capitalist Mode of Production in the Danube Region. Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press/Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1980b. Stahl, Henri H. Probleme confuze în istoria socială a României. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 1992. Stamati, Iurie. “Les Slaves et la genèse des Roumains et de leurs états selon la tradition historiographique russe, de la Chronique Voskresenskaja à Lev Berg.” In The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them. Studies in Honor of Victor Spinei on his 70th Birthday, edited by Florin Curta and Bogdan-Petru Maleon, 779–94. Iași: Editura Universităt ̦ii ”Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 2013. Stamati, Iurie. “Two chapters of the Sovietization of the Romanian archaeology (from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s).” Archaeologia Bulgarica 19 (2015), no. 1: 81–95. Stamati, Iurie. “‘Long live Romanian Soviet friendship!’ An exploration of the relationship between archaeologists from USSR and the People’s/Socialist Republic of Romania.” Ephemeris Napocensis 26 (2016): 235–52. Stamati, Iurie. “Pourquoi les Roumains ne sont-ils pas devenus un peuple slave? Essai sur la place des Slaves médiévaux dans l’historiographie nationale roumaine (XVIIe siècles-début du XXe siècle).” Ethnologies 37 (2017), no. 2: 53–80. Stamati, Iurie. The Slavic Dossier. Medieval Archaeology in the Soviet Republic of Moldova: Between State Propaganda and Scholarly Endeavor. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2019. Stamati, Iurie. “Mariia Komsha, ili kak otnosheniia mezhdu dvumia ‘bratskimi stranami’ povliiali na kar’eru arkheologa.” Stratum+ (2020), no. 5, 15–28. Stanchev, Stancho. “Novyi pamiatnik rannei bolgarskoi kul’tury (k voprosu o prabolgarakh).” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 27 (1957): 107–32. Stanchev, Stancho. “Slaviani i prabălgari v starobălgarskata kultura.” Arkheologiia 4 (1962), no. 4: 1–6. Stanchev, Stancho. Madara, Pliska i Preslav. Sofia: Narodna prosveta, 1966a. Stanchev, Stancho. Veliki Preslav. Istoricheski ocherk. Sofia: Narodna prosveta, 1966b. Stanchev, Stancho, and Stefan Ivanov. Nekropolăt do Novi Pazar. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1958.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

207

Stanchev, Stancho, and Magdalina Stancheva. Boianskiiat pomenik. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1963. Stanciu, Ioan. “Über die slawischen Brandhügelgräber vom Typ Nuşfalău-­ Someşeni (Nordwesten Rumäniens).” Acta Musei Napocensis 36 (1999): 245–63. Stanciu, Ioan. Așezarea de la Lazuri-Lubi tag (jud. Satu Mare). Aspecte ale locuirii medievale timpurii în nord-vestul României. Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2016. Stanilov, Stanislav. Review of Zhivka Văzharova, Srednovekovnoto selishte s. Garvan, Silistrenski okra ̆g (VI-XI v.) (Sofia, 1986). Arkheologiia 31 (1989), no. 2: 62–66. Stashenkov, Dmitrii A. “Polovozrastnaia stratifikaciia novinkovskogo naseleniia (po materialam ukrashenii kostiuma).” In Kul’tury evraziiskikh stepei vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e. (iz istorii kostiuma), edited by Dmitrii A. Stashenkov, Anna F. Kochkina, and Anna M. Kuznecova, vol. 2, 141–65. Samara: Samarskii oblastnyi istoriko-kraevedcheskii muzei im. P.V. Alabina, 2001. Ştefan, Gheorghe, Ion Barnea, Eugen Comşa, Maria Chişvasi-Comşa, and Bucur Mitrea. “Săpăturile arheologice de la Garvăn.” Materiale şi cercetări arheologice 5 (1959): 565–86. Ştefan, Gheorghe, Ion Barnea, Maria Comşa, and Eugen Comşa. Dinogetia I.  Aşezarea feudala ̆ timpurie de la Bisericuta̧ -Garvan̆ . Bucharest: Editura Academiei RSR, 1967. Stig Sørensen, Marie Louise. “Rescue and recovery. On historiographies of female archaeologists.” In Exacavating Women. A History of Women in European Archaeology, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, 31–60. London/New York: Routledge, 1998. Straub, Péter. “6–7. századi temetőrészlet Keszthely-Fenékpusztan (Erdélyi István ásatása 1976).” In Hadak útján. A népvándorlás kor fiatal kutatóinak konferenciája, edited by Livia Bende, Gábor Lőrinczy, and Csaba Szalontai, 205–29. Szeged: Csongrád megyei Múzeum Igazgatósága, 2000. Sullivan, Lynne P. “Madeline Kneberg Lewis: an original Southeastern archaeologist.” In Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen, 110–19. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. Sveshnikova, Olga S. “Tatiana Passek: the Soviet Union’s most successful female archaeologist.” Antiquity 88 (2014), no. 340, available online at https:// www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/sveshnikova340 (visit of January 7, 2020). Szalai, Julia. “Some aspects of the changing situation of women in Hungary.” Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 17 (1991), no. 1: 152–70. Szmoniewski, Bartłomiej Szymon, and Piotr Włodarczyk. “Badania wielkich grodów zachodniomałopolskich przeprowadzone przez małopolskich archeologów Instytutu Historii Kultury Materialnej PAN: próba podsumowania oraz obecne perspektywy.” Przegla ̨d Archeologiczny 56 (2017): 169–86. Szőke, Béla. “Staré Město középkori temetője.” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 83 (1956): 227–30.

208 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Szőke, Béla Miklós. “Zalavár.” Zalai Gyűjtemény 6 (1976): 69–103. Szőke, Béla Miklós. “Cs. Sós Ágnes, 1925–1993.” Archaeologiai Értesito ̋ 120 (1993): 87–88. Szőke, Béla Miklós. “Mosaburg/Zalavár und Pannonien in der Karolingerzeit.” Antaeus 31–32 (2010): 9–52. Szőke, Béla Miklós. “Bogyay Tamás és a Karoling-kori Mosaburg/Zalavár.” Ars Hungarica 38 (2012): 62–76. Szőke, Béla Miklós. “Mosaburg/Zalavár.” In Great Moravia and the Beginnings of Christianity, edited by Pavel Kour ̌il, 262–67. Brno: Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2015. Szymański, Wojciech. “Badania wykopaliskowe na wczesnośredniowiecznym cmentarzysku szkieletowym w Goryslawicach, pow. Busko w 1958 roku.” Wiadomos ́ci Archeologiczne 26 (1959): 316–18. Szymański, Wojciech. “Badania na cmentarzysko szkieletowym w Goryslawicach, pow. Busko, w 1959 r.” Wiadomoscí Archeologiczne 28 (1962): 81–82. Tabaczyński, Stanisław. “A future for the Marxist paradigm in Central European archaeology? The Polish case.” In Whither archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evzen Neustupny, edited by Martin Kuna and Natalie Venclová, 69–81. Prague: Institute of Archaeology, 1995. Tabaczyński, Stanisław. “L’école des Annales, la ‘nouvelle histoire’ et l’archéologie polonaise.” In Archéologie, edited by Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski, 10–32. Warsaw/Paris: Polska Akademia Nauk. Stacja Naukowa, 2003. Teodor, Dan Gh. “Le haut féodalisme sur le territoire de la Moldavie à la lumière des données archéologiques.” Dacia 9 (1965): 325–35. Teodor, Dan Gh. “Apartenent ̧a etnică a culturii Dridu.” Cercetări istorice 4 (1973): 128–41. Teodor, Dan Gh. “Fibule ‘digitate’ din secolele VI-VII în spaţiul carpato-­ dunăreano-­pontic.” Arheologia Moldovei 15 (1992): 119–52. Teodor, Dan Gh. “Slavii la nordul Dunării de Jos în secolele VI-VII d. H.” Arheologia Moldovei 27 (1994): 223–51. Teodor, Dan Gh. “Contribuţii la istoria obştii săteşti din mileniul marilor migraţii.” Carpica 28 (1999): 103–08. Tigyi, József. “Hol teremnek az akadémikusok? Az MTA tagjai számokban.” Magyar Tudományi (2006), no. 3: 344–55. Tikhonov, I. L. Arkheologiia v Sankt-Petersburgskom universitete. Istoriograficheskie ocherki. St. Petersburg: St. Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2003. Timoshchuk, Boris O. “Obshchinnyi stroi vostochnykh slavian VI-X vv. (po arkheologicheskim dannym Severnoi Bukoviny).” Ph. D. Dissertation, Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Moscow, 1983. Timoshchuk, Boris O. “Social’naia tipologiia selishch VI-X vv.” In Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia srednevekovykh pamiatnikov v Dnestrovsko-Prutskom mezhdurech’e,

