Paper, 2021

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 14

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

“To hell with everything”: Post-war nationalism and the “Old Slavic
Sanctuary” at Ptuj Castle, Slovenia
Izidor Janžekovič
Department of History, Central European University Vienna, Quellenstraße 51, 1100 Vienna, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The large post-war archaeological excavations at Ptuj Castle in Yugoslavia were responsible for what seemed at
Slavic archaeology the time to be one of the most intriguing discoveries in Eastern Europe. Excavated after the German occupation,
nationalism the archaeologists and anthropologists had a mission to prove the existence of early medieval Slavic settlement of
state ideology
the disputed border areas in response to the Germanization policy and its supporting archaeological theories
Early Middle Ages
post-war period
during World War II. Conscious of their role, archaeologists and anthropologists argued for the Slavic nature of
Yugoslavia artefacts and skeletons against the former German claims. Thus, the excavated structure, the robber trenches of a
Fascism tower, notoriously (mis)interpreted as an ‘old Slavic sanctuary’, can only be understood in its post-war state- and
Nazism nation-building context. Working with the same artefacts, archaeological research techniques under the veil of
Communism Fascism, Nazism and Communism were strikingly similar, but the interpretations of results were diametrically
Eastern Europe opposed. As has been pointed out, archaeology and anthropology served the prevailing political ideology. Po­
litical transitions, mixed with opportunistic behavior and personal animosities among archaeologists, influenced
archaeological analyses and interpretations. Many archaeologists and anthropologists compensated for their mid-
war activities by closely following the post-war nationalist agenda. This generally happened without any direct
pressure from above.

1. Introduction influence of national ideologies on archaeological thought and practice


has been well researched (Fowler, 1987; Kohl and Fawcett, 1995; Kohl,
“To hell with everything,” scribbled the excavation director on the 1998; Bernbeck and McGuire, 2000; Díaz-Andreu, 2014, Shnirelman,
Western Plateau or “Tournament Ground” at Ptuj Castle, Josip Korošec 2014; Hutchings and Dent, 2017). Central and Eastern European ar­
(1909–1966), in his field journal on 25 June 1947. What pushed Korošec chaeologies have a long ‘romantic’ tradition, which has also received a
over the edge to send everything (and everyone) to hell? The quote is fair amount of attention (Sklenář, 1983; Geary, 2003; Härke, 2000;
explained later in its appropriate context. Here it is sufficient to say that Maner, 2018). However, archaeology in communist Yugoslavia, espe­
during an excavation over two seasons in 1946 and 1947, his archaeo­ cially in its post-war period, has yet to receive proper treatment in En­
logical team unearthed a structure that stirred up considerable contro­ glish (Novaković, 2014: 7–12; Lorber, 2019, 2020; Lorber and
versy. In his trilingual Slovenian-Russian-English book, Korošec Novaković, 2020).
interpreted the structure as an old Slavic sanctuary (Korošec, 1948). The The purpose of the paper, besides presenting the specific case study,
first and the most combative critic of this thesis was the director of the is to present the archaeological thought and practice under the totali­
Maribor museum, Franjo Baš (1899–1967), who thought that the exca­ tarian communist regime of post-war Yugoslavia and put it into context
vated features were the robber trenches of a medieval tower (Baš, with its pre- and mid-war predecessors. Furthermore, the motives and
1948–49). The controversy surrounding this structure, located in a interests of the archaeologists working under different regimes are
famous classical and medieval archaeological site Ptuj (Fig. 1), has been assessed to better understand how they handled these transitions and
either ignored or summarily mentioned in footnote so far (Slapšak and different nation-buildings. Even though Communism officially propa­
Novaković, 1996: 288; Pleterski, 2011: 128; Predovnik, 2012: 84–85). gated an international outlook and brotherhood of nations, it often
States, and not necessarily just totalitarian ones, follow George resorted to nationalist agendas. Nations promoted myths of the past and
Orwell’s Party slogan from 1984: “Who controls the past controls the tried to unify the people towards a common goal or enemy, which was
future: who controls the present controls the past” (Orwell, 1949). particularly evident when Yugoslavia broke up in the early 1990s
Mainstream archaeology was always tied to national institutions as it (Slapšak, 1993; Slapšak and Novaković, 1996; Novaković, 2007a,
relied on financing from nation-states. In the recent decades, the 2007b).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101309
Received 30 August 2020; Received in revised form 20 April 2021;
Available online 2 June 2021
0278-4165/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

I focus on the “old Slavic sanctuary” controversy as the entry point emphasize that I am not making value judgements about any archae­
for not only post-war Yugoslav archaeological but also anthropological ologist or anthropologist, but I try to present their actions and analyses
nationalist analyses. The two disciplines often cooperated closely when in a proper context. Thus, this article is not intended as an attack ad
determining the ethnicity of past peoples. To understand the problem, I personam, but should be read as an ‘attack’ ad modum operandi.
approached it as ‘holistically’ or microhistorically as possible. I visited In the article, I present how and why Korošec made the controversial
archives, museums and other cultural heritage institutions. I analyzed interpretation in the first place. I explain the historical context of the
the excavation finds and documentation, field journals, excavation re­ excavation and the political transitions that the individuals had to adapt
ports, meeting minutes, reports of confidential informants, published to. To understand the post-war excavations in Yugoslavia, one has to
books and articles, and conducted several interviews. I have to understand the ideological shift since the German occupation. The

Fig. 1. Ptuj and its position in Europe. Satellite image of the Western Plateau of Ptuj Castle today. The Western Plateau is surrounded by a wall and is confined in the
north by a large early-18th century granary, in the west by the western tower, in the south by the southern round tower and in the east by the horseshoe-shaped castle
core. The outline of the contentious square structure is visible in the satellite image.

2
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

influence of national ideology or state goals manifested itself in the graves. He stated that “if we ever manage to discover larger settlements
archaeological research. Political transitions, often mixed with oppor­ of Slavic origin in Slovenia, this would have shined light on a still-dark
tunistic behavior and personal animosities among archaeologists, chapter [of our history], and many claims of Italian and German histo­
influenced archaeological analyses and interpretations. I argue that rians would have to be amended or even abandoned” (Pollak, 1907: 229;
many archaeologists and anthropologists compensated for their mid-war Skrabar, 1912: 339). Nationalistic analyses were already present in
activities by following and pursuing the post-war nationalist agenda. archaeology well before the arrival of Fascists, Nazis and Communists.
Although this has often been depicted as the result of direct pressure of
the state on archaeologists, it was a symbiotic and mutually beneficial 3. Hitler’s order and the nationalist goals of archaeology under
relationship with little if any direct government persuasion. Nazism

2. Earlier excavations at Ptuj On a cold and cloudy Saturday morning, at 9.30 on 26 April 1941,
Adolf Hitler unexpectedly arrived in Maribor, a city 25 km north of Ptuj.
Systematic archaeological research in Ptuj began at the end of the The visit and warm welcome were captured on film and included in the
19th century, when the site was still part of Austria-Hungary, even German weekly newsreel Die Deutsche Wochenschau (Nr. 558, 16 May
before the local Museum Society was founded in 1893. In fact, the 1941; Hajdinjak, 2016). Maribor was the capital of his new territorial
museum was established because the founders, the members of the local gain, Lower Styria. The occupying forces conquered and divided the
Tourist Society (Verschönerungsverein), wanted to keep the excavated Kingdom of Yugoslavia after they had invaded it three weeks earlier.
artifacts from being taken to the nearby museum Joanneum in Graz in Hitler’s visit was notable for Maribor if we consider that after the
Upper Styria in today’s Austria. Professional archaeologists, who had outbreak of the war, Hitler rarely appeared in public. In connection to
been educated in Vienna, namely Walter Schmid, Mihovil Abramić and the invasion, he made the notorious order to the Styrian Nazi-Gauleiter
Balduin Saria, worked at Ptuj and in Slovenia even after the break-up of Siegfried Uiberreither: “Make this land German again for me!” (Machen
Austria-Hungary and formation of the first (Kingdom of) Yugoslavia in Sie mir dieses Land wieder deutsch!) (Hitler after Marburger Zeitung,
late 1918 (officially called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 1941: 4).
until 1929). Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the major This order was not just an empty political phrase but a genuine call
archaeological publications were still written in German since there was for a number of aggressive Germanization policies which were fairly
no real break in tradition, in contrast to what happened at the end of similar to those elsewhere in Eastern Europe. These policies initially
World War II. Even the first catalog of the Ptuj Museum was written in contained violent actions such as mass expulsions of Slovene population,
German by Abramić and published in Vienna; it was immediately especially of intellectuals and priests, but it later turned to a more
translated into Slovenian (Abramić, 1925). gradual acculturation with enforcement of the German language in
At that time, the focus was not on early medieval history but on the public schools, theaters and offices (Ferenc, 2006–2010; Weindling,
ancient settlement, Colonia Ulpia Traiana Poetovio, one of the most 2011). The Germanization program was based on the texts of German
important Roman towns in the central Danube region, larger than geographers, historians and archaeologists who laid the groundwork for
Roman London (Londinium) or Vienna (Vindobona) (Horvat et al., 2003). the Nazis (cf. Ahnenerbe). These scholars regularly followed or even
Balduin Saria, who was “effectively the only archaeologist from Slovenia preceded the Nazi conquering machine by claiming that certain lands
with a considerable international reputation” (Guštin, 2019: 19), was were formerly part of German settlement, especially in the Early Middle
one of the architects of the first all-Yugoslav enterprises in archaeology, Ages (Fazioli, 2012; Wedekind, 2019). In other parts of Europe, these
the Archaeological Map of Yugoslavia (Archäologische Karte von Jugosla­ National Socialist claims also included periods such as prehistory as
wien; Klemenc and Saria, 1936). The first meeting was organized in 1935 shown by J. Laurence Hare’s studies (Hare, 2014, 2015) and High
in Ptuj by Saria, Josip Klemenc and local amateur archaeologist Viktor Middle Ages with focus on castles as explained recently in Fabian Link’s
Skrabar. Ptuj also had a broader archaeological renown. In September studies (Link, 2014, 2015; Link and Hornburg, 2016). Although
1937, an international team of archaeologists and geographers partici­ nationalistic interpretations of archaeological artefacts started long
pating in the cartographic survey of the Roman Empire (Tabula Imperii before the Nazis came to prominence and power, their use in justifying
Romani), led by O.G.S. Crawford, had one of its meetings in Ptuj various policies had radical and catastrophic consequences.
(Vomer-Gojkovič and Kolar, 1993: 15–16). The Third Reich was not the only occupier of Yugoslavia during the
At that time, when academic focus was on classical archaeology, war as the major part of Yugoslavia was occupied by Hungary and Italy.
early medieval archaeology in Slovenia was eclipsed by the remarkable The latter also used archaeology and cultural heritage for Italian na­
prehistoric and Roman finds (Guštin, 2019: 20; Pleterski, 2001; Milavec, tional and ideological goals, even before World War I. However, in
2009). Skrabar, spiritus agens of Ptuj Museum until his death in 1938, comparison with the German and Slavic ideologies which focused on the
wanted to discover the late Roman fortress on the Western Plateau of Early Middle Ages, Fascist Italy was built on the idea of Roman Empire
Ptuj Castle. He managed to convince the aristocratic Herberstein family, and its heritage. The Italians based their territorial claims by empha­
who still owned Ptuj Castle until 1945, to allow the excavation. From sizing the longevity and tradition of the Roman and Venetian culture in
mid-October to mid-November 1909, Skrabar excavated the eastern part littoral areas (Cuscito, 1993; Guidi, 1996; Bitelli, 1999; Novaković,
of the Western Plateau. To his and everyone’s surprise, he did not 1999). The local and regional museums in northeastern Italy, which
discover the late Roman fortress but an early medieval cemetery were already established in Austria-Hungary, mostly promoted Italian
(Skrabar, 1910). Skrabar’s excavation, however, was limited only to a state policies and propaganda with very little active policy enforcement
few one-meter-wide trenches with varying lengths, he did not excavate from above.
to sterile soil and he had to avoid Herberstein’s trees. These were just One of the most infamous German archaeologists, whom Yugoslav
some of archaeological reasons why Korošec and others decided to public would later repeatedly reference and refute (Naprijed, 1946: 4),
excavate this site again in 1946 (Korošec, 1947b: 6–7). was Karl Dinklage (1907–1987). He was one of the leading German
Skrabar unearthed 66 graves and compared them to “Kettlach cul­ archaeologists for the Migration Period and Early Middle Ages, and was
ture” to the north (Carinthia and Styria in Austria) and other “South a member of the Institute for Southeastern Studies (Südostinstitut) of the
Slavic necropolises in Croatia, Slavonia and Carniola” (Skrabar, 1910: Munich University between 1935 and 1942. In the year of the German
14). Furthermore, he connected the graves to the ones from Spodnja invasion, Dinklage published three articles with telling titles (Dinklage,
Hajdina near Ptuj, excavated a couple of years earlier (Pollak, 1907; 1941a–c). Dinklage (1941a: 235) noted that “with the re-annexation of
Skrabar, 1912). The pharmacist and amateur archaeologist Frančišek Lower Styria and much of Carniola to the [Third] Reich, an area of very
Pollak unearthed twenty graves and supported the Slavic nature of the old Germanic cultural settlement was restored from foreign Slavic

