Archaeological Research Into The Periods, 2010

SLOVENSKA AKADEMIJA ZNANOSTI IN UMETNOSTI
Razred za zgodovinske in družbene vede
ZNANSTVENORAZISKOVALNI CENTER SAZU

Inštitut za arheologijo
ARHEOLOŠKI
VESTNIK
61
2010
LJUBLJANA
2010
zacetek_AV_61.indd 1 11.11.2010 10:36:19

ARHEOLOŠKI VESTNIK ISSN 0570-8966
Izdala in založila / Published by Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti in / and

Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU
Glavna urednica / Editor-in-chief Marjeta Šašel Kos
Izvršna urednica / Managing editor Andreja Dolenc Vičič
Uredniški odbor / Editorial board Dragan Božič, Slavko Ciglenečki, Bojan Djurić, Andreja
Dolenc Vičič, Janez Dular, Stane Gabrovec, Jana Horvat,
Primož Pavlin, Marjeta Šašel Kos, Biba Teržan, Peter Turk, Paul
Gleirscher, Claudio Zaccaria
Lektorji / Language editors Marjeta Humar, Sonja Likar, Barbara Smith Demo, Alan
McConnell-Duff
Računalniška grafika /
Computer graphics Mateja Belak, Tamara Korošec, Drago Valoh
Prelom / DTP Mateja Belak
Naslov uredništva / Address Arheološki vestnik, Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU,

Novi trg 2,
SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
tel. + 386 1 47 06 380, fax + 386 1 42 57 757
E-naslov / E-mail [email protected]
Spletni naslov / Website http://av.zrc-sazu.si
Tisk / Printed by Formatisk d. o. o., Ljubljana
Naklada / Printrun 750 izvodov / copies
zacetek_AV_61.indd 2 12.11.2010 12:59:58

Vsebina
Prazgodovinske dobe
Matija ČREŠNAR: Nova spoznanja o pozni bronasti dobi Slovenije na primeru naselja Rogoza pri
Mariboru (Povzetek) ................................................................................................................................96
Rimska doba
Janka ISTENIČ: Poznolatenske nožnice s predrtim okrasnim okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra ..... 151
Žiga ŠMIT, Janka ISTENIČ in Sonja PEROVŠEK: Analize PIXE poznolatenskih nožnic s predrtimi
okovi (in pripadajočih mečev) iz Slovenije . ....................................................................................... 172
Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS: Cernunos v Sloveniji? (Povzetek) ..........................................................................186
Ivan KNEZOVIĆ: Čaščenje Savusa in Nemeze v Andavtoniji (Povzetek) ............................................. 201
Helga SEDLMAYER: “Tuja domovina” – avtohtono in priseljeno prebivalstvo v vzhodnem Noriku v

flavijsko-trajanskem času (Povzetek) ....................................................................................................288
Pozna antika
Ante ŠKEGRO: Naronska škofija (Ecclesia Naronitana) (Povzetek) ...................................................... 244
Srednji vek
Katarina PREDOVNIK in Tomaž NABERGOJ: Arheološke raziskave obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem

veku v Sloveniji ................................................................................................................................... 280
Epigrafika
Danilo BREŠČAK in Milan LOVENJAK: Nagrobnik dveh mestnih veljakov iz Celeje na območju
Nevioduna . ......................................................................................................................................... 306
Knjižne ocene in prikazi
Paul T. Craddock: Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries, 2009 (Alessandra GIUMLIA-
MAIR) ....................................................................................................................................................311
Daniela Sedran (ur.): Il peso nell’antichità. Pesi e misure nel Friuli romano, 2009 (Margherita
BOLLA) .......................................................................................................................................................311
Supplementa Italica. Nuova serie, 23, 2007 (Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS) ....................................................... 312
Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta
Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta (Tina MILAVEC) ............................................................314
zacetek_AV_61.indd 3 12.11.2010 12:59:58