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

209

edited by P.  P. Byrnia, E.  N. Abyzova, V.  I. Grosu, Nikolai P.  Tel’nov, and T. A. Shcherbakova, 3–24. Kishinew: Shtiinca, 1985. Timoshchuk, Boris O. “Nachalo klassovykh otnoshenii u vostochnykh slavian (po materialam poselenii Ukrainskogo Prikarpat’ia).” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1990a), no. 2: 62–76. Timoshchuk, Boris O. Vostochnoslavianskaia obshchina VI-X vv. n. e. Moscow: Nauka, 1990b. Timoshchuk, Boris O. Vostochnye slaviane. Ot obshchiny k gorodam. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1995. Timoshchuk, Boris O., and Irina P. Rusanova. “Raskopki slavianskogo poseleniia Kodyn.” In Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 1974 goda, edited by Boris A. Rybakov, 363–65. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. Timoshchuk, Boris O., and Irina P. Rusanova. “Slavianskie sviatilishcha na Srednem Dnestre i v basseine Pruta.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1983), no. 4: 161–73. Timoshchuk, Boris O., and Irina P. Rusanova. “Vtoroe Zbruchkoe (Krutilovskoe) sviatilishche (po materialam raskopok 1985 g.).” In Drevnosti slavian i Rusi, edited by Boris O. Timoshchuk, 78–91. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. Timoshchuk, Boris O., Irina P. Rusanova, and Liubomyr P. Mykhaylyna. “Itogi izucheniia slavianskikh pamiatnikov Severnoi Bukoviny V-X vv.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1981), no. 2: 80–93. Ţ iplic, Ioan Marian. “Probleme generale ale arheologiei medievale la început de mileniu.” Studia Universitatis Cibinensis Historica. Seria Historica 3 (2006–2007): 27–45. Titov, V. S. “Vvedenie.” In Arkheologiia Vengrii. Konec II tysiacheletiia do n. e.- I tysiacheletiia n. e., edited by V.  S. Titov and István Erdélyi, 7–36. Moscow: Nauka, 1986a. Titov, V. S. “2500 let proshlogo Karpato-Dunaiskogo basseina v zerkale vengerskoi arkheologii (Vmesto vvedeniia).” In Arkheologiia Vengrii. Konec II tysiacheletiia do n. e. – I tysiacheletiia n. e., edited by V. S. Titov and István Erdélyi, 30–34. Moscow: Nauka, 1986b. Titov, V. S., and István Erdélyi. “Sovremennaia organizacionnaia struktura arkheologii v Vengerskoi Narodnoi Respublike.” Sovetskaia arkheologiia (1973), no. 3: 249–56. Todorova, Maria. Balkan Family Structure and the European Pattern: Demographic Developments in Ottoman Bulgaria. Washington/Lanham: American University Press, 1993. Tomášková, Silvia. “Mapping a future: archaeology, feminism, and scientific practice.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14 (2007), no. 3: 264–84. Török, Gyula. Die Bewohner von Halimba-Cseres nach der Landnahme. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1959. Török, László. “The Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1958–1999.” Antaeus 25 (2002): 15–61.

210 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Totev, Totiu. “D-r Ivanka Akrabova-Zhandova i preslavskata risuvana keramika.” In Ivanka Akrabova Zhandova. In memoriam, edited by Magdalina Vaklinova, Irina Shtereva, Violeta Nesheva, Pavlin Dimitrov, and Mariia Manolova-­ Voikova, 1–5. Sofia: Nacionalen Arkheologicheski Institut s Muzei, 2009. Tóth, Sándor. “Régészet – építészet – műemlékvédelem.” Építés – Építészettudomány 5 (1973): 617–30. Tret’iakov, Petr N. Vostochnoslavianskie plemena. Moscow Nauka, 1953. Tyniec, Anna, and Helena Zoll-Adamikowa. “Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnośredniowiecznymi cmentarzyskami Małopolski.” In Stan i potrzeby badań nad wczesnym sredniowieczem ́ w Polsce. Materiały z konferencji Poznań 14–16 grudnia 1987 roku, edited by Zofia Kurnatowska, 213–23. Poznań: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Volumen”, 1990. Tyniec-Kępińska, Anna. “Nowe spojrzenie na fortyfikację grodu właściwego w Stradowie, woj. Kielce.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 48 (1996): 33–47. Tyniec-Kępińska, Anna. “Forschungen zum Burgwall von Stradów. Interpretation, Chronologie und Erforschung der Befestigungen.” In Frühmittelalterlicher Burgenbau in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Tagung, Nitra, vom 7. bis 10. Oktober 1996, edited by Joachim Henning and Alexander T. Ruttkay, 301–13. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1998. Udal’cov, Aleksandr D. (ed.). Protiv vul’garizacii marksizma v arkheologii. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1953. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. “Political circumstances reflected in post-war Polish archaeology.” Public Archaeology 1 (2000): 49–56. Urbańczyk, Przemysław. “Medieval archaeology in Polish historic-political discourse.” In Politik und Wissenschaft in der prähistorischen Archäologie. Perspektiven aus Sachsen, Böhmen und Schlesien, edited by Judith Schachtmann, Michael Strobel, and Thomas Widera, 237–49. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2009. Uvarova, Praskovia S. Byloe, davno proshedshie shchastlivye dni. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo im. Sabashnikovykh, 2005. Vaklinov, Stancho. “L’ancienne civilisation bulgare au IX-e-X-e s. Aspects de sa formation.” Preslav. Sbornik 2 (1976): 12–25. Vaklinov, Stancho. Formirane na starobălgarskata kultura, VI-XI vek. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1977. Vargha, Dora. Polio Across the Iron Curtain. Hungary’s Cold War with an Epidemic. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Văzharova, Zhivka. O proiskhozhdenii bolgarskikh pakhotnykh orudii. K voprosu ob etnogeneze bolgarskogo naroda. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1956a. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Ranneslavianskaia keramika iz sela Popina.” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury AN SSSR 63 (1956b): 142–49.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