3
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

domain.” He reached similar conclusions earlier for Egerland (Cz. approach at the time and had been rarely challenged up to that point.
Chebsko) in the far northwest of Bohemia (Dinklage, 1940) and later for Archaeological cultures were often identified with particular peoples
the whole of Carniola (Dinklage, 1943). (Jones, 1997). It was not until the 1960s that such methods were seri­
During the war, Dinklage led the pre- and protohistoric part of the ously questioned, albeit not completely discarded. David L. Clarke
new Nazi Institute for Carinthian Province Research (Institut für Kärntner (1968: 11–13) challenged the notion by explicitly stating that “an
Landesforschung), founded in October 1942 in Klagenfurt, Austria (Ple­ archaeological culture is not a racial group, nor a historical tribe” and
terski, 2002). The explicit task of the Institute was to support the that it is a poor proxy for real people or the way they behave. Stephen
Germanization policies and “to develop in undeniable terms the ideol­ Shennan (1989: 5) identified archaeological culture as “a complex and
ogy for the German claim for Upper Carniola as an area of old Germanic unsatisfactory explanatory edifice.” However, the equation between
settlement” (Kärntner Zeitung, 1942: 4; Wedekind, 2005: 117–119). The archaeological culture and ethnic entity was widespread and commonly
institute’s goal to Germanize was understood by the local population accepted in the mid-20th-century Europe.
under occupation. Even the official founding date was symbolic, as it fell Another crucial aspect to consider are local circumstances, collabo­
on 10 October 1942, the anniversary of the 1920 Carinthian plebiscite in ration and shifting allegiances. Before 1945, Ptuj still had a large per­
the area also settled by Carinthian Slovenes (Barker and Moritsch, centage of German-speaking inhabitants or Volksdeutschers, who were
1984). The Carinthians, with a small majority, chose to live in the newly organized in various organizations (Kulturbund). These ethnic Germans
formed Republic of Austria instead of the newly formed Kingdom of generally promoted Nazism, welcomed the German occupation and
Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (since 1929 known as the Kingdom of collaborated with the German occupation authorities. As Mitja Guštin
Yugoslavia). (2019: 20) pointed out, these Volksdeutschers doubted the identification
In July and August 1943, Dinklage also led small excavations in Bled of the 66 graves excavated by Skrabar in 1909 as Slavs and assumed
in Upper Carniola in Slovenia. Alfons Müllner (1840–1918), curator at their Germanic identity. During World War II, there was not a lot of
the Provincial Museum in Ljubljana, was the first who attributed the archaeological activity in Ptuj (Saria, 1951; Klemenc, 1950: 7).
finds from Bled to Slavs, while Walter Schmid (1875–1951) attributed a
number of sites in the Eastern Alps to “early Slovenes” (Schmid, 1908; 4. Tito’s order and the nationalist ambition of archaeology
Guštin, 2019). The first finds and graves at Pristava, underneath Bled under Communism
Castle, were found in 1932, so Dinklage decided to continue with the
excavation. In 1943, he unearthed seventeen graves and identified an Fast forward a few years to the immediate post-war period, when
additional six, but did not dig them (Kärntner Zeitung, 1943; Knific, another ideology was dominant but archaeology kept the same methods.
2008: 24, 29). Dinklage (1943: 3) concluded that “since the Migration Germany was defeated and devastated, Hitler was dead and on 9 May
Period, Carniola and its later marches [Marken] were German settlement 1945 Stalin saluted the triumphant soldiers with a radio broadcast from
and cultural regions.” Moscow saying: “The age-long struggle of the Slav nations for their ex­
The few active Slovene archaeologists at the time did not publicly istence and independence has ended in victory over the German in­
contradict Dinklage. For instance, a curator at the National Museum in vaders and German tyranny” (Stalin, 1945: 135). In southeastern
Ljubljana Rajko Ložar (1904–1985) did not oppose Dinklage, despite Europe, the second, and this time communist and socialist, Yugoslavia
being very interested in the archaeology within a national Slovene emerged from the struggle against the occupiers with the help of Soviet
framework before the war (Ložar, 1938, 1941). In 1945, Ložar soldiers. Much less (in)famous than Hitler’s order and speech was Tito’s
emigrated to Austria and then to the USA, where he found work in the speech after the war. On 9 May 1945, the Victory Day in Eastern Europe,
City Museum in Manitowoc in Wisconsin (Slavec Gradišnik, 2005). Tito (1945: 54–57) stated that “the new days are at hand when we shall
Ironically, Dinklage was challenged by Richard Pittioni from Vienna, build up our devastated land… We must make our brotherhood and
who claimed that the hand-made pottery from Bled and a few other sites unity even stronger, so that never again can any force destroy it.” This
in the Eastern Alps could be either Slavic or Germanic (Pittioni, 1943; call for the rebuilding of the homeland and stronger “brotherhood and
Guštin, 2019: 20). In post-war Yugoslavia, Bled became the second unity” also reached archaeologists and anthropologists.
crucial site to demonstrate the Slavic nature of these regions. After the war, the new communist state wanted, indeed needed, to
Dinklage came to his conclusions by comparing specific artefacts, establish itself on new foundations. Concerning archaeology, the break
from “early German brooches” and “early German crescent-shaped with Austria-Hungary after the First World War was less radical than the
earrings” to “early German swords” and “early German stirrups” or break after the Second World War. Ptuj Castle and cultural heritage from
even “early German arrowheads”, and giving them ethnic markers, i.e., the previous aristocratic owners was nationalized and stored in mu­
every artifact was “early German” (frühdeutsch; cf. Dinklage 1943: seums as the “people’s property” (narodna imovina); Korošec and his
T.1–10). He would name one or two examples from Germany, usually family later moved into the Ptuj Castle. The managers of Ptuj Museum
from Bayern, and then list several similar artefacts from the territories of were spontaneously aware of the duties and unique opportunities of the
today’s Slovenia and Croatia (Dinklage, 1941a–c, 1943). Interestingly, post-war period. Already in the summer of 1945, only a few weeks after
he also listed several examples from Istria, which was under Italian the end of World War II, they noted that “primarily we have to be
occupation at the time, so Nazi land ambitions were perhaps even interested in old Slavic finds, because Ptuj occupies the first place in old
higher, or in this case wider. None or very few today would consider the Slavic archaeology of Slovenia; the Ministry is forcing this position and
spread of cultural artefacts as a pure manifestation of ethnic dispersal. will provide additional funds for old Slavic excavations” (Ptuj Museum
To be fair to Dinklage, I used him as an example of modus operandi of report from 1945 in Janžekovič, 2017a: 215). They also played the
the entire generation of (German) scholars because he was the most geographical card of being a “border town,” so the care for Ptuj Museum
referenced author in the immediate post-war Yugoslavia. Several was in accordance with the “national aspirations, demands and rights.”
scholars submitted their scientific work to the Nazi conquering machine. Thus, in the time of severely limited resources, adaptation to the pre­
One only has to check the titles of articles and books by Fritz Valjavec, vailing ideology and focus on old Slavic archaeology afforded stronger
Herbert Weinelt, Helmut Preidel and many others to understand how financial support and enhanced the reputation of the archaeologists.
widespread this really was. Michael Wedekind (2019) demonstrated A few months later, on 19 October 1945, at the first official meeting
how close the integration of academic elites and decision-makers of the of Ptuj Museum, Anton Smodič, the curator of Ptuj Museum, stated that
Nazi regime in the Alps-Adriatic region was. In this sense, Dinklage was “Nazi-Fascism wanted to suppress our cultural identity and to wipe us
not an outlier, but representative of the archaeological discipline in off the face of the earth… it is our duty now to be interested in old Slavic
Germany and Austria, founded on the culture-historical principles. finds” (Smodič in Janžekovič, 2017a: 215). Such were the explicit duties
The culture-historical archaeological method was a prominent of national archaeologies for the next decades not just in the whole of