Contents
Prehistory
Matija ČREŠNAR: New research on the Urnfield period of Eastern Slovenia. A case study of Rogoza
near Maribor . ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Roman Period
Janka ISTENIČ: Late La Tène scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates . ........................................ 121
Žiga ŠMIT, Janka ISTENIČ and Sonja PEROVŠEK: PIXE analysis of Late La Tène scabbards with
non-ferrous openwork plates (and associated swords) from Slovenia . ................................................ 165
Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS: Cernunnos in Slovenia? . ..................................................................................... 175
Ivan KNEZOVIĆ: The worship of Savus and Nemesis in Andautonia ................................................. 187
Helga SEDLMAYER: “Fremde Heimat” – Autochthones und Allochthones in Ostnoricum während

der flavisch-trajanischen Zeit ............................................................................................................. 203
Late Antiquity
Ante ŠKEGRO: The Diocese of Narona (Ecclesia Naronitana) . .............................................................229
Middle Ages
Katarina PREDOVNIK and Tomaž NABERGOJ: Archaeological research into the periods following
the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia .........................................................................................................245
Epigraphy
Danilo BREŠČAK and Milan LOVENJAK: The tombstone of two town magistrates of Celeia in the
region of Neviodunum ............................................................................................................................295
Book reviews
Paul T. Craddock: Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries, 2009 (Alessandra GIUMLIA-
MAIR) ....................................................................................................................................................311
Daniela Sedran (ed.): Il peso nell’antichità. Pesi e misure nel Friuli romano, 2009 (Margherita
BOLLA) .......................................................................................................................................................311
Supplementa Italica. Nuova serie 23, 2007 (Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS) ........................................................ 312
Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta
Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta (Tina MILAVEC) ............................................................314
zacetek_AV_61.indd 4 12.11.2010 12:59:58

List of abstracts
Matija ČREŠNAR: New research on the Urnfield period of Eastern Slovenia. A case study of Rogoza
near Maribor ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Janka ISTENIČ: Late La Tène scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates .......................................................... 121
Žiga ŠMIT, Janka ISTENIČ and Sonja PEROVŠEK: PIXE analysis of Late La Tène scabbards with non-ferrous
openwork plates (and associated swords) from Slovenia .................................................................................... 165
Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS: Cernunnos in Slovenia? . ....................................................................................................... 175
Ivan KNEZOVIĆ: The worship of Savus and Nemesis in Andautonia ................................................................... 187
Helga SEDLMAYER: “A Foreign Homeland” – autochthonous and allochthonous in Eastern Noricum during
the Flavian-Trajanic period ................................................................................................................................ 203
Ante ŠKEGRO: The Diocese of Narona (Ecclesia Naronitana) . ............................................................................... 229
Katarina PREDOVNIK and Tomaž NABERGOJ: Archaeological research into the periods following the Early-
Middle Ages in Slovenia ...................................................................................................................................... 245
Danilo BREŠČAK and Milan LOVENJAK: The tombstone of two town magistrates of Celeia in the region of
Neviodunum . ...................................................................................................................................................... 295
zacetek_AV_61.indd 5 11.11.2010 10:36:20

Arheološki vestnik 61, 2010, str. 245-294 245
Archaeological research into the periods

following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia
Katarina PREDOVNIK and Tomaž NABERGOJ
Izvleček Abstract
Avtorja predstavljata arheološke raziskave obdobij po The authors outline the archaeological research into
zgodnjem srednjem veku v Sloveniji od prvih začetkov the periods following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia,
ob koncu 19. stoletja do sedanjosti. Ključne raziskovalne from its beginnings in the late 19 th century up to the
projekte in usmeritve, institucionalne okvire in temeljne present. The key research projects and orientations, in-
koncepte, ki so določali razvoj t. i. arheologije mlajših ob- stitutional frameworks and the main concepts that have
dobij, pojasnjujeta v kontekstu sočasnega razvoja slovenske been determining the development of the archaeology of
arheologije ter družbenih okoliščin, v katerih stroka deluje. these later periods are explained within the context of
Posebej opozarjata na razmerja med arheologijo na eni ter the development of Slovenian archaeology and the social
zgodovino in umetnostno zgodovino na drugi strani, saj so circumstances that surround the field. The authors point
ključna za razumevanje vloge arheologije pri raziskovanju out the relations between archaeology on the one hand and
obdobij, ki so bogato dokumentirana s pisnimi viri. history and art history on the other, seeing them as vital
to understanding archaeology’s role in researching periods
Ključne besede: arheologija mlajših obdobij, arheologija that are well documented in written sources.
srednjega veka, arheologija novega veka, zgodovina vede
Keywords: archaeology of later periods, medieval ar-
chaeology, post-medieval archaeology, disciplinary history
INTRODUCTION a rightful place in Slovenian archaeology, along