211

Văzharova, Zhivka, Stefan Ivancy, and Petăr Boev (eds.). Slaviano-bal̆ garskoto selishte krai selo Popina, Silistrensko. Sofia: Izdanie na Bălgarskata akademiia na naukite, 1956. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Slavianskiiat nekropol v selo Bukovci, Vrachansko.” Arkheologiia 1 (1959), nos. 1–2: 20–23. Văzharova, Zhivka. Ruskite ucheni i bal̆ garskite starini. Izsledvane, materiali i dokumenti (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademiia na Naukite, 1960a. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Zhelezarska rabotilnica v m. Selishte, Preslav.” Slavia Antiqua 7 (1960b): 395–405. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Vrăzkite na Karel Shkorpil s ruskite ucheni.” In Izsledvaniia v pamet na Karel Shkorpil, edited by Krăstiu Miiatev and Vasil Mikov, 63–71. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1961a. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Slavianite na iug ot Dunava (po arkheologicheski danni).” Arkheologiia 6 (1964a), no. 2: 23–33. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Srednevekovni obekti po dolinite na rekite Cibrica i Ogosta.” Izvestiia na Arkheologicheskiia Institut 28 (1965a): 231–46. Văzharova, Zhivka. Slavianski i slavianobal̆ garski selishta v ba ̆lgarskite zemi ot kraia na VI-XI vek. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1965b. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Slavianskoto selishte v mestnostta ‘Stublata’ krai s. Bezhanovo, Loveshko.” Izvestiia na Arkheologicheskiia Institut 24 (1961b): 317–26. Văzharova, Zhivka. “K voprosu o material’noi kul’ture Pliski i Preslava.” In Actes du XIIe Congrès international d’études byzantines. Ochride, 10–16 septembre 1961, vol. 3, 403–07. Belgrade: Comité yougoslave des études byzantines, 1964b. Văzharova, Zhivka. “The Slavs south of the Danube.” In I.  Międżynarodowy Kongres archeologii słowiańskiej. Warszawa 14–18 IX 1965, edited by Witold Hensel, vol. 3, 96–120. Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow: Wydawnictvo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1970. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Slaviani i prabălgari (tiurko-bălgari) v svetlinata na arkheologicheskite danni.” Arkheologiia 13 (1971a), no. 1: 1–23. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Slawen und Protobulgaren auf Grund archäologischer Quellen.” Zeitschrift für Archäologie 5 (1971b): 266–88. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Bălgarskiiat narodnosten oblik prez srednovekovieto v svetlinata na arkheologicheskite danni (VI-XI v.).” In Par̆ vi kongres na Ba ̆lgarskoto istorichesko druzhestvo. 27–30 ianuari 1970 godina, edited by Dimităr Kosev, vol. 1, 393–410. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1972. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Selishta i nekropoli (kraia na VI-XI v.).” Arkheologiia 16 (1974), no. 3: 9–27. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Zum Problem der Glasproduktion im mittelalterlichen Bulgarien (8–10. Jh.).” In Srednjovekovno staklo na Balkanu 5.-15. vek. Zbornik ̵ radova sa medunarodnog savetovanja održanog od 22. do 24. aprila 1974, u

212 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beogradu, edited by Vasa Č ubrilović, 115–21. Belgrade: Balkanoloshki Institut, 1975. Văzharova, Zhivka. Slaviani i prabal̆ gari po danni na nekropolite ot VI-XI v. na teritoriiata na Bălgariia. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1976. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Pogrebalniiat obred kato istoricheski iztochnik za etnicheskata săshnost na bălgarskta narodnost (po arkheologicheski i etnografski danni).” Arkheologiia 19 (1977), no. 2: 30–50. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Vneseni predmeti po tărgovski i drugi nachini v srednovekovna Bălgariia (VIII-XI v.).” Izvestiia na Bal̆ garskoto istorichesko druzhestvo 32 (1978): 33–48. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Nekropolăt do Goliamata bazilika v Pliska.” Pliska-Preslav 1 (1979a): 69–80. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Zur Frage der Etnogenese und der materiellen Kultur des bulgarischen Volkes (Zwei Nekropolen aus Nordostbulgarien).” In Culture et art en Bulgarie médiévale (VIII-e-XIV-e s.), edited by Dimităr Angelov, Iordanka Changova, G.  Il. Georgiev, Teofil Ivanov, and Zhivka Văzharova, 5–30. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1979b. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Bogatoe pogrebenie zhenshchiny v mogil’nike vozle bol’shoi baziliki v Pliske.” (Sborník referátů ze sympozia “Slované 6.-10. století”, Břeclav-­ Pohansko, 1978, edited by Borǐ voj Dostál and Jana Vignatiová, 299–312. Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně, Fakulta filozofická, 1980a. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Zlatni nakiti ot grob 27 v Pliska.” Arkheologiia 22 (1980b), no. 1: 52–56. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Dvuobriaden ezicheski nekropol krai s. Bdinci, Tolbukhinski okrăg.” Izvestiia na Narodniia muzei Varna 17 (1981a): 77–109. Văzharova, Zhivka “Slaviani i nomadi na teritoriiata na dneshnite bălgarski zemi ot kraia na VI-XI v.” Pliska-Preslav 3 (1981b): 16–65. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Nekropol krai s. Cherniche-Krupnik, Blagoevgradski okra ̨g.” Izvestiia na Ba ̆lgarskoto istorichesko druzhestvo 26 (1984): 5–20. Văzharova, Zhivka. Srednovekovnoto selishte s. Garvan, Silistrenski okrăg (VI-XI v.) Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1986a. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Srednevekovye zhilishcha na territorii Bolgarii (po arkheologicheskim dannym).” Slovenská Archeológia 34 (1986b), no. 2: 261–78. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Drevneslavianskie poseleniia (selishcha, gorodishcha i gorodishcha-­kreposti) na territorii Bolgarii.” In Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa slavianskoi arkheologii, Kiev 18–25 sentiabria 1985 g., edited by Boris A. Rybakov, vol. 1, 105–17. Moscow: Institut arkheologii AN SSSR, 1987a. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Mitologiiata na iuzhnite slaviani (bălgarite).” In Vtori mezhdunaroden kongres po bal̆ garistika, Sofiia, 23 mai-3 iuni 1986 g. Dokladi 6: Ba ̆lgarskite zemi v drevnostta Bal̆ gariia prez srednovekovieto, edited by Khristo