4
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

Yugoslavia (Korošec, 1950a; Garašanin and Kovačević, 1950; Gunjača, artefacts.” However, the early medieval archaeology was by far the most
1956; Ljubinković, 1977; Rapanić, 1986; Kaiser, 1995; Novaković, ideologically invested.
2014), but in all Eastern Europe (Bulkin et al., 1982; Coblenz, 2002;
Novaković, 2012b), and in many other authoritarian systems (Galaty 5. The first season and financial struggles
and Watkinson, 2004). The focus of archaeologists was on the Migration
Period, and even the Slovenian historians praised “the scientific progress The first excavation season started on 22 July 1946 and was sup­
of archaeology after the liberation, especially in relation to the Slove­ posed to last a month; it lasted for over four months, until late
nian Early Middle Ages” (Petauer, 1950: 211). A similar focus is rarely November. The archaeological and anthropological works were con­
explicitly stated today, but, because resources come mostly from na­ ducted simultaneously at Ptuj Castle. In the first month, archaeologists
tional states, the archaeologists tailor the projects and conclusions to discovered almost 100 new skeletons and wrote with excitement: “The
make it more appealing for the nation-state. skeletons are lying in the earth like sardines in a can… There has to be a
Russia, which was still the main ally of Yugoslavia until 1948, served few hundred old Slovenes in this cemetery… Only now do we see what
as a role model (Kohl et al., 2007). The museum workers in Ptuj wanted nonsense we wrote under the influence of German literature and that we
to arrange the museum based on the Russian example to show “how our have to revise all our knowledge completely” (Smodič in Janžekovič,
farmer was connected with the Slavs in the north, with Russia” and to 2017a: 219; Fig. 2). The constant theme in these reports was that the
present “the material and mental culture cultivated by our farmer” results “exceeded all expectations,” that they had discovered “the richest
(meeting minutes in Janžekovič, 2017a: 215). A few years later during finds so far” and that they “urgently need[ed] additional (financial)
the first official meeting of the Yugoslav archaeologists in May 1950 at resources.” The reports often referenced the previous German theories
Niška Banja they defined the archaeological goals. Đurđe Bošković that the archaeologists were now trying to disprove by using the same
emphasized the “need for the ideological perspective of archaeology methods and same materials.
based on the historical materialism” (Korošec, 1950b: 213). In spite of The main obstacle in the first months of the excavation was the lack
many similar initiatives, Marxist archaeology “based on the historical of financial resources. After two weeks they would have run out of
materialism” never established deeper roots in Yugoslavia and the pre- money and would have had to finish the excavation on 10 August 1946,
war (German) culture-historical paradigm prevailed (Novaković, if Ivaniček did not give part of his loan (10,000 dinars) to the excavation
2000: 62–63; 2012a). The search for past ethnicities was still the prime efforts. Korošec and Smodič asked the Institute for the Protection of
motivation and essential paradigmatic feature of post-war archaeology Cultural Heritage of Slovenia and the Ministry of Culture for additional
and anthropology. funds because they could not pay for workers’ food. Smodič even wrote
For the celebration of International Workers’ Day on 1 May 1946, to the Committee for Arts and Culture in Belgrade and described the
Josip Korošec prepared a special exhibition. It was advertised as “the excavations. He was convinced that they could “refute all German and
first old Slavic exhibition in (northern) Slovenia,” and was clearly a Hungarian scientific claims about the settlement of Germans and Hun­
response to the local debates and doubts about the identity of the graves garians in the territory of today’s Yugoslavia,” but that they needed
discovered in 1909. The opening ceremony was also attended by many “substantial financial assistance” (Smodič in Janžekovič, 2017a: 219).
politicians. The president of Ptuj Museum, Franc Stiplovšek, stated in his Hardships persisted and, on 30 August 1946, they even wrote to the Red
introductory address: “Since we are celebrating the International Cross for fifteen food packages for their workers.
Workers’ Day in freedom for the first time, it must be shown that the This lack of resources was one of the reasons why the reports always
Slovenian nation has been living on this land for centuries and centuries. emphasized how they were able to reject the old German theories. The
With sweat and tears, we toiled on it… Only the graves screamed and
were witnesses to our sacrifices. But, recently, they even tried to take
these graves from us” (Stiplovšek in Janžekovič, 2017a: 216). This is a
nice example of the running thread between Slovenian nationalism and
Communism in archaeology. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia started
to (ab)use the nationalist symbols and national question to the detriment
of international socialist promises already before the war (Shoup, 1968;
Djilas, 1991; Haug, 2012).
However, despite all this internal motivation, the decisive step for
the new excavation was not taken in Ptuj and not even in Slovenia. In the
spring of 1946, an anthropological institute was established at the
Faculty of Medicine in Zagreb in Croatia. The head of the Zagreb insti­
tute was Franjo Ivaniček and he was in Slovenia as a military doctor at
that time. As a hobby, he also studied the topography of “old Slavic
cemeteries.” It was he who decided to investigate the partially excavated
“old Slavic cemetery” on the Western Plateau of Ptuj Castle (Ivaniček,
1951: 7). Thus, the initiative for the excavation came from Ivaniček who
would lead the anthropological research in Ptuj.
Several institutions participated and competed for the control of the
excavations. The official authorization from the Institute for the Pro­
tection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia stated that since “the excavation
of old Slavic graves is of utmost importance for Slovenian archaeology,
the presence of the representatives of the National Museum is urgent”
(Institute’s authorization in Janžekovič, 2017a: 216). Jože Kastelic, the Fig. 2. The commemorative badge from Ptuj’s excavation in 1946 (Guštin,
2017: 91; 2019: 3). The five-pointed red star was a standard communist and
director of the National Museum in Ljubljana, was designated as the
Yugoslav state symbol. There are also an ‘archaeological’ symbol of an early
supervisor of excavations in Ptuj. On 6 July 1946, Korošec and Ivaniček
medieval torc or torque and an ‘anthropological’ symbol of anthropometric
met at Ptuj Castle, finalized the plan and delegated the ‘jurisdictions.’ measuring instrument or the spreading caliper. The latter was used on skulls to
Korošec was responsible for “prehistorical and old Slavic finds” (Kor­ determine ethnicity; other bones were discarded. (For interpretation of the
ošec, 1950c, 1951), Ivaniček for anthropological material, Rudolf references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
Bratanič for Roman remains and Smodič for the “potential La Tène version of this article.)

5
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

excitement was also honest, but they presented their work and new finds of our endangered borders by signing a declaration addressed to the
in ways that were relevant to the new state. These claims reached the top Yugoslav delegation at the Peace Conference under the leadership of
Yugoslav state officials. In early September 1946, a number of archae­ Minister Kardelj… This excursion did not only bring us scientific benefit,
ologists, anthropologists, historians and museum workers from Slovenia but it was also a spontaneous manifestation of the Slovenian-Croatian
and Croatia met in Ptuj. They wrote a letter to Edvard Kardelj, the right- brotherhood.” These excavations were supposed to serve as a spring­
hand man of Tito and Yugoslavian plenipotentiary at the Paris Peace board for future cooperation and “in the near future, the University of
Conference. In Paris, new borders in Europe after World War II were Zagreb and other scientific institutions… intend to organize a wider
delineated and the contemporary newspapers were full of concerned scientific team to study the cultural and biological past of the Yugoslavs
reports about the national borders, especially the western border to Italy and former inhabitants of today’s areas of our entire homeland” (letter
and Trieste. in Janžekovič, 2017a: 218–221). During the war, there was no Yugoslav
In this short letter sent to Paris, the archaeologists and anthropolo­ “brotherhood and unity” in the Independent State of Croatia.
gists claimed that they had “discovered, on the basis of the excavated After this visit in early September 1946, Kastelic assessed the exca­
remains and scientific results, the unity in cultural artefacts of our Slavic vations in a surprisingly positive way compared to his later negative
forefathers in the area of ethnic boundaries of today’s Yugoslavs.” They assessments. He said that the “old Slavic cemetery in Ptuj” had become
added that this statement was made “on the basis of extremely rich “the largest in Slovenia and perhaps in the Balkans in general.” Addi­
material found in Ptuj, which certainly proves in all its details the tionally, he suggested the establishment of a special chair for “archeol­
identity and analogy with finds in the whole of Yugoslavia, as well as ogy and prehistory with special regard for the Balkans and Slovenia” at
with finds in Istria, the Slovene Littoral, Cividale del Friuli, Carinthia the University of Ljubljana. Furthermore, he added that “it would be
and Styria.” They called the “Comrade Minister… to defend our rights most convenient to appoint Dr Korošec to the newly established chair”
gained in the People’s Liberation War with the blood of our fighters and and that “such an archeological seminar could quickly develop into an
our rights to the heritage of our forefathers by culture and blood” (letter archeological institute, from which Ptuj would also benefit” (Kastelic in
sent to Kardelj in Janžekovič, 2017a: 220–221). They concluded with a Janžekovič, 2017a: 221). Thus, archaeologists were aware that au­
Yugoslav Partisan motto: “Death to fascism – freedom to the people!” thorities would support the creation of new institutions. The very next
However, the sentiment of many archaeologists and anthropologists year, in 1947, the Department of Archaeology at the University of
was much different during the war. Ivaniček literally and metaphori­ Ljubljana was established (Novaković, 2009).
cally had a lot of skeletons in the closet (Fig. 3). Only a few years earlier The visit and letter to Kardelj in early September 1946 gave the ar­
in 1942, he was a PhD student of the famous professor of eugenics Eugen chaeologists in Ptuj the necessary confidence to write directly to the
Fischer in Berlin. Ivaniček worked in Mostar in Bosnia, part of the In­ President of the Slovenian Parliament for financial support. They said
dependent State of Croatia, an Ustaše puppet state of Nazi Germany. He that they “undoubtedly confirmed that the skeletons belonged to the
‘discovered’ that the “Muslim and Catholic Croats” in Bosnia were part culture of old Slovenes, especially to that of the Bijelo Brdo culture and
of “the purest ethnic and racial element of the Croatian people” (Iva­ Kettlach culture, i.e., the 10th and 11th centuries. Thus, these places
niček, 1944: 180; Weindling, 2011: 53; Bartulin, 2014: 179–181). Thus, were then inhabited by Slovenes, never Germans. In the scientific
Ivaniček looked for ‘rehabilitation,’ but he emigrated to the United literature, the opposite has been presented for the last ten years, when
States in the 1950s and later died in Hawaii (Šikić, 2005). various German archaeologists, principally Dinklage, have argued
In general, scholars from Croatia had shown great interest in the otherwise” (letter in Janžekovič, 2017a: 221). Dinklage was the prime
excavations at Ptuj Castle. Two weeks later, in gratitude for their hos­ target for post-war Yugoslav archaeologists, although after the war,
pitality and cooperation, Croatian visitors wrote a letter: “We had the Dinklage never responded and focused on the social and economic his­
opportunity to jointly express our unity in defending the Slavic character tory of Carinthia, staying away from ethnic archaeology.
The parliament in Ljubljana was excited by the letter and the finds,
supposedly confirming the long-lasting settlement of old Slovenes in
‘Slovenia,’ so they decided to fund the excavation. Within two weeks,
the archaeologists in Ptuj received much-needed financial resources,
totaling 150,000 dinars, which provided partial relief. Furthermore, in
September Ivaniček managed to get around 20, and later up to 50, un­
paid German prisoners of war to work on the excavations (Fig. 4).
Interestingly, to help rebuild the country they helped to destroy, as
authorities argued, the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia kept
German prisoners of war until early 1949, almost four years after the
war had ended.
However, in mid-September 1946, after the Slovenian government
approved additional funds, stricter supervision was established accord­
ing to the evergreen principle: ‘more money, more problems.’ Kastelic
wrote to Korošec on behalf of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural
Heritage of Slovenia that “because you have received greater support
from Slovenian Parliament, we ask you to submit the work plan” (Kas­
telic in Janžekovič, 2017a: 222). At the same time, Kastelic also sent two
employees of the National Museum, Rudolf Berce and Boris Baćić, to
Ptuj. They observed and inspected the excavation, which upset Korošec
because their report was very critical of the field methods, the poor
documentation standards and the apparent haste of excavations. Due to
this critical report, Kastelic visited the excavation on 13 and 14 October
1946 and wrote a shorter but even sharper criticism. Although Korošec
did not write it down in his field journal, it was at that time that he dug a
control ditch across the entire site. When digging this ditch, he first
Fig. 3. ‘Skeletons in the closet’ or the ‘anthropological laboratory’ at Ptuj encountered the “old Slavic sanctuary;” however, Korošec interpreted it
Castle (Rudolf Berce, No. 2438; National Museum of Slovenia). as an “old Slavic house” in one of the reports in early November 1946