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

213

Khristov, Pantelei Zarev, Vladimir Georgiev et al., 390–99. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademiia na Naukite, 1987b. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Otopitel’nye sooruzheniia na territorii Bolgarii (VI-XIV vv.).” In Studia nad etnogeneza ̨ Słowian i kultura ̨ Europy wczesnosredniowiecznej. ́ Praca zbiorowa, edited by Gerard Labuda and Stanisław Tabaczyński, vol. 1, 271–78. Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/Gdańsk/Łódż: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1987c. Văzharova, Zhivka. “Die bulgarischen Untersuchungen der mittelalterlichen Siedlung in den Jahren 1975 und 1977 bis 1981.” In Iatrus-Krivina. Spätantike Befestigung und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau, edited by Gerda von Bülow and Dietlind Schieferdecker, vol. 4, 299–315. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991. Văzharova, Zhivka, and Vera Chacheva. “Srednovekoven nekropol pri s. Ablanica, Blagoevgradski okrăg.” Arkheologiia 10 (1968), no. 2: 27–36. Văzharova, Zhivka, and Plamen Ivanov. “Prouchvaniia v Kozlodui i mestnostite ‘Kilera’, ‘Vrachanska funiia’ i ‘Kalifera’.” Arkheologicheski otkritiia i razkopki (1987): 155. Văzharova, Zhivka, and Dimităr Zlatarski. “Srednovekovno selishte i nekropoli v gr. Dălgopol, Varnenski okrăg.” Arkheologiia 11 (1969), no. 3: 49–58. Venedikov, Ivan. Poznaite gi po delata im. Bălgarskata inteligenciia v moite spomeni. Sofia: Izdatelska kăshta “Khristo Botev”, 1993. Volgyes, Ivan. “Blue-collar working women and poverty in Hungary.” In Women, State, and Party in Eastern Europe, edited by Sharon L.  Wolchik and Alfred G. Meyer, 221–233. Durham: Duke University Press, 1985. Volkov, M.  N. “Doktor nauk.” In Bol’shaia sovetskaia enciklopediia, edited by A. M. Prokhorov, vol. 8, 403. Moscow: Sovetskaia enciklopediia, 1972. Volkov, M.  N. “Kandidat nauk.” In Bol’shaia sovetskaia enciklopediia, vol. 11, edited by A. M. Prokhorov, 324–25. Moscow: Sovetskaia enciklopediia, 1973. Volkov, M. N., and V. G. Panov. “Kandidatskii minimum.” In Bol’shaia sovetskaia enciklopediia, vol. 11, edited by A.  M. Prokhorov, 325. Moscow: Sovetskaia enciklopediia, 1973. Voronin, N. “Razvitie slaviano-russkoi arkheologii v SSSR.” Slaviane 7 (1948): 25–30. Waters, Elizabeth. “The modernization of Russian motherhood, 1917–1937.” Soviet Studies 1 (1992): 123–35. Węcowski, Piotr. “Między nauka ̨ a ideologia ̨, między historia ̨ a archeologia ̨. Kierownictwo Badań nad pocza ̨tkami państwa polskiego (1949–1953).” In Marxismus a medievistika: spolec ̌né osudy?, edited by Martin Nodl and Piotr Węcowski, 59–100. Prague: Filosofia, 2020. Werner, Joachim. “Slawische Bügelfibeln des 7. Jahrhunderts.” In Reinecke Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke am 25. September 1947, edited by G. Behrens, 150–72. Mainz: E. Schneider, 1950.

214 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Werner, Joachim. “Neues zur Frage der slawischen Bügelfibeln aus süd-­ osteuropäischen Ländern.” Germania 38 (1960): 114–20. White, Nancy Mary, Rochelle A. Marrinan, and Hester A. Davis. “Early women in Southeastern archaeology: a preliminary report on ongoing research.” In Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen, 96–106. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. Wiklak, Henryk. “Cmentarzysko z XII w. w Da ̨browie Zielonej, pow. Radomsko.” Wiadomos ́ci Archeologiczne 29 (1963): 360. Wilkie, A., and Katherine Howlett Hayes, “Engendered and feminist archaeologies of the recent and documented pasts.” Journal of Archaeological Research 14 (2006), no. 3: 243–64. Wilson, Rachel Beckles. “Csemiczky, Miklós.” In Grove Music Online, available at https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.45037 (visit of January 7, 2020). Wolchik, Sharon L. “Women and the politics of gender in Communist and post-­ Communist Central and Eastern Europe.” In Eastern Europe. Politics, Culture, and Society since 1939, edited by Sabina P.  Ramet, 285–303. Bloomington/ Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998. Woźniak, Zenon. “Helena Zoll-Adamikowa, 1931–2000.” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 35 (1999–2000): 291–93. Zaharia, Eugenia. “Rolul istoric al obştilor săteşti. Contribuţie la cunoaşterea istoriei românilor în mileniul I. Închinare ta̧ ̆rănimii române.” Acta Moldaviae Meridionalis 2 (1980): 133–56. Zaharia, Eugenia. s.v. “obşte.” In Enciclopedia arheologiei şi istoriei vechi a României, edited by Constantin Preda, vol. 3, 215–16. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 2000. Żaki, Andrzej. “Prof. dr hab. Helena Zoll-Adamikowa (1931–2000).” Sprawozdania archeologiczne 52 (2000): 489–94. Zalotay, Elemér. Gellértegyházai Árpádkori temető. Budapest: Magyar Némzeti Múzeum, 1957. Zav’ialov, V.  I. “Pamiati Valentina Vasil’evicha Sedova (1924–2004).” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii RAN 218 (2005): 2–5. Zdravomyslova, E.  A., and A.  A. Temkina. “Gosudarstvennoe konstruirovanie gendera v Sovetskom obshchestve.” Zhurnal issledovanii social’noi politiki 1 (2003), nos. 3–4: 299–321. Zhikh, Maksim I. “Valentin Vasilevich Sedov. Stranicy zhizni i tvorchestva slavianskogo podvizhnika. Chast 1.” Rusin (2012), no. 4: 131–65. Zhikh, Maksim I. “Valentin Vasilevich Sedov. Stranicy zhizni i tvorchestva slavianskogo podvizhnika. Chast II.  Problema slavianskogo etnogeneza v rabotakh V. V. Sedova.” Rusin (2013), no. 1: 106–35. Zhivkov, Todor, and Liudmila Zhivkova. 13th Centennial Jubille of the Bulgarian State. Sofia: Sofia Press, 1981.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

215

Zoll, Andrzej. Zollowie. Opowies ́ćrodzinna. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2011. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. Review of Mihai Macrea, “Slavianskii mogil’nik v Someshen’.” Dacia 2 (1958): 351–70. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 2 (1960): 264–66. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Wczesnośredniowieczne kopce-mogiły na obszarze Karpat.” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 4 (1962): 133–57. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Z badań wczesnośredniowiecznych kurhanów ciałopalnych w Beskidzie Średnim.” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 6 (1964): 47–52. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. Wczesnos ́redniowieczne cmentarzyska szkieletowe ́ Małopolski. Zródła. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1966a. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Wczesnośredniowieczne cmentarzysko szkieletowe na stan. VI w Stradowie, pow. Kazimierza Wielka.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 18 (1966b): 258–70. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Czworoka ̨tne konstrukcje drewniane w kurhanach ciałopalnych z Kornatki, pow. Myślenice.” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 9 (1967): 141–55. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Badania nad rytuałem ciałopalnym z pierwszych faz wczesnego średniowiecza w Małopolsce.” Archeologia Polski 13 (1968a): 407–28. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Ciałopalne kurhany wczesnośredniowieczne w Kornatce, pow. Myślenice, w świetle badań lat 1963–1965.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 19 (1968b): 305–35. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Results of the 1968 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 21 (1969a): 385–90. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Survey of the 1967 investigations of early medieval sites.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 20 (1969b): 405–10. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Próba periodyzacji wczesnośredniowiecznych praktyk pogrzebowych w Polsce.” Archeologia Polski 16 (1971a), nos. 1–2: 557–74. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Results of 1970 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 23 (1971b): 207–13. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzyska szkieletowe Małopolski. Analiza. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1971c. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of 1971 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 24 (1972a): 321–26. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Zu der Brandbestattungsbräuchen der Slawen im 6. bis 10. Jahrhundert in Polen.” Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift 13 (1972b): 497–542. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of the 1972 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 25 (1973): 273–77.

216 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Wyniki wstępnych badań wczesnośredniowiecznego zespołu osadniczego w Guciowie, pow. Zamość.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 26 (1974): 115–69. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzyska ciałopalne Słowian ́ na terenie Polski. Zródła. Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 1975. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of the 1975 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 28 (1976): 277–81. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Typy konstrukcji drewnianych w słowiańskich kurhanach ciałopalnych.” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 17 (1977): 72–119. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Die Verwendbarkeit der Grabfunde aus dem 6.-10. Jh. für die Aussonderung des Stammesgruppen bei den Westslawen.” In Rapports du III-e Congrès international d’archéologie slave. Bratislava 7–14 septembre 1975, edited by Bohuslav Chropovský, vol. 1, 941–52. Bratislava: VEDA, 1979a. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of 1978 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 31 (1979b): 281–84. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. Wczesnosredniowieczne ́ cmentarzyska ciałopalne Słowian na terenie Polski. Analiza. Wnioski. Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow/Gdańsk: Ossolineum, 1979c. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Die Grabsitten zwischen Elbe und Weichsel im 6. bis 10. Jh. als Quelle zur Religion der Westslawen.” Slavica Gandensia 7–8 (1980a): 113–21. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Einheimische und fremde Elemente im Grabkult der Ostseeslawen.” Offa 37 (1980b): 81–93. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of the 1979 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 32 (1980c): 349–52. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of 1980 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 33 (1981a): 293–96. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Ślady wczesnosłowiańskiej chaty w Złotnikach pod Krakowem.” Symposiones 1 (1981b), no. 1: 185–92. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Dereviannye konstrukcii v kurganakh s truposozhzheniem u vostochnykh i zapadnykh slavian.” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia (1982a), no. 4: 82–90. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Die Überreste der Kremationseinrichtungen auf den frühmittelalterlichen slawischen Gräberfeldern.” In Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, edited by Hans Kaufmann and Klaus Simon, vol. 2, 87–96. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1982b. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of the 1981 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 34 (1982c): 315–17. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Die oberirdischen Brandbestattungen bei den Slawen im Lichte der schriftlichen und archäologischen Quellen.” Archaeologia Polona 21–22 (1983a): 223–32.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

217

Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of 1982 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 35 (1983b): 305–08. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of 1983 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 36 (1984): 329–32. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Chata z praskim typem ceramiki ze Złotnik, woj. miejskie krakowskie.” Archeologia Polski 30 (1985a), no. 1: 161–73. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of 1984 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 37 (1985b): 337–40. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of 1985 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 38 (1986): 387–90. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of 1986 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 39 (1987): 395–98. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Eiserner Bestandteil einer Riemengarnitur aus dem Burgwall in Stradów.” Slovenská Archeológia 36 (1988a), no. 2: 277–81. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Major results of 1987 excavations of early medieval sites in Poland.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 40 (1988b): 405–07. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Przyczyny i formy recepcji rytuału szkieletowego u Słowian nadbałtyckich we wczesnym średniowieczu.” Przegla ̨d Archeologiczny 35 (1988c): 183–229. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Wczesnośredniowieczne połziemianki z tzw. korytarzykami z grodziska w Stradowie.” In Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa arkheologov-slavistov. Kiev 18–25 sentiabria 1985 g., edited by Petro P. Tolochko, Ia. E. Borovs’kyi, A. A. Kozlovskii, and Oleksandr P. Motsia, vol. 2, 189–94. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1988d. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Pochówki dostojników kościelnych i świeckich w Polsce wczesnopiastowskie (na podstawie źródeł archeologicznych).” Roczniki historyczne 55–56 (1989–1990): 33–70. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Slawisch-awarische Grenzzone im Lichte der Grabfunde.” A Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Evkönyve 15 (1990a): 97–102. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “W sprawie chronologii i sposobu publikacji okucia awarskiego z Dobrzenia Małego.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 42 (1990b): 361–64. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Frühmittelalterliche Bestattungen der Würdenträger in Polen (Mitte des 10. bis Mitte des 12. Jh.).” Przegla ̨d Archeologiczny 38 (1991): 109–34. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Zur Chronologie der awarenzeitlichen Funde aus Polen.” In Probleme der relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis zum Frühmittelalter. Materialien des III internationalen Symposiums: Grundprobleme der frügeschichtlichen Entwicklung im nördlichen Mitteldonaugebiet. Kraków-Karniowice 3.-7. Dezember 1990, edited by Kazimierz Godłowski and Renata Madyda-Legutko, 297–315. Cracow: Secesja, 1992.

218 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “W kwestii genezy słowiańskich praktyk pogrzebowych.” In Miscellanea archaeologica Thaddaeo Malinowski dedicata, edited by Franciszek Rożnowski, 37–85. Słupsk/Poznań: Sorus, 1993. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Die Einführung der Körperbestattung bei den Slawen an der Ostsee.” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 24 (1994a): 81–93. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Formy konwersji słowiańszczyzny wczesnośredniowiecznej a problem przedpiastowskiej chrystianizacji Małopolski.” In Chrystianizacja Polski południowej. Materiały sesji naukowej odbytej 29 czerwca 1993 roku, 131–40. Cracow: Secesja, 1994b. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Die Jenseitsvorstellungen bei den heidnischen Slawen: defuncti vivi oder immaterialle Seelen?” Przegla ̨d Archeologiczny 43 (1995a): 123–26. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Pochówki benedyktynów tynieckich jako impuls do dyskusji nad średniowiecznym rytuałem pogrzebowym w ośrodkach monastycznych.” In Klasztor w kulturze sredniowiecznej ́ Polski. Materiały z ogólnopolskiej konferencji naukowej zorg. w Dabrowie Niemodlińskiej w dniach 4–6 XI 1993 przez Instytut Historii WSP w Opolu i Instytut Historyczny Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, edited by Anna Pobog-Lenartowicz and Marek Derwich, 445–47. Opole: Wydawnictwo Św. Krzyża, 1995b. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Archäologische Quellen aus dem Burgwallkomplex Stradów - Methoden und Perspektiven von Bearbeitung und Auswertung.” In Frühmittelalterliche Machtzentren in Mitteleuropa. Mehrjährige Grabungen und ihre Auswertung. Symposion Mikulc ̌ice, 5.-9. September 1994, edited by Č eněk Staňa and Lumír Poláček, 69–83. Brno: Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik, 1996a. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Awarska ozdoba uprzęzẏ w Lubomi, woj. Katowice.” In Słowiańszczyzna w Europie sredniowiecznej, ́ edited by Zofia Kurnatowska, 263–67. Wrocław: Werk, 1996b. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Wczesnośredniowieczny obrza ̨dek pogrzebowy a zróżnicowanie etniczne na pograniczu polsko-ruskim.” In Pocza ̨tki sa ̨siedztwa. Pogranicze etniczne polsko-rusko-słowackie w sredniowieczu. ́ Materiały z konferencji, Rzeszów 9–11 V 1995, edited by Michał Parczewski and Sylwester Czopek, 81–90. Rzeszów: Muzeum Okregowe w Rzeszowie, 1996c. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Zur Frage der großmährischen bzw. böhmischen Christianisierung Südpolens im Lichte der Grabfunde.” In Ethnische und kulturelle Verhältnisse an der mittleren Donau vom 6. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. Symposium Nitra 6. bis 10. November 1994, edited by Darina Bialeková and Jozef Zábojník, 305–12. Bratislava: VEDA, 1996d. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Bestattungssitten als wesentliches Zeugnis der Christianisierung bei den Slawen.” In Early Christianity in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Przemysław Urbańczyk, 39–942. Warsaw: Semper, 1997a.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