6
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

6. The discovery of the sanctuary as the goal of the second


season

The most controversial discovery took place after the first excavation
season had officially ended on 30 November 1946. In December, under
the cover of darkness, one excavator climbed Ptuj Castle hill and
continued the excavation alone. This was none other than Korošec who
had a “hunch” while “studying the old Slavic structure that this was not a
regular structure, but that it was a sanctuary” (Korošec in Janžekovič,
2017a: 228). Even considering the conditions of post-war Yugoslavia,
excavating at night in the dark was methodologically wrong and one can
question the quality of the results. He never explicitly stated what his
“hunch” was, but one can reasonably deduct that it was an analogy with
Arkona, which was the foundation for his controversial thesis.
Arkona on the German island Rügen was the place of the Slavic Rans’
temple and a symbol of their religious and political autonomy in the
11th and 12th centuries. The island resisted the invasion attempts of the
Christian Saxons, Poles and Danes. The Danes finally conquered Arkona
in 1168 and destroyed the last major heathen temple of the West Slavs,
the Svantevit sanctuary. Saxo Grammaticus described these events and
the shape of the sanctuary in his Gesta Danorum (Grammaticus, 2015:
1274–75). For two weeks in the summer of 1921, Arkona was excavated
by Carl Schuchhardt (1926) who immediately ‘discovered’ what he
believed to be Svantevit sanctuary; in reality, Schuchhardt unearthed a
defensive ditch and a wall (Ruchhöft, 2016). Schuchhardt’s thesis led
Fig. 4. German prisoners of war at work guarded by soldiers with a heap of
Korošec to his interpretation, and since there was still no confirmed
discarded bones in the foreground (Rudolf Berce, No. 2456; National Museum
of Slovenia). archaeological discovery of a Slav sanctuary in Yugoslavia or the ma­
jority of Eastern Europe, this would truly be a ground-breaking discov­
ery. Moreover, the presented sanctuary would be an absolute unicum
(Korošec in Janžekovič, 2017a: 224–225).
among the known Slavic shrines (Słupecki, 1994, 2013).
In early November 1946, another chaotic situation occurred at Ptuj
In early January 1947, Korošec explained his questionable activities
Castle. The Ministry of Culture ordered the excavation to halt due to
in two private letters to the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. He
technical and archaeological issues and to avoid additional damage to
already enclosed the ground plan of the supposed sanctuary (Fig. 5).
archaeological materials. However, the excavation continued well into
Korošec wrote that he was silent so far because he wanted “to present
November and only stopped when the second telegram arrived. Andrej
science with a fait accompli” and “I alone researched further as much as I
Pleterski (1997: 10) pointed out that personal animosities were also
could without anyone’s knowledge [at night], because I had no autho­
behind this order and that Korošec was viewed as a prehistorian, i.e., not
rization.” He came across “the most interesting structure for all of us
capable of excavating the early medieval site or “old Slavs.” In addition
which we could have expected on our territory.” According to him, the
to nationalist agenda, career ambitions were high and archaeologists
structure was “a Slavic sanctuary, the only one of its kind in central and
were clashing for control and prestige.
southeastern Europe,” and he compared it to Arkona (Korošec in
If Franjo Ivaniček was the key figure for the start of excavations, he
Janžekovič, 2017a: 229). He was not able to excavate it entirely, so he
was also crucial for the official re-authorization “to finish the excava­
wanted to continue in the second season. However, Korošec added that
tions.” The archaeologists at Ptuj more or less accepted the end, but
he would need more funding, which Ptuj Museum could not provide, so
Ivaniček was not having it. He asked the Ministry of Culture through Ptuj
he asked the Academy to take over the management of excavation.
Museum for the extension of the authorization and, at the same time,
These two letters, tied to the excavations at Ptuj, could be considered
sent a protest letter through the Medical Faculty in Zagreb and the
the founding documents for the establishment of the Institute of
Croatian government to the federal government in Belgrade. According
Archaeology at the Academy a few months later. The Secretary-General
to him, it was necessary to finish the work because Zagreb committed
of the Academy, Fran Ramovš, took the initiative and wrote to the
itself financially by moving the laboratory. The pressure paid off, and
Ministry on 22 January 1946 regarding archeology in Slovenia and the
thanks to Ivaniček, they were allowed “to finish” the excavation
excavations in Ptuj. The Academy and Korošec wanted to communicate
(Janžekovič, 2017a: 226–227). If the excavations had stopped in early
the results “to the rest of the world” as soon as possible, so Korošec
November, there would have been no “old Slavic sanctuary.”
already began writing a preliminary report. They wanted to establish a
The excavation after this short break lasted only a week until 30
special Commission of Archaeology (later Institute of Archaeology) at
November 1946. They gave the “anthropological material,” i.e., the
the Academy which could attract experts. Two well-established scholars,
skulls, to the team in Zagreb for further analyses (Ivaniček, 1951: 7).
Milko Kos and France Stele, led the Commission, while Klemenc and
Kastelic wrote to Smodič in a conciliatory tone that the excavation was
Korošec were appointed as scientific associates.
rushed for the sake of the anthropological team and that the standards of
On 20 March 1947, the University of Ljubljana appointed Korošec as
archaeological work were weak. However, Kastelic was not a completely
an “associate professor of old Slavic archeology and prehistoric arche­
objective supervisor. He said that “Slavic finds must be concentrated in
ology,” which was in response to the above-mentioned Kastelic’s letter
Ljubljana” as “the people’s property” (Kastelic in Janžekovič, 2017a:
from September 1946. As the documents in the Archives of the Republic
228). He referred to the statement of the Slovenian Prime Minister Boris
of Slovenia reveal, he was already examined in December 1946. Three
Kidrič, who supposedly stated this for all “Slavic finds” on 27 April 1946
professors and friends, Klemenc, Stele and Kos, evaluated Korošec’s
in the National Museum in Ljubljana. Kastelic stressed that the cooper­
scholarly work, claiming that “the scientific publication will show how
ation between different institutions was very weak, and that he as a
important these discoveries are for old Slovene history and for rebuttals
supervisor had little authority over archaeologists in Ptuj.
to the belittling of old Slavic cultural heritage.” Before Korošec, this
problem was supposedly being tackled “only by foreigners with

7
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

Fig. 5. The ground plan which Korošec enclosed in the letter to Fran Kidrič, president of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The anticipated ‘old Slavic
sanctuary’ was presented in red and the ‘late Roman fortress’ in black. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

Dinklage at the forefront,” who declared these graves to be of “German even though they unearthed 94 additional graves (Korošec, 1999). The
colonists on our lands” (meeting minute in Janžekovič, 2017a: 231). The first grave of the second season appears in Korošec’s field journal only a
phrases are strikingly similar to Korošec’s own texts. good month after the start of the excavations, on 2 July. The Academy
In the spring of 1947, Korošec published a ‘response’ to the German sent invitations to several experts in Eastern Europe and argued that
archaeological theories of the German settlement of ‘Slovenia’ in the “following the international customs, dear Comrades, you are invited…
early Middle Ages, The Old Slavic Cemeteries in Northern Slovenia. Korošec to visit the excavation and discuss in a scholarly manner with the
(1947a: 57) noted that “although all these discussions are supposedly mentioned professors [Korošec and Klemenc] the issues that the exca­
strictly scientific, they often hide completely tendentious purposes. In vation presented, especially the assumption that the remains of a rare
this respect, Dinklage is at the forefront of such efforts.” Korošec wrote old Slavic sanctuary were unearthed” (Ramovš in Janžekovič, 2017a:
this book before the first season of excavations in 1946 even started, so 231–233). Furthermore, a special “summer school” for distinguished
he only added two summary pages in the end about the new findings Yugoslav archaeologists was organized at Ptuj Castle in July 1947.
regarding the Ptuj cemetery. Korošec (1947a: 126; 1952b) concluded At the first meeting on 3 June 1947, they delegated the ‘jurisdic­
that, “with these discoveries, the current theory about the large number tions.’ Korošec was the excavation director and responsible for the “old
of German immigrants to our provinces in the 10th and 11th centuries Slavic and prehistoric” era (in his absence, his wife and archaeologist
was dealt a new blow, because precisely Ptuj cemetery, typical for this Paola Korošec was to take over; Korošec, 1950c, 1951; for a critical
period, most decisively kills such theories.” analysis of “prehistoric contexts” see Dular, 2013: 137-177), Klemenc
Shortly afterwards, the Academy published Korošec’s report of the (1950) got the Roman remains, Baćić took care of the “Illyrian” phase
first season of excavation at Ptuj Castle in 1946. He presented the but only “under Korošec’s supervision,” and Berce was entrusted with
(partial) discovery of the “sanctuary” relatively dryly (Korošec, 1947b: the technical tasks. Berce objected because the Ministry of Culture
16). On 3 March 1947, reviewers France Stele and Milko Kos provided a delegated the jurisdictions differently. Korošec did not recognize the
private critique of Korošec’s report and wrote in relation to the “sanc­ authority of the Ministry as the Academy supposedly took over the su­
tuary”: “in our opinion, this is very doubtful” (Stele and Kos in pervision of excavations. Berce and Baćić both reported a hostile
Janžekovič, 2017a: 231). However, the excitement of the potential working environment and that Korošec regarded them as “completely
discovery of the “old Slavic sanctuary” was too great to pass up, so they worthless” (Janžekovič, 2017a: 232). This was a jurisdictional dispute
never disclosed their doubts publicly. The federal government in Bel­ that spilled into personal animosity.
grade provided 400,000 dinars for the second season of excavations. We have arrived at the introductory sentence of the paper from 25
This also meant, again according to the ‘more money, more problems’ June 1947: “To hell with everything!” The highlights of the hardly
principle, that Berce and Baćić were sent to supervise the excavation. legible paragraph in Korošec’s field journal are: “The students are late
This was obviously not to Korošec’s liking. again… The Committee [from Belgrade] will send us 20 archaeologists
[for the summer school]… I have no housing or food for them… I no
7. The second season and personal animosities longer take any responsibility. To hell with everything!” Below this
stormy note was a sketch of the “sanctuary” (Korošec’s field journal, 25
The second season of excavations at Ptuj Castle began in late May June 1947). Korošec was under immense pressure because of the rainy
1947. If in the first season skeletons and the “old Slavic cemetery” were weather and collapsing structure. Furthermore, he had to provide ac­
at the forefront, the “old Slavic sanctuary” stole the spotlight in the commodation for archaeologists from all over Yugoslavia, and he had to
second season. The skeletons hardly appear in the reports and minutes, coordinate work between students (including Franjo Baš’s son Angelos