219

Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Elementy ordo defunctorum średniowiecznych bené dyktynów tynieckich (na podstawie wykopalisk).” In Smierc w dawnej Europie. Zbiór studiów, edited by Marek Derwich, 73–86. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1997b. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Gräberfelder des 8./9.-10./11. Jhs. mit skandinavischen Komponenten im slawischen Ostseeraum.” Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 49 (1997c): 9–19. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Stan badań nad obrzędowościa ̨ pogrzebowa Słowian.” Slavia Antiqua 38 (1997d): 65–80. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Wczesnośredniowieczne półziemianki z tzw. korytarzykami z grodziska w Stradowie.” Archeologia Polski 42 (1997e): 161–73. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Dwużebny haczyk z tulejka ze Stradowa - narzedzie rybackie czy kuchenne?” In Kraje słowiańskie w wiekach srednich. ́ Profanum i sacrum, edited by Hanna Kóčka-Krenz and Władysław Łosiński, 312–21. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1998a. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Eine Knopfriemenzunge kleinen Formats vom Wawel in Kraków. Das östlichste Vorkommen frühkarolingischer Tierornamentik.” In Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraumes. Von der Eisenzeit zum Mittelalter. Festschrift für Prof. Michael Müller-Wille, edited by Anke Wesse, 515–20. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1998b. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Nazemnye pogrebeniia s truposozhzheniem u slavian v svete pis’mennykh i arkheologicheskikh istochnikov.” Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia (1998c), no. 1: 84–90. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Wczesnokarolińskie okucie z ornamentem zoomorficznym znalezione w Krakowie na Wawelu.” Acta Archaeologica Waweliana 2 (1998d): 93–103. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Zum Beginn der Körperbestattung bei den Westslawen.” In Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts. Internationale Fachkonferenz der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Verbindung mit der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Kiel, 18.-25. September 1994, edited by Michael Müller-Wille, vol. 2, 227–38. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998e. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Do pytannia pro genezys slov’ians’kogo pokhoval’nogo obriadu na pochatku rann’ogo seredn’ovychchia (VI-VII st.).” In Etnokul’turni protsesy v Pivdenno-Skhidnoy Evropi v I tysiacholitti n.e. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’, edited by Rostislav V. Terpylovs’kyi, N. S. Abashina, L. E. Skyba, and V. I. Ivanovs’kyi, 319–27. Kiev/Lviv: Instytut arkheologii NAN Ukrainy, 1999. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Postępy chrystianizacji Słowian przed rokiem 1000.” ́ In Swiety Wojciech i jego czasy. Materiały III Sympozjum Historyczno-­ Archeologicznego Polskiego Uniwersytetu na Obczyźnie, Saint-Maurice, 12–13 kwietnia 1997 roku, edited by Andrzej Żaki, 103–09. Cracow: Nakł. Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 2000a.

220 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Problem datowania grodziska w Stradowie w świetle najnowszych badań.” In Osadnictwo i architektura ziem polskich w dobie zjazdu gnieźnieńskiego, edited by Andrzej Buko and Zygmunt Świechowski, 245–47. Warsaw: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 2000b. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena. “Usytuowanie cmentarzy Słowian w środowisku (doba pogańska i pierwsze wieki po przyjęciu chrześcijaństwa).” In Człowiek, sacrum, srodowisko. ́ Miejsca kultu we wczesnym sredniowieczu, ́ edited by Sławomir Moździoch, 207–19. Wrocław: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2000c. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena, and Bartłomiej Szymon Szmoniewski. “Opis obiektów nieruchomych.” In Stradów. Wczesnosredniowieczny ́ zespół osadniczy, edited by Andrzej Buko, 109–233. Cracow: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2007. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena, and Marcin Wołoszyn. “Stan badań nad grodziskem w Stradowie.” In Stradów. Wczesnosredniowieczny ́ zespół osadniczy, edited by Andrzej Buko, 33–75. Cracow: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2007. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena, and Józef Niznik, “Z badań kopców-mogił w Jawczycach i Wiatowicach (Podkarpacie Polski) w latach 1960–1961.” Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 5 (1963): 25–39. Zoll-Adamikowa, Helena, Maria Dekówna, and Elżbieta Maria Nosek. The Early Mediaeval Hoard from Zawada Lanckorońska (Upper Vistula River). Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, 1999.

Index1

A Adamik, Z., 84 Angelova, S., 67, 78n32, 81n39, 130n46 Anghelinu, M., 9n20, 32–33n18, 149, 163n68 Antonovich, V., 37 Artamonov, M., 31n12, 61, 62, 67, 77n23, 80n36 Avars, 87, 88, 96n21, 111, 135–136n85, 150, 163–164n74 Awards, 91, 95n10, 167n98, 167n99 state, 77n20 B Bârzu, L., 73n2, 129n45, 150 Belarus, 14, 42, 51n20 Bogyay, Thomas von, 89, 152, 165n89, 165n90 Bolsheviks, 11, 12, 21, 24, 37, 39, 41

Bóna, I., 88, 99n38, 150, 151, 163n70, 163n72, 163n74, 164n75, 164n76, 164n79, 165n88 Bourdieu, P., 5, 10n23, 44, 56n42, 144 Bucov, 63, 67, 107, 113, 138n98, 147–150, 161n50, 162n57, 163n64 Bukovina, 44, 55n38, 143 Bulgaria, 4, 13, 14, 19n20, 22, 26, 33n19, 35n25, 47, 59–62, 65–67, 70, 71, 72n1, 73n4, 77n24, 80n36, 91, 93, 102n59, 107, 112, 133n68, 140, 145, 146, 150, 154, 156n15, 157n16, 160n35, 164n75 Bulgars, 65, 66, 76n17, 79n35, 80n36, 92, 145, 148, 151, 160n35, 160n37, 164n75

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 F. Curta, I. Stamati, Women Archaeologists under Communism, 1917–1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87520-6

221

222 

INDEX

Burial child, 110–112 female, 111, 113, 131n60 male, 111 C Ceauşescu, N., 63, 115, 150, 156n13 Cehak-Hołubowicz, H., 84 Cemeteries cremation, 63, 65, 85, 87, 91, 105, 107, 108, 110, 121n20, 124n32, 125n35, 129n44, 129n45, 134n79, 147, 150–153 inhumation, 87, 91, 108, 121n20, 134n79, 150, 152 Chayanov, A., 112, 133n69 Childe, V. G., 42, 50n17, 83 Chişvasi-Comşa, M., see Comşa, M. Churches, archaeology of, 92 Communism, 4, 9n20, 19n20, 21–27, 41, 59, 63, 74n6, 105, 111, 141, 150 Comşa, E., 74n6, 109, 123n24 Comşa, M., 4, 5, 59–71, 83, 84, 87, 89, 92, 93, 95n12, 96n20, 99n38, 100n42, 107–109, 113–117, 120n18, 120–121n19, 121n20, 122n21, 122n22, 122n23, 123n24, 123n25, 123n26, 123n27, 123n28, 123n29, 127n40, 128–129n43, 130n50, 134n74, 134n79, 134n80, 135n81, 135n82, 135n83, 135–136n85, 136n86, 136n90, 137n93, 137n94, 138n98, 142, 146–151, 154, 157n16, 161n40, 161n42, 161n52, 161n53, 162n54, 162n57, 162n61, 162n62, 163n64, 164n76, 164n79