8
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

Baš (1947)), hired workers and German prisoners of war, with little help shuffling off the responsibilities among different institutions. A model of
from other archaeologists. During this time, Korošec decided to write a the sanctuary was made and exhibited at Ptuj Castle, as is seen in the
special book about the sanctuary to promote his thesis. Ironically, it was short documentary film (Ptuj, 1949). The Academy wrote to the Ministry
this book that destroyed his thesis because it led to Baš’s criticism and of Culture that the protection should be the responsibility of the Institute
consequently to the second interpretation of the excavated structure. for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, but the Institute
What follows is a short description of the structure (Fig. 6), mostly replied that the protection fell within the Ministry’s jurisdictions.
using Korošec’s words. The described structure was a combination of Already towards the end of January 1948, a part of the protected
excavated remains, an inappropriate analogy with Arkona and Korošec’s “earthen wall of the sanctuary” collapsed. They immediately tried to
imagination. The square structure with sides of 12 m had four 2 m deep permanently secure the “sanctuary” and the concrete slabs were
trenches or “corridors.” In the center, there was an “elevated cube” with installed to cover the “sanctuary” on all four sides (Fig. 7).
sides of 5.7 m and which stood 1.45 m above the bottom of the trenches. Shortly after the excavations ended, the conflict shifted to inter­
Thus, the widths of the “corridors” were each 3.1 m. At the bottom of the preting the excavated structures. By the summer of 1948, Korošec
trenches, there was a “layered pavement that was destroyed in several published his book on the “old Slavic sanctuary” with English and
places.” The outer earthen “walls” were covered with “plaster.” Within Russian translations. He probably wanted to reach as broad an audience
the structure, no artefacts were found, but some disputed remains of as possible. This trilingual approach may also have signified Yugo­
charred logs were found in the northern “corridor” (Korošec, 1948, slavia’s non-aligned position between the two superpowers, the USA and
1948–49, 1975). The excavated structure was in reality the robber the Soviet Union. However, from mid-1948 following the Tito-Stalin
trench of a tower, either from Late Antiquity or High Middle Ages (Baš, split during the Informbiro period, it was very dangerous to display
1948–49, 1950; Karl and Wrolli, 2011; Predovnik, 2012; Karl, 2013; any link to the Soviet Union in Yugoslavia. Baš presented his criticism to
Janžekovič, 2017b, 2018; contra Pleterski, 2011). the Academy and sent it to Zgodovinski časopis (Slovenian Historical
The majority of the second season, according to the reports and Journal) (Baš, 1948–49, 1950; contra Korošec, 1948-49). Korošec, who
meeting minutes, was dedicated to the protection of the “sanctuary.” worked at the Academy, took the attack very personally.
Due to poor weather conditions with frequent rain, the “sanctuary’s The Academy stood by Korošec and his interpretation of the “sanc­
earthen walls” were collapsing constantly. Korošec no longer had the tuary.” Only the linguist France Bezlaj, who did not focus on archaeo­
patience with the official restorer and privately employed a sculptor to logical remains but on the philological arguments, opposed Korošec’s
“reconstruct” the “collapsed earthen walls” and “fortify” them. This was thesis. Above all, Bezlaj argued against the analogy with Arkona, which
a source of tension at Ptuj Castle, as many believed that this recon­ he “considered to be something methodologically erroneous and a
struction did not follow the technical standards. The common feeling, as
assessed by Ramovš, was that everyone was avoiding their re­
sponsibility. When the excavation finished in mid-August 1947, the ar­
chaeologists were audibly relieved.
Franjo Baš, the main critic of Korošec’s interpretation, visited the
excavation at Ptuj Castle in the summer of 1947 and wrote several
postcards to Kastelic at the National Museum. Baš expressed his doubts:
“I believe that the Ptuj problem stems from a lack of mutual trust be­
tween leaders and a lack of responsibility to oneself and the public… If
you know any South Slavic sanctuary, I would be grateful for the
reference. In my opinion, Rügen [Arkona] is not an appropriate analogy
for Ptuj.” Furthermore, he critically noted that he had visited “Ptuj and
treasure or skeleton hunting, because he did not deem it worthy to name
it archaeological or scientific excavation” (Baš in Janžekovič, 2017a:
235–236). When Baš raised some concerns with Korošec, the latter
responded that Baš was just jealous.

8. The protection and destruction of the “sanctuary”


Fig. 7. The Western Plateau of Ptuj Castle and the “old Slavic sanctuary”
The immediate months and years after the excavation had ended in covered with a roof (Rudolf Berce, No. 2159; National Museum of Slovenia).
mid-August 1947 were filled with efforts to save the “sanctuary” and

Fig. 6. The ground plan of the excavated structure with main elements (Korošec, 1975: 124), the sketch of the excavated structure (Korošec, 1948), and the
photograph of the “sanctuary” from the excavation in 1946 (Klemenc, 1950: T.XXII). It has to be noted that the descriptions do not reflect the realities on the ground
as is evident from the photographs.

9
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

severe anachronism.” He was prevented from publishing a critical article


by the Ministry, as an ample amount of money was spent on the exca­
vations and Korošec’s book. On 4 March 1949, the Yugoslav state secret
intelligence agency’s (UDBA) informant “Orel” reported that Bezlaj had
written a study on the “old Slavic sanctuary” but was called by aca­
demics France Stele and Fran Ramovš to not publish his article
(Janžekovič, 2017b: 312). An echo of Bezlaj’s critique was published a
few years later (Bezlaj, 1951: 350), but the whole article is lost today.
The importance of the debate is evident by the fact that the Slovenian
Academy sent Korošec’s study and Baš’s critical response all over Europe
(Janžekovič, 2017b: 311–313). The Academy sought opinions from the
most distinguished Yugoslav and Eastern European archaeologists, such
as Mihovil Abramić, Ljubo Karaman, Đurđe Bošković, Milutin Gara­
šanin, Jaroslav Böhm, Jan Eisner, Witold Hensel, Ejnar Dyggve and
Miodrag Grbić. With the exception of Bošković (1950; contra Korošec,
1952a), Saria (1950, 1951), and Dyggve, who uttered his critique during
a visit to Ptuj Castle in the fall of 1949, the remaining critiques cannot be
found. The majority of the archaeologists replied, as is evident from the
meeting minutes of the Academy, but there are no responses in the
Academy archives today.
The attitude towards the “sanctuary” shifted from the “protection
with the roof” to the “protection with the backfilling.” In March 1949,
the director of the Institute Edo Turnher, architect Marjan Mušič, Kas­
telic, Berce and Baš led a discussion about the “sanctuary.” Mušič stated
that the protection had to be “reconsidered” due to austerity and “un­
certain scientific results.” He added that “we need to get to the truth
because we are not chauvinists like the Germans. We have enough evi­
dence that we have been here for 1500 years” (Mušič in Janžekovič,
2017a: 242). Baš wanted to backfill the “sanctuary” with earth and
preserve its ground plan, but Turnher wanted to first clarify the question
of what the structure was. Eventually, however, the “sanctuary” and its Fig. 8. An anonymous caricature shows the cruel background of the conflict –
protective structures fell into disrepair, and in 1955, they finally back­ note that Procopius’s sash contains a swastika. In the article criticizing Korošec,
Baš referenced the Byzantine historian Procopius who never mentioned per­
filled the “sanctuary.”
manent Slavic sanctuaries in his texts (Procopius, 1996: 268–271; cf. also
Maurice, 1981: 370–389).
9. Discussion
often opportunistic, officials took over. While some archaeologists went
The Nazi occupation background is crucial in understanding the in­
through the political transition relatively unscathed, others were tain­
terpretations and personal animosities of post-war archaeology in
ted. For example, thanks to Rudolf Bratanič, Ptuj Museum did not lose
Yugoslavia. This also affected the older generation of archaeologists who
much cultural heritage during the war, as he hid the artefacts in the
had worked in Slovenia in the interwar period and even before World
crypt of a Dominican monastery in 1944 and saved them from German
War I. There was apparently no love lost between Walter Schmid and
“evacuation” to Murau in Austria (Žižek, 2012). After the war, however,
Balduin Saria. In November 1946, in a letter responding to Kastelic’s
Bratanič became marginalized in Ptuj, supposedly because of collabo­
critique of his article, Schmid said to Kastelic that “you attack me not
ration. The problem was that such accusations often depended on local
just with the shining sword of knowledge but also with a stake. I cannot
Party officials who decided what constituted collaboration and who to
understand this. Did you, as Balduin Saria’s student, inherit his hate
marginalize. Moreover, Ptuj even hosted one of the Courts of Slovenian
towards me? Do you know what this man has done to me? He denounced
National Honor. Uncertain times created a space where scholars had to
me to Gestapo here [in Graz] as a person dangerous to the German state
be more attuned to the new ideologies and work towards the nationalist
who fraternizes in Ljubljana with the groups hateful to Germans.
goals.
Moreover, he also denounced me to the police in Maribor and Ptuj as a
In 1948, another similar episode of suspicion of collaboration took
German spy and the organizer of the fifth column” (Schmid in
place when Smodič was suspended and Baš took over the management
Janžekovič, 2017a: 211). It was very hard to confirm or deny such de­
of Ptuj Museum. Already in April 1941 during the German invasion,
nunciations, but at the time even suspicion was life-threatening.
Smodič was captured and imprisoned in Gänserdorf near Vienna. In
Collaboration was a delicate topic in post-war period, when the
December 1941, he was released probably thanks to Schmid because
desire for retribution motivated many state policies and personal ac­
Smodič made sketches of artefacts for his publications (Schmid, 1943).
tions, including the massive extrajudicial killings. The background to
In the middle of summer 1944, Smodič joined the resistance fighters and
Korošec’s conflict with Baš involved, among other things, Hitler’s visit to
returned to Ptuj in May 1945 at the end of the war. Nevertheless, his late
Maribor. Baš, employed at the Maribor Museum, supposedly shook
participation with the resistance did not help him, and he became a
Hitler’s hand which could have been enough for an accusation of
persona non grata in 1948. In 1949, an informer reported that Paola
collaboration if not an outright execution in the very sensitive and un­
Korošec stated: “Baš put Smodič in prison, but my husband [Josip Kor­
predictable post-war period (Fig. 8). However, Hajdinjak (2016) argued
ošec] will put Baš in prison.” It was more likely Saria who accused
that Baš probably never shook Hitler’s hands because Hitler changed his
Schmid and Smodič of collaborating with the Nazis as Schmid noted in
mind and did not visit Maribor Museum as had been scheduled. In 1941,
the above-mentioned letter to Kastelic (Schmid in Janžekovič, 2017a:
Baš even spent the first month of the occupation in jail, but was later
211, 240). Saria, a Volksdeutscher born and raised in Ptuj, moved to Graz
saved by the German inhabitants of Maribor, a multi-ethnic city at the
after Ljubljana was occupied by Italian forces in 1941. Personal ani­
time, like Ptuj.
mosities had dire consequences for archaeologists’ livelihoods.
The transition to the new regime after 1945 meant that new local,