Constantinescu, N., 137n97, 138n98 Crişan, I. H., 137n93 Csemiczky, Ö., 84 Culture archaeological; Balkan-Danubian, 148, 162n57, 164n76; Chernyakhov, 43, 47, 55n41, 114; Dridu, 9n20, 147, 148, 164n76; Hlincea, 146; Luka-Raikoveckaia, 147; Romen-Borshevo, 147 disciplinary, 2–5, 8n17, 68, 71, 92, 141, 142, 144, 157n17 Cutrigurs, 148 Czechoslovakia, 26, 85, 151, 157n15 D Dacians, 55n38, 148 Dekówna, M., 95n9, 97n23, 127n40, 131n51 Diaconu, P., 76n18, 81–82n46, 138n98, 148, 149, 162n57, 162n61, 162n62, 163n64, 163n65 Doctoral degree, 13, 51n22, 59, 61, 64, 70, 72n2, 83, 91, 144 dissertation, 13, 51n22, 72n2 Doncheva-Petkova, L., 66, 68, 72n1, 73n3, 75n10, 77n22, 77n23, 80n36, 82n48, 160–161n39 Dress accessories, 2, 97n23, 107, 110, 111, 115 Dunaszekcső, 84 Dzhedzhovi Lozia, 64, 66, 78n32 E Education literacy, 12 university, 13 Eggshells, 111

 INDEX 

Engels, Fr., 11, 16n1, 23, 113, 114, 117, 132n62, 133n68, 135n81, 135n83, 148 Ethnogenesis, 25–27, 34n21, 35n25, 41, 47, 55n37, 56n43, 61, 62, 65, 66, 76n17, 92, 142, 158n27, 159n30, 159n32 Excavation techniques, 64, 67, 82n46, 148 F Fedorov, G., 49n6, 53n30, 53n31, 54n34 Fehér, G., 77n29, 87, 91, 92, 102–103n59, 103n60, 103n61, 110, 131n55, 145 Feminism, 1, 2, 4, 6n2, 8n19, 11, 16n1, 105, 139, 141 Feudalism, 112, 114–116, 135n82, 136n85 Filov, B., 77n29, 145 Fishing, 149 Formozov, A., 30n10, 48n1, 49n8, 52n22, 53n31 Foss, M., 39 Fülep, F., 102n58 G Garvan in Bulgaria, 65–67, 81n44, 112 Garvăn in Romania, 74n6, 107, 109, 134n79 Gavritukhin, I., 10n22, 40, 41, 44–47, 50n12, 50n14, 54n36, 55n40, 57n47, 58n48, 58n50, 58n53, 111, 158n29, 159n32 Gender archaeology, 1–4, 9n21 equality, 1, 5 Gening, V., 53n27

223

Georgieva, S., 65 Greece, 2, 7n9 Guciów, 87, 96n19 Györffy, G., 88, 99n38, 150, 151, 163n70, 163n71, 163n72, 163n74, 164n75, 164n76 H Harhoiu, R., 148 Hensel, W., 32n18, 78n34, 80n36, 85, 91–93, 101n52, 101n53, 101n54, 102n56, 128n43, 135n80, 152, 153, 166n94 Hlincea, 146 Hoards, 87, 97n23, 107, 127n40 Hołubowicz, W., 111, 132n64 Hungary, 4, 13, 14, 17n5, 18n13, 19–20n20, 22, 26, 27, 36n26, 36n27, 83, 87–89, 91–93, 95n14, 96n21, 100n42, 108, 109, 150–153, 157n16, 164n86, 165n88, 165n90 I Institute of Archaeology Bucharest, 22, 62, 64, 75n13 Cracow, 90 Moscow, 21, 41, 43, 44, 46, 143 Sofia, 62, 64, 67, 77n22 J Journals Archaeologia Polona, 3, 6n1, 29n3, 32n18, 34–35n23, 125n35, 132n64 Arheološki vestnik, 3, 124n30 Rossiiskaia Arkheologiia, 39, 50n11, 54n37, 58n51, 58n52, 125n33

224 

INDEX

Journals (cont.) Sovetskaia Arkheologiia, 29n5, 31n12, 34n21, 39, 50n18, 51n20, 53n27, 54n33, 54n37, 57n46, 58n52, 78n33, 79n35, 118n5, 126n35, 130n49, 132n65 Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, 3, 96n19, 97–98n25, 101n52, 126n39, 127–128n42, 129n43 Studii şi cerceta ̆ri de istorie veche, 30n6, 63, 75n13, 76n19, 77n20, 81n46, 120–121n19, 121n20, 122n21, 122n23, 123n27, 128n43, 134n79, 135n81, 137n97, 147, 161n52, 162n62 Wiadomoscí Archeologiczne, 3, 97n25, 166n96 Zalai Gyűjtemény, 89, 99n32, 100n45, 167n105 K Kádár, J., 151, 153, 164n83 Karpińska, A., 83 Kecel, 84 Keszthely, 87 Khoroshkevich, A., 10n22, 43, 50n19, 53n31, 55n40, 55n41, 158n26, 159n30 Khrushchev, N., 23 Klein, L., 9n20, 28n2, 31n12, 33n19, 39, 40, 43, 44, 49n7, 51n21, 53n27 Kocel, 88, 150, 151 Kodyn, 44, 105, 111, 112, 143 Kolchin, B., 149, 163n65 Korchak, 42, 52n23, 105 Kornatka, 87 Kövecses, island, 88 Krivina, 112

Kukharenko, Iu., 42, 43, 47, 48, 50n19, 51n20, 51n21, 52n23, 53n31, 61, 144 Kurnatowska, Z., 97n22, 125n35 Kutzián, I., 83, 85, 94n6, 95n12 L Lebedev, G., 28n1, 28n2, 33n19, 48n1 Lech, J., 9n20, 29n3, 32n18, 34n23 Lenin, V., 11, 23, 114 Liapushkin, I., 74n5, 146 Lindenschmidt, Fr., 83 Locks, 149 Lubbock, J., 83 M Marr, N., 23, 24, 30n10, 80n37, 145 Marx, K., 11, 16n1, 23, 67, 114, 133n66, 137n92, 139, 146, 154n4, 154n6, 155n7, 156n14 Marxism, 4, 5, 6n3, 22–24, 27, 30n10, 42, 105–117, 139, 156n14, 161n53 Melnik-Antonovich, E., 37–39 Migration, see Migrationism Migrationism, 47, 51n21, 116, 133n66, 143 Miiatev, K., 61, 73n4, 75n10 Milchev, A., 64–67, 70, 73n4, 78n32, 78–79n34, 80n37, 109, 129–130n46, 144–146, 160n33, 160n35 Millennium, anniversary in Poland, 91 Mode of production, 23, 115–117, 137n93, 137n94, 148 Moldova, 14, 37, 49n7, 74n6 Moravia, 97n23, 150, 151, 163n70, 166n97 Morgan, Ch. H., 148