10
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

Important to consider were also the career prospects and potential “Seek, and you shall find” (Luke 11:9; Matthew 7:7). The fact is that each
financial gains that pursuing such nationalist interpretations entailed. archaeologist published his own period and specific academic interests.
After the Second World War, in sharp contrast to the First World War, Thus, we do not have two identical or complementing ground plans of
many older scholars had to flee or emigrated even earlier, so there was the excavated remains, but several conflicting ones.
an opening for young ambitious archaeologists. However, the institu­ Korošec’s past was far from spotless, which could be another
tional hierarchy and financial support were still relatively weak. The explanation for his fervor during the excavation. His work in Sarajevo
excavation at Ptuj Castle was the cause for the establishment of two key has not received full attention yet, and only recently, with the research
archaeological institutions in Slovenia today, the Institute of Archae­ by Darko Periša (2017: 239-241, 245-246), it is becoming clear how
ology at the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and the Depart­ compromised Korošec really was at that time. Korošec was mobilized as
ment of Archaeology at the University of Ljubljana. The background of an officer of the Croatian Home Guard (Hrvatsko domobranstvo) in Sar­
the justifications for both institutions was at least partially the rebuttal ajevo, where a photograph was taken of him in his uniform during the
of earlier “German theories.” excavation at Marindvor (Fig. 9). However, in the fall of 1943, he was
We also need to examine archaeologists’ academic interests. For fired from Zemaljski muzej, the later National Museum of Bosnia and
example, the fact that Josip Klemenc was “very pious and devout,” as Herzegovina, because of his alleged cooperation with the anti-Fascist
was noted by another UDBA informant at the Faculty of Arts with the movement. Interestingly, Korošec was still able to work at another
codename “Andrej,” most likely Fran Petre (Movrin, 2014), should be of excavation at Blažuj near Sarajevo before his imprisonment, probably
no major interest to us. However, when we check his bibliography, one due to friends and local connections. This activity may be understand­
can clearly see that the early Christian churches from Late Antiquity able today, but it was so controversial at the time that Korošec’s role in
were his passion. Only when he replaced Bratanič at Ptuj Castle in archaeological excavations in 1943 was not even mentioned in later site
October 1946 did the “early Christian basilica” from the 4th century CE reports.
start to appear in the reports and minutes, although he did not convince Ptuj was not an isolated example in the post-war Yugoslavia and
his colleagues (Klemenc, 1950, 1967; contra Šašel, 1961; Ciglenečki, Slovenia. In 1948, a similar combination of archaeological and anthro­
1993, 1999; see also Fig. 6 for this purported Late Antique apse). This pological teams started excavating Bled, the site that Dinklage excavated
could mean that he either immediately recognized the remains because in 1943. Jože Kastelic led the archaeologists and Božo Škerlj the an­
he knew what he was looking at, or he found something because he thropologists at Bled. The latter also studied with infamous Eugen
wanted to see it, following confirmation bias or, in his case, the Bible: Fischer in Berlin in 1931 and 1932, and was interred in Dachau

Fig. 9. Korošec, the first from left, smiling in an NDH uniform, during the visit of eminent academic guests at his excavation at Marindvor in Sarajevo in August 1943
(Novi list, 1943).

11
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

concentration camp in 1944, which just exemplifies how complex lives liberation war against the foreign occupiers. It was definitely true in
these scholars led. In the report, they concluded that the excavated re­ part, but the Second World War was also a bloody and genocidal civil
mains “cannot possibly belong to any other group but to old Slovenes,” war between the different nations in Yugoslavia. Thus, after the Second
that “Bled was a comparatively strong Slovene position” and that “its World War, Tito and others declared the “brotherhood and unity” of
typological connections seem to be the closest with Carinthia and east nations in Yugoslavia. This idea or Plato’s noble lie trickled down to all
Austria which were Slovene areas at that time” (Kastelic, Škerlj, 1950: elements of society. Archaeologists were not just utilized by the states,
64; Kastelic, 1960). Kastelic later revised his conclusion and also but they themselves often compensated for their mid-war activities and
recognized the late Roman nature of some buried individuals in ceme­ showed self-initiative in order to promote nationalist ideology.
teries at Bled.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
10. Conclusion
Izidor Janžekovič: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization.
In two seasons of archaeological excavations at Ptuj Castle, over 300
graves from the late antiquity and Early Middle Ages, various Roman
Acknowledgements
structures and a prehistoric settlement were unearthed. The site was
extremely complex and such multi-period site would be hard to excavate
Several colleagues helped me with my research, either by advising
and interpret today, let alone in 1946 and 1947, when the conditions
me, commenting on earlier drafts of the paper or passing on the pre­
were far from ideal for ‘objective’ archaeological analyses. If the focus in
liminary results of their research. I would like to extend my sincere
the first season were the anthropological analysis of skeletons and
gratitude towards Peter Štih, Katarina Katja Predovnik, Andrej Pleterski,
archaeological study of grave artefacts, the purpose of the second season
Benjamin Fele, Predrag Novaković, Andrej Gaspari, David Movrin,
was to further explore and protect the structure that Korošec interpreted
Andrej Magdič, Rajko Bratož, Astrid Tummuscheit, Fred Rüchhoft, Ivan
as “old Slavic sanctuary.”
Žižek, Mojca Vomer Gojkovič, Branko Vnuk, Merima Hasić, Mitja
The “old Slavic sanctuary” at Ptuj was an attractive and ambitious
Guštin, Črtomir Lorber, Mirjam Mencej, Silvo Torkar, Metka Furlan,
thesis for a young state that tried to establish itself on the world stage.
Thomas Kühtreiber, Janez Janžekovič, Terezija Kekec, Špela Vučak and
Although there were some initial doubts raised by Korošec’s colleagues,
many others. Darko Periša kindly shared the research of Korošec’s work
they did not engage in a public debate, because of Korošec’s stature.
in Sarajevo. All the translations from Ancient Greek, Latin, German,
Ironically, Korošec achieved his recognition thanks to the excavation at
Slovene, Serbo-Croatian are my own. A special word of thanks to many
Ptuj Castle and was even nominated by the federal government to
colleagues who took the time to check the archives for the potential
represent Yugoslav archaeology at a congress in Moscow in 1948.
responses to the ‘survey’ sent by the Academy: Novak Njegoš, Jardi
However, after Baš had sent his critique around and abroad, scholars
Rídký, Tatjana Lolić, Arsen Duplančić, Irena Šimić, Beata Kita, Nada
abandoned the ‘sanctuary’ thesis, in Yugoslavia as well as abroad. Jiří
Profantova, Dražen Klinčić, Vesna Bikić, Zuzana Bláhova and Jiří Sláma.
Sláma (1934–2020), who was one of the last living students of Jan
I thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers of Journal of Anthro­
Eisner, recalled Eisner’s commenting that Korošec’s interpretation of the
pological Archaeology, whose patient work and valuable comments have
“old Slavic sanctuary” in Ptuj was “somewhat awkward” (Sláma in
made this a much better article.
personal communication).
At first, Korošec vehemently defended his thesis by exclaiming: “The
structure at Ptuj Castle is and will present the old Slavic sanctuary of Declarations of Interest
South Slavs!” (Korošec, 1948-49: 238). However, he later distanced
himself from his own interpretation although he did not completely None. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
retract it. Korošec (1954: 24) wrote that “a particular problem is the agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
structure at Ptuj Castle, which I defined as a Slavic sanctuary of the 7th
century. In the meantime, however, this definition has received many References
critiques. Because the problem is still not solved, one cannot use it to
reach any conclusion.” Considering the reason and background of the Abramić, Mihovil, 1925. Poetovio: Führer durch die Denkmäler der römischen Stadt.
Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Wien.
discovery, the conclusion is clear: the ‘sanctuary’ was actually the
Abramić, Mihovil, 1925. Poetovio: vodnik po muzeju in stavbnih ostankih rimskega
robber trench of a tower. mesta, translated by Anton Sovre. Muzejsko društvo, Ptuj.
Archaeological research never happens in a vacuum and in­ Barker, Thomas M., Moritsch, Andreas, 1984. The Slovene Minority of Carinthia.
terpretations of the past are profoundly affected by nationalist ideolo­ Columbia University Press, New York.
Bartulin, Nevenko, 2014. The Racial Idea in the Independent State of Croatia: Origins
gies. In totalitarian regimes, the archaeology-state nexus is often viewed and Theory. Brill, Leiden.
as direct, while in non-totalitarian states, it is considered to be more Baš, Angelos, 1947. Dr. Josip Korošec, Staroslovenska grobišča v severni Sloveniji (Book
indirect by state’s allocation of financial resources. However, even in Review). Zgodovinski časopis 1, 206–212.
Baš, Franjo, 1948–49. Korošec Josip: Slovansko svetišče na ptujskem gradu [Korošec
totalitarian regimes, the pressure was often self-imposed. Controlling Josip: Old Slav Sanctuary at Ptuj Castle]. Zgodovinski časopis 2–3, 206–213.
the past was a vital resource for the nation-state, or better said, regime Baš, Franjo, 1950. Mali grad v Ptuju [Castrum minus in Ptuj]. Zgodovinski časopis 4,
survival. The Second World War was, much more than the First World 127–150.
Bernbeck, R., McGuire, R.H. (Eds.), 2000. Ideologies in Archaeology. University of
War, a serious break for the archaeology in Yugoslavia, and the whole Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 15–59.
new generation of archaeologists came to the scene. Thus, archaeolo­ Bezlaj, France, 1951. Nekaj besed o slovenski mitologiji v zadnjih desetih letih [A Few
gists often tried to secure the just borders for the nation-state by refer­ Notes on the Slovene Mythology in the Last Ten Years]. Slovenski etnograf 3–4,
342–353.
encing early medieval sites (cf. Dinklage’s “early German” vs. Korošec’s Bitelli, R., 1999. Claustra Alpium Iuliarum: il confine di Rapallo e fascismo, archeologia
“old Slavic” artefacts). Archaeologists were rarely directly forced to come un esempio della continuità. Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko, ZRS
follow nationalist policies, but often complied with such policies to serve Koper, Pokrajinski muzej Koper, Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta
Univerze v Ljubljani, Koper.
their own and professional self-interest.
Bošković, Đorđe, 1950. ПpoблeМ cлoвeнcкoг xpaМa y Птyjy [The Problem of Old Slavic
It might be worthwhile to consider the philosophical or ethical is­ Sanctuary in Ptuj]. Starinar I, 39–46.
sues, and whether archaeology should serve either the nation or the Bulkin, V.A., Klejn, Leo, Lebedev, G.S., 1982. Attainments and Problems of Soviet
truth. The two are not mutually exclusive, and one could reasonably Archaeology. World Archaeology 13, 272–295.
Ciglenečki, Slavko, 1993. Arheološki sledovi zatona antične Petovione [Archaeological
argue that one supports the state by telling the truth. In the case of post- Traces of the Decline of Ancient Poetovio]. In: Ptujski arheološki zbornik, Ob 100-
war Yugoslavia, it was the myth that the Second World War was only a letnici muzeja in Muzejskega društva. Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj, Ptuj, pp. 505–520.

12
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

Ciglenečki, Slavko, 1999. Results and Problems in the Archaeology of the Late Antiquity Jones, Siân, 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and
in Slovenia. Arheološki vestnik 50, 287–309. Present. Routledge, London.
Clarke, David, 1968. Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London. Kaiser, T., 1995. Archaeology and Ideology in Southeast Europe. In Kohl, P.L., and
Coblenz, W., 2002. Archaeology under Communist control: the German Democratic Fawcett, C. (eds.), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge
Republic, 1945–1990. In Härke, H. (ed.), Archaeology, Ideology and Society: The University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–119.
German Experience. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 308–341. Karl, Stephan and Wrolli, Gabriele, 2011. Der Alte Turm im Schloss Seggau zu Leibnitz:
Cuscito, G., 1993. Venezia e l’Istria nell’attività editoriale della Società istriana di Historische Untersuchungen zum ältesten Bauteil der Burgenanlage Leibnitz in der
archeologia e storia patria. Acta Histriae 1, 53–60. Steiermark. Wien, Berlin.
Díaz-Andreu, Margarita, 2014. Nationalism and Archaeology. In: Smith, C. (Ed.), Karl, Stephan, 2013. Turris antiqua in castro Leybentz, Zur frühesten Baugeschichte der
Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer, New York, pp. 5144–5149. Burgenanlage Leibnitz/Seggau im Kontext der spätantiken Ostflanke der Provinz
Die Deutsche Wochenschau. 1941. Nr. 558: Sieg auf dem Balkan I. 16 May 1941. Noricum mediterraneum (Dissertation). Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Graz.
Dinklage, Karl, 1940. Studien zur Frühgeschichte des deutschen Südostens. Kärntner Zeitung, 30 September 1942, 20 December 1943.
Südostforschungen 5, 158–199. Kastelic, Jože and Škerlj, Božo, 1950. Slovanska nekropola na Bledu: Arheološko in
Dinklage, Karl, 1941a. Frühdeutsche Volkskultur der Ostmark im Spiegel der Bodenfunde antropološko poročilo za leto 1948 [The Slav Necropolis at Bled: Archeological and
von Untersteiermark und Krain. Mitteillungen der Antropologischen Gesselschaft in Anthropological Report for 1948]. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti,
Wien 71, 235–259. Ljubljana.
Dinklage, Karl, 1941b. Oberkrains Deutschtum im Spiegel der karolingischen Kastelic, Jože, 1960. Slovanska nekropola na Bledu, Poročilo o izkopavanjih leta 1949 in
Bodenfunde. Carinthia I: Mittheilungen des Geschichtsvereins für Kärnten 131, 1951 [The Slav Necropolis at Bled: Report on the Excavations in 1949 and 1951].
360–391. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Ljubljana.
Dinklage, Karl, 1941c. Die frühdeutschen Bodenfunde aus Krain und Untersteiermark. Klemenc, Josip, 1950. Ptujski grad v kasni antiki [Ptuj Castle in Late Antiquity].
Germanen-Erbe: Monatsschrift für deutsche Vorgeschichte 5–6, 69–80. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Ljubljana.
Dinklage, Karl, 1943. Frühdeutsche Volkskultur in Kärnten und seinen Marken. Institut Klemenc, Josip, 1967. Starokrščanska svetišča v Sloveniji [Early Christian Shrines in
für Kärntner Landesforschung, Laibach. Slovenia]. Arheološki vestnik 18, 111–135.
Djilas, Aleksa, 1991. The Contested Country: Yugoslav Unity and Communist Revolution, Klemenc, Josip, Saria, Balduin, 1936. Archäologische Karte von Jugoslavien: Blatt Ptuj.
1919–1953. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Belgrade, Zagreb.
Fazioli, Patrick, 2012. From First Reich to Third Reich: German Imperialism and Early Knific, Timotej, 2008. Zgodovina arheoloških raziskovanj v Blejskem kotu
Medieval Scholarship in the Southeastern Alpine Region (c. 1919–1945). [Forschungsgeschichte im Bleder Winkel]. In: Pleterski, Andrej (Ed.),
Archaeologies: A Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 8, 116–144. Zgodnjesrednjeveška naselbina na blejski Pristavi: najdbe. Znanstvenoraziskovalni
Dular, Janez, 2013. Severovzhodna Slovenija v pozni bronasti dobi [Nordostslowenien in center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti, Ljubljana.
der späten Bronzezeit]. Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU: Založba ZRC, Ljubljana. Kohl, Philip L. and Fawcett, Clare (eds.), 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of
Ferenc, Tone, 2006–2010. Okupacijski sistemi med drugo svetovno vojno. Oddelek za Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
zgodovino Filozofske fakultete vols. 1–3. Kohl, Philip L., 1998. Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and
Fowler, D.D., 1987. Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State. American the Reconstructions of the Remote Past. Annual Review of Anthropology 27,
Antiquity 52, 229–248. 223–246.
Galaty, M., Watkinson, C. (Eds.), 2004. The Practice of Archaeology under Dictatorship. Kohl, Philip L. and Kozelsky, Mara and Ben-Yehuda, Nachman (eds.), 2007. Selective
Springer, New York. remembrances: archaeology in the construction, commemoration, and consecration
Garašanin, M., Kovačević, J., 1950. Pregled materijalne kulture Južnih Slovena u ranom of national pasts. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
srednjem veku [Overview of the Material Culture of Early Medieval Southern Slavs]. Korošec, Josip, 1947a. Staroslovenska grobišča v severni Sloveniji [Old Slavic Cemeteries
Prosveta, Beograd. in Northern Slovenia]. Družba sv, Mohorja, Celje.
Grammaticus, Saxo, 2015. Gesta Danorum: The History of the Danes, trans. P. Fisher, ed. Korošec, Josip, 1947b. Poročilo o izkopavanju na ptujskem gradu leta 1946 [The Report
K. Friis-Jensen. Oxford University Press, Oxford. on the Excavations at Ptuj-Castle in 1946]. Slovenska akademija znanosti in
Geary, Patrick, 2003. The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton umetnosti, Ljubljana.
University Press, Princeton. Korošec, Josip, 1948. Slovansko svetišče na ptujskem gradu [The Old Slav Sanctuary on
Guidi, A., 1996. Nationalism Without a Nation: the Italian Case. In: Díaz-Andreu, M., the Castle-Hill of Ptuj]. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Ljubljana.
Champion, T. (Eds.), Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. University College of Korošec, Josip, 1948–49. Odgovor na kritiko Franja Baša o publikaciji »Slovansko
London Press, London, pp. 108–118. svetišče na ptujskem gradu« [The Response to the Critique by Franjo Baš Concerning
Gunjača, Stipe, 1956. O srednjovjekovnoj arheologiji u Jugoslaviji [On the Archaeology the Publication of “The Old Slav Sanctuary on the Castle-Hill of Ptuj”]. Zgodovinski
of Middle Ages in Yugoslavia]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 5, 181–199. časopis 2–3, 213–239.
Guštin, Mitja, 2017. “Ptuj zavzema prvo mesto v staroslovanski arheologiji” [Ptuj Korošec, Josip, 1950a. Arheologija in nekatere njene naloge [Archaeology and Some of
occupies the first place in old Slavic archaeology]. Argo: časopis slovenskih muzejev Its Duties]. Zgodovinski časopis 4, 5–22.
60, 90–99. Korošec, Josip, 1950b. Prvo posvetovanje jugoslovanskih arheologov [The First Meeting
Guštin, Mitja, 2019. The formative period of Slovenian Early Medieval Archaeology. of the Yugoslav Archaeologists]. Zgodovinski časopis 4, 212–215.
Archeologia Medievale XLVI, 17–26. Korošec, Josip, 1950c. Staroslovansko grobišče na ptujskem gradu [The Old Slavic
Hajdinjak, Boris, 2016. Hitler v Mariboru [Hitler in Maribor]. Večer 72, 16 April 2016, Cemetery at Ptuj Castle]. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Ljubljana.
22–25. Korošec, Josip, 1951. Predzgodovinska naselbina na Ptujskem gradu [Prehistoric
Hare, J Laurence, 2014. Nazi archaeology abroad: German prehistorians and the Settlement at Ptuj Castle]. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Ljubljana.
international dynamics of collaboration. Patterns of Prejudice 48 (1), 1–24. Korošec, Josip, 1952a. Djurdje Bošković: Problem slovenskog hrama u Ptuju [Djurdje
Hare, J Laurence, 2015. Excavating Nations: Archaeology, Museums, and the German- Bošković: The Problem of the Slavic Sanctuary in Ptuj]. Arheološki vestnik 3,
Danish Borderlands. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 157–158.
Härke, Heinrich (ed.), 2000. Archaeology, Ideology and Society: The German Korošec, Josip, 1952b. Uvod v materialno kulturo Slovanov zgodnjega srednjega veka
Experience. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main. [Introduction to the Material Culture of Slavs in the Early Middle Ages]. Državna
Haug, Hilde Katrine, 2012. Creating a Socialist Yugoslavia: Tito, Communist Leadership založba Slovenije, Ljubljana.
and the National Question. I.B. Tauris, London. Korošec, Josip, 1954. Arheološki sledovi slovanske naselitve na Balkanu [The
Horvat, Jana, Milan Lovenjak, Andreja Dolenc Vičič, Marija Lubšina Tušek, Marjana Archaeological Traces of Slavic Settlement of the Balkans]. Zgodovinski časopis 8,
Tomanič-Jevremov, Zorka Šubic, 2003. Poetovio: development and topography. In 7–26.
Šašel Kos, M. (ed.), The autonomous towns of Noricum and Pannonia. Narodni muzej Korošec, Paola, 1975. Prispevek k reševanju problema zgodnjesrednjeveškega objekta z
Slovenije, Ljubljana, pp. 153–189. nekropolo na ptujskem gradu [Contribution to the Solving of the Problem of the
Hutchings, R.M. and Dent, J., 2017. Archaeology and the Late Modern State: Early-Medieval Structure in the Necropolis at Ptuj Castle]. In: Curk, J. (Ed.), Ptujski
Introduction to the Special Issue. Archaeologies 13, 1–25. zbornik 4. Obzorja, Maribor, pp. 119–140.
Ivaniček, Franjo, 1944. Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Rassengeschichte der Kroaten. Korošec, Paola, 1999. Nekropola na ptujskem gradu: turnirski prostor [The Necropolis at
Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 41, 177–192. Ptuj Castle: Tournament Ground]. Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj, Ptuj.
Ivaniček, F., 1951. Staroslavenska nekropola u Ptuju: rezultati antropoloških istraživanja Link, Fabian, 2014. Burgen und Burgenforschung im Nationalsozialismus: Wissenschaft
[The Old Slavic Necropolis in Ptuj: the Results of the Anthropological Analysis]. und Weltanschauung 1933–1945. Böhlau, Köln, Weimar, Wien.
Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Ljubljana. Link, Fabian, 2015. Castle Studies and the Idea of Europe: Medievalism in German-
Janžekovič, Izidor, 2017a. Mnogo hrupa za nič (1. del): potek in ozadje odkritja Speaking Europe between Politics and Scientific Research, 1918–1945. German
‘staroslovanskega svetišča’ na ptujskem gradu [Much Ado About Nothing (1st part): Studies Review 38, 555–572.
the Course and Background of the Discovery of the “Slavic Sanctuary” at Ptuj Castle]. Link, Fabian, Hornburg, Mark W., 2016. ‘He Who Owns the Trifels, Owns the Reich’:
Zgodovinski časopis 71 (1–2), 208–245. National Socialist Medievalism and the Creation of the Volksgemeinschaftin the
Janžekovič, Izidor, 2017b. Mnogo hrupa za nič (2. del): staroslovansko svetišče ali Palatinate. Central European History 46 (2), 208–239.
srednjeveški stolp na ptujskem gradu [Much Ado About Nothing (2nd part): Slavic Ljubinković, M., 1977. Dvadeset i pet godina Saveza arheoloških društava Jugoslavije
Sanctuary or Medieval Tower at Ptuj Castle]. Zgodovinski časopis 71 (3–4), [Twenty-Five Years of the Union of Archaeological Societies of Yugoslavia].
310–348. Arcaeologia Iugoslavica XVIII, 61–67.
Janžekovič, Izidor, 2018. Mnogo hrupa za mnogo (3. del): od antične Petovione do Lorber, Črtomir, 2019. Uvod u proučavanje Arheološkog društva Jugoslavije (1949-
srednjeveškega Ptuja [Much Ado About Much (3rd part): From Ancient Poetovio to 1991) [Introduction to the Study of the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia (1949-
Medieval Ptuj]. Zgodovinski časopis 72 (1-2), 22–61. 1991)]. Etnoantropološki problemi 14 (3), 909–936.