 INDEX 

Moscow, 21, 23, 38, 39, 41, 43–46, 59–62, 64, 70, 75n13, 112, 143, 144, 147, 160n33 Museums, 12, 21, 22, 27, 28n2, 37, 62, 66, 73n2, 73n3, 77n22, 80n37, 84, 109, 130n50, 167n99 Mykhaylyna, L., 109 N Names, 21, 38–40, 52n23, 72n1, 77n25, 79n35, 84, 87, 95n12, 115, 132n64, 161n52, 164n86 maiden, 84, 95n12 Nestor, I., 63, 64, 66, 70, 71, 74n6, 76n17, 76n19, 76–77n20, 89, 93, 109, 129n45, 146–150, 161n40, 161n42, 161n44, 161n52, 161n53, 162n54, 164n79 Nova Cherna, 65, 78n32, 129n46 Novi Pazar, 107 Nuşfalău, 87, 113, 146, 147, 161n44 O Oroszlány, 84 Ovcharov, D., 64, 66, 70, 79n35 P Paganism, 55n37, 57n45, 101n49, 106, 108, 142, 158n27 Paleobotany, 2 Passek, T., 39, 49n7 Pletneva, S., 39, 50n9, 80n38 Pliska, 65, 66, 78n32, 80n38, 107, 113, 134n73, 145, 160n35 Podkowińska, Z., 84, 167n98 Pókaszepetk, 84, 110, 111, 150, 151

225

Poland, 2, 4, 7n8, 13, 14, 18n15, 19n19, 19n20, 22, 24–27, 29n3, 32n18, 47, 51n21, 57n47, 83, 85, 87, 91–93, 94n3, 108, 132n64, 140, 141, 143, 152, 153, 156n15, 165n92, 166n97, 167n103 Polesie, 42, 45, 47, 51n20, 52n23, 57n45, 144 Poliomyelitis, 84 Popina, 61, 64–66, 75n9, 98n30, 134n74, 144 Pottery handmade, 40, 47, 51n20, 142, 144, 146, 147 Prague type, 42, 52n23, 146 tournette, 146, 147, 162n61 Preslav, 65, 66, 112 Pribina, 88, 89, 98n27, 150, 151 R Radnóti, A., 87 Reinecke, P., 83 Romania, 2, 4, 7n9, 13, 14, 18n13, 19–20n20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29n3, 32n18, 36n26, 44, 59–63, 65–68, 70, 71, 72n1, 72–73n2, 74n6, 74n7, 75n13, 76n17, 77n20, 87, 89, 93, 96n20, 107, 113–117, 135n83, 137n93, 137n94, 140, 146–150, 154, 157n16, 161n40 Romanians, 22, 35–36n26, 55n38, 60–64, 67, 70, 72–73n2, 74n6, 75n13, 76n17, 77n20, 107, 113, 115–117, 136n86, 137n92, 142, 147–149, 151, 161n52, 164n79 Rómer, Fl., 83, 89 Rus, 25, 43, 45, 158n27

226 

INDEX

Rusanova, I., 4, 37–48, 64, 66, 70, 74n5, 80n38, 93, 105–107, 109, 111, 113, 117, 118n3, 129n44, 132n62, 132n64, 142–144, 154, 158n27, 159n30, 159n32 Rybakov, B., 43, 44, 47, 48, 51n20, 52n23, 53n29, 53n31, 54n34, 54n37, 61, 73n4, 74n7, 119n6, 123n26, 142–144, 155n9 S Sărata Monteoru, 63, 76n19, 129n45, 146, 147, 161n42 Schliemann, H., 83 Secret police, 63, 64, 147 Securitate, see Secret police Sedov, V., 44–48, 51n21, 54–55n37, 56n43, 57n45, 57n47, 58n51, 58n52, 64, 70, 74n5, 93, 109, 129n44, 142–144, 157–158n21, 158n26, 158n27, 159n30, 159n32, 167n105 Silistra, 61, 65, 129n46 Slavs early, 4, 5, 24, 27, 36n26, 40, 42–44, 47, 48, 51n20, 52n23, 55n41, 59, 62, 63, 66, 70, 73n4, 74n5, 87, 91, 141, 143–145, 153, 157n16 Eastern, 25, 44, 143, 147, 161n40, 161n42, 164n79 Western, 147 Slon, 115, 123n28 Slovenia, 2, 3, 7n9 Solidarność, 91 Someşeni, 87, 96n20, 146, 147, 161n44 Sós, Á. Cs., 4, 5, 83–93, 107–112, 117, 123n30, 131n59, 131n60, 134n73, 136n85, 141, 142, 150–154, 157n16, 163n71, 163n72, 163n74, 164n79,

164n80, 164n86, 165n88, 165n89, 165n91 Soviet Union, 4, 12–15, 17n9, 19n19, 19n20, 21–24, 26, 27, 28n2, 36n26, 43, 44, 47, 48, 51n20, 51n21, 54n37, 55n38, 59, 61, 62, 64, 66, 70, 74n5, 75n9, 79n34, 80n36, 93, 132n64, 132n65, 133n69, 140, 143, 144, 146, 147, 154, 155n9, 156n15, 159n32, 160n33, 161n40 Stahl, H. H., 115–117, 136n86, 136n90, 137n91, 137n92, 137n93, 137n94, 137n95, 148, 161n53 Standpoint theory, 1, 4, 6n2, 139, 141, 154n3, 154n4 Stanilov, S., 66, 67, 71, 81n43, 81n44, 145, 146, 160n36 Ştefan, Gh., 61, 123n24, 130n48 Stempovskaia, L., 37 Stepanova, N., 16n3 Stradów, 87, 91, 93, 97–98n25, 101n52, 108, 110, 153 Suttee, 110, 131n54 Symonovich, E., 44, 55n41, 143 Szőke, B. M., 89, 90, 93n1, 98n27, 99n34, 100n45, 100n46, 100n47, 101n49, 164n86, 165n88, 165n89, 167n105 T Teodor, D. Gh., 148, 162n55, 162n57 Thracians, 65, 145 Tikhomirov, M., 41 Timoshchuk, B., 40, 44, 46–48, 55n38, 106, 109, 111–113, 117, 132n65, 143, 144, 158n27 Torma, Zs., 83, 94n5 Tóth, S., 89, 100n44, 165n88 Transylvania, 114, 147–149

 INDEX 

Tret’iakov, P., 40–42, 47, 50n19, 51n21, 52n23, 60, 73n4, 105 Turkey, 91 U Udal’cov, A., 31n12 Ukraine, 14, 38, 40, 42, 44, 49n7, 84, 143, 144, 147 Üllő, 84 Uvarov, A., 38, 49n4, 49n7 Uvarova, P., 38, 39, 48n1, 49n4, 49n7 V Vaklinov, S., 64, 66, 70, 79n35, 81n40, 145 Văzharova, Zh., 4, 5, 59–71, 84, 87, 92, 93, 94n5, 106–109, 112, 113, 117, 118n6, 119n11, 122n23, 133n66, 133n68, 133n69, 133n72, 133–134n73, 134n74, 141, 142, 144–146, 149, 154, 160n33, 160n35, 160n36, 161n39 Village community, 112–116, 135n82, 135n83, 136n90, 137n94, 138n98

227

W Walachia, 114, 135n85 Werner, J., 89, 100n42, 109, 152, 162n54 Y Yugoslavia, 25, 27, 87, 157n15, 164n75 Z Zaharia, E., 73n2, 138n97, 150 Zalavár, 87–89, 91, 92, 100n45, 100n46, 101n49, 103n61, 108, 110, 150, 152, 165n89 Zawada Lanckorońska, 87 Zhenotdel, 11 Zhivkov, T., 145, 160n37 Zhivkova, L., 146, 160n37 Złotniki, 87 Zoll-Adamikowa, H., 4, 5, 83–93, 108–112, 117, 125n35, 127n40, 141–143, 152–154, 165n92, 166n94, 166n96, 166n97, 167n98, 167n99, 167n103