13
I. Janžekovič Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 63 (2021) 101309

Lorber, Črtomir, 2020. Predhodniki Slovenskega arheološkega društva [The Forbearers Procopius, 1996. History of the Wars, translated by H. B. Dewing. The Loeb Classical
of the Slovene Archaeological Society]. Arheo 37, 7–24. Library. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lorber, Črtomir, Novaković, Predrag, 2020. Internationalisation as a long-term strategic Ptuj – zgodovinsko mesto [Ptuj – Historical Town] (1949). Triglav Film, Ljubljana.
project of the post-war renewal of the Yugoslav archaeology (1950-1971). Rapanić, Ž., 1986. O stanju i nekim problemima arheologije u Jugoslaviji [On the State
Etnoantropološki problemi 15 (3), 689–715. and Some Problems of Archaeology in Yugoslavia]. Arheo 5, 6–11.
Ložar, Rajko, 1938. Staroslovansko in srednjeveško lončarstvo v Sloveniji [Old Slavic and Ruchhöft, Fred, 2016. Die Burg am Kap Arkona: Götter, Macht und Mythos.
Medieval Pottery in Slovenia]. Glasnik Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 20, Tourismusgesellschaft Kap Arkona GmbH, Putgarten.
180–225. Saria, Balduin, 1950. Ein neues altslawisches Heiligtum? Carinthia I, 384–389.
Ložar, Rajko, 1941. Razvoj in problemi slovenske arheološke vede [The Development Saria, Balduin, 1951. J. Korošec, Report on archaeological excavations on the castle hill
and Problems of Slovenian Archaeology]. Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino 17, of Ptuj in 1946. Anzeiger für die Altertumwissenschaft IV/4, 224–225.
107–147. Šašel, Jaroslav, 1961. K zgodovini Ptujskega gradu v arheoloških obdobjih in nekaj novih
Maner, Brent, 2018. Germany’s Ancient Pasts: Archaeology and Historical Interpretation najdb na zahodnem vznožju [To the history of Ptuj Castle in archeological periods
since 1700. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. and some new finds on the western slope]. Kronika: časopis za slovensko krajevno
Marburger Zeitung, 29 April 1941. Der Dank des Führers an die SA. Marburger Zeitung zgodovino 9, 120–128.
81/96. Schmid, Walter, 1908. Altslowenische Gräber Krains. Carniola 1, 17–44.
Maurice, 1981. Das Strategikon des Maurikios, ed. by George T. Dennis, translated by Schmid, Walter, 1943. Die Fortschritte der vorgeschichtlichen Forschung in
Ernst Gamillscheg. Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. Südsteiermark zwischen den beiden Weltkriegen. Zeitschrift des Historischen
Movrin, D., 2014. Fran Bradač, Anton Sovre, Milan Grošel, Jože Košar in Fran Petre: Vereines für Steiermark 36, 134–169.
latinščina in grščina na ljubljanski univerzi v desetletju po vojni. Zgodovinski časopis Schuchhardt, Carl, 1926. Arkona. Ortsuntersuchungen und Ausgrabungen. Berlin,
68, 432–477. Rethra, Vineta.
Naprijed: tjednik Centralnoga komiteta Komunističke partije Hrvatske, October 1946, Shennan, S.J., 1989. Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. In:
no. 40. Shennan, S. (Ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. Unwin Hyman,
Milavec, Tina, 2009. A Review of Research into the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia. London, pp. 1–32.
Arheološki vestnik 60, 249–270. Shnirelman, V., 2014. Nationalism and Archaeology: Overview. In: Smith, C. (Ed.),
Novaković, P., 1999. O fašizmu in arheologiji na Primorskem in v Istri [On Fascism and Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer, New York, pp. 5149–5161.
Archaeology in the Slovene Littoral and Istria]. Annales. Ser. hist. sociol. 9, 491–502. Shoup, Paul, 1968. Communism and the Yugoslav National Question. Columbia
Novaković, Predrag, 2000. O nacionalizmu v arheološki teoriji in praksi [On Nationalism University Press, New York.
in Archaeological Theory and Praxis]. Časopis za kritiko znanosti 28, 79–109. Šikić, Jasna, 2005. IVANIČEK, Franjo. In: Hrvatski biografski leksikon. Leksikografski
Novaković, Predrag, 2007a. Use of Past, Ancestors and Historical Myths in the Yugoslav zavod Miroslav Krleža, Zagreb, p. 131.
Wars in 1990s. In Magnani, S., and Marcaccini, C. (eds.), Le identità difficili: Sklenář, Karel, 1983. Archaeology in Central Europe: The First 500 Years. Leicester
archeologia, potere, propaganda nei Balcani. Volo, Firenze, pp. 47–64. University Press, Leicester.
Novaković, Predrag, 2007b. The Present Makes the Past: Use of Archaeology and Skrabar, Viktor, 1910. Das frühmittelalterliche Gräberfeld auf Schloss Oberpettau.
Changing National Identities in Former Yugoslavia. In: Rieckoff, S., Sommer, U. Historischer Verein für Steiermark, Graz.
(Eds.), Auf der Suche nach Identitaten: Volk–Stam–Kultur–Ethnos. Archaeopress, Skrabar, Viktor, 1912. Frühmittelalterliche Gräberfunde in Unterhaidin bei Pettau.
Oxford, pp. 181–192. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 42, 335–339.
Novaković, Predrag, 2009. Oddelek za arheologijo [The Department of Archaeology]. Slapšak, Božidar, 1993. Archaeology and the Contemporary Myths of the Past. Journal of
Zbornik Filozofske fakultete 1919–2009. Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, European Archaeology 1, 191–195.
Ljubljana, 44–69. Slapšak, Božidar, Novaković, Predrag, 1996. Is there National Archaeology without
Novaković, Predrag, 2012a. The “German School” and Its Influence on the National Nationalism? Archaeological Tradition in Slovenia. In: Díaz-Andreu, M.,
Archaeologies of the Western Balkans. In: Migotti, B. (Ed.), Scripta in Honorem Champion, T. (Eds.), Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. University College of
Bojan Djurić. Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine, Ljubljana, pp. 51–71. London Press, London, pp. 256–293.
Novaković, Predrag, 2012b. Eastern Europe. The Oxford Companion to Archaeology Slavec Gradišnik, Ingrid (ed.), 2005. Pretrgane korenine: Sledi življenja in dela Rajka
(Second Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 445–451. Ložarja [Displaced roots: The life and work of Rajko Ložar]. Opera ethnologica
Novaković, Predrag, 2014. Historija arheologije u novim zemljama Jugoistočne Evrope Slovenica, Ljubljana.
[The History of Archaeology in the New States of Southeastern Europe]. Univerzitet Stalin, Josif V., 1945. Victory Speech. In ibid., Collected Works, Vol. 16: Nov. 1944–Oct.
u Sarajevu, Sarajevo. 1952. Red Star Press, London, 1986, p. 135.
Novi list, 11 August 1943. Słupecki, Leszek, 1994. Slavonic Pagan Sanctuaries. Institute of Archaeology and Ethno-
Orwell, George, 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel. Secker & Warburg, London. logy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw.
Periša, Darko, 2017. Franjevac Krunoslav Misilo i arheologija [The Franciscan Krunoslav Słupecki, Leszek, 2013. Slavic Religion. The Handbook of Religions in Ancient Europe.
Misilo and Archaeology]. Arheološki radovi i rasprave 18, 237–255. Routledge, London.
Petauer, Leopold, 1950. VI. zborovanje slovenskih zgodovinarjev v Celju in Laškem, od 2. Tito, Josip Broz, 1945. Victory Day. In ibid., Selected Speeches and Articles, 1941–1961.
do 4. aprila 1950 [The Sixth Meeting of Slovenian Historians in Celje and Laško, Naprijed, Zagreb 1963, 54–57.
from 2 to 4 April 1950]. Zgodovinski časopis 4, 208–212. Vomer-Gojkovič, Mojca and Kolar, Nataša, 1993. Archaeologia Poetovionensis: Stara in
Pittioni, Richard, 1943. Der frühmittelalterliche Gräberfund von Köttlach, Landkreis nova arheološka spoznanja [Archaeologia Poetovionensis: Old and New
Gloggnitz. Niederdonau, Brünn, München, Wien. Archaeological Discoveries]. Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj, Ptuj.
Pleterski, Andrej, 1997. Inštitut za arheologijo – polstoletnik [The Institute of Wedekind, Michael, 2005. The Sword of Science: German Scholars and National Socialist
Archaeology – Half-Century]. Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije Annexation Policy in Slovenia and Northern Italy. In: Haar, I., Fahlbusch, M. (Eds.),
znanosti in umetnosti, Ljubljana. German Scholars and Ethnic Cleansing, 1919–1945. Berghahn Books, New York,
Pleterski, Andrej, 2001. Staroslovansko obdobje na vzhodnoalpskem ozemlju: Zgodovina pp. 110–138.
raziskav do prve svetovne vojne [Old Slavic Era in the Eastern Alps: The History of Wedekind, Michael, 2019. Die Besetzung der Vergangenheit: Archäologie,
Research until World War I]. Arheo 21, 73–77. Fruhgeschichte und NS-Herrschaftslegitimation im Alpen-Adria-Raum (1939–1945).
Pleterski, Andrej, 2002. Dinklage, Karl. In: Javornik, Marjan (Ed.), Enciklopedija Studien, Innsbruck.
Slovenije 16. Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana, p. 41. Weindling, Paul J., 2011. Racial expertise and German eugenic strategies for
Pleterski, Andrej, 2011. Wie auf der Erde, so im Himmel - himmlischer Hof bei den Southeastern Europe. In: Promitzer, C., Trubeta, S., Turda, M. (Eds.), Health,
Slawen. Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa. Verlag D. Rudolf Habelt, Hygiene and Eugenics in Southeastern Europe to 1945. Central European University
Bonn 2011, 125–132. Press, Budapest, pp. 27–54.
Pollak, Fran, 1907. Mala izvestja: Prazgodovinske najdbe v ptujski okolici. Časopis za Žižek, Ivan, 2012. Muzejsko društvo in arheologija od 1893 do 1945 [Museum Society
zgodovino in narodopisje 4, 226–229. and Archaeology from 1893 to 1945]. Kronika 40, 148–151.
Predovnik, Katarina Katja, 2012. A Brave New World? Building Castles, Changing and
Inventing Traditions. Atti della Academia Roveretana degli agiati 262, 63–106.

14

You might also like