with the prehistoric, classical, Roman provincial
Although fully established as an independent and early medieval archaeology.
branch of archaeology only as recently as the 1990s, Let us take this opportunity to point out again
archaeological study in Slovenia of the periods the terminological issues encountered when naming
following the Early Middle Ages boasts more than the branch of archaeology that we are describing
110 years of history and an active development (cf. Nabergoj 1995, 100–102; Štular 2008, 79–80;
in the last two decades (Nabergoj 1995, 72). This Predovnik 2008b, 81–82). The archaeological treat-
certainly calls for a presentation and evaluation ment of the periods following the Early Middle Ages
of the past development and achievements of logically continues the established classification of
Slovenian archaeology of later periods, as well as the discipline that follows the periodisation scheme
its problems and perspectives. And it is only right established by historiography. It therefore stands
that this presentation should be published in the to reason that early medieval archaeology should
main Slovenian archaeological journal. Comple- be followed by high and late medieval archaeology,
menting the overviews published in the jubilee then by post-medieval archaeology, archaeology of
fiftieth issue of Arheološki vestnik more than ten the (Early) Modern Period and ultimately even by
years ago, this text symbolically acknowledges that contemporary archaeology. Actually, all of these
archaeological study of more recent periods has terms are in use within the various archaeologi-
Predovnik_AV_61.indd 245 10.11.2010 13:31:49

246 Katarina PREDOVNIK, Tomaž NABERGOJ
cal communities both in Slovenia and throughout either the entire Modern Period or the recent past
Europe when discussing specific chronologically (cf. West 1999, 8–9).
defined research areas. The confusion increases when trying to coin an
With regard to the medieval period, we generally appropriate umbrella term, a group designation
only differentiate between early medieval archaeol- for the archaeologies concerning the periods fol-
ogy and late medieval archaeology, while the High lowing the Early Middle Ages. Should this be an
Middle Ages are left out of the naming process. “archaeology after 1000 AD”, “archaeology after
Actually, this dual differentiation is more in line the Early Middle Ages” or perhaps “historical
with the development of material culture than is archaeology”? The latter term has become estab-
the historians’ triple scheme. It is supported by the lished in certain European and particularly in
great changes that occurred within the social and non-European countries where it is understood
economic structures on the establishment of the as the study of the colonial period (Orser 1999).
feudal system – by the universal rise of Christianity Historical archaeology is specific in a methodo-
and the Church as a key social and political force. logical sense, as it involves using both written and
These processes left a distinct mark on material material sources. For this reason, some even speak
culture, primarily in the form of changing funeral of a documentary archaeology (Beaudry 1993).
rites on the one hand and the emergence of the Neither of these terms is unproblematic, nor is
feudal architecture on the other. We would thus historical archaeology in itself an unambiguous
be justified in speaking of an archaeology of the concept. In the Old World, where writing has a
feudal era that would encompass the High and the history going back several millennia, the adjective
Late Middle Ages in the narrower sense, and in the “historical” could also denote the archaeology
broader sense also the following period up until of ancient civilisations, the European medieval
the dissolution of feudal institutions in the late archaeology and many others (cf. Andrén 1998).
18th and early 19th centuries. Of the other current Moreover, this “historical” aspect of archaeology
concepts, at least the archaeology of capitalism could be understood in yet another way, as a special
should be mentioned, which encompasses also theoretical orientation of an archaeology aware
the very roots of the system in the 16th and 17th of the dynamics of history and the contextual
centuries (Johnson 1996). specificity of the phenomena it is studying. His-
In German-speaking countries and environments torical archaeology in this sense could be seen as
rooted in the German archaeological tradition, an antipode to processual archaeology (Predovnik
the term “medieval archaeology” is used indis- 2002, 96; Predovnik 2008b, 82).
criminately for archaeology of the Early, High, In the early 1990s, the Department of Archaeol-
and Late Middle Ages, even though early medieval ogy at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana,
archaeology exists as a separate concept. Medieval introduced a new subject into its undergraduate
archaeology is followed by archaeology of the programme, the so-called Archaeology of Later
Early Modern Period (16th to the 18th century), (Historical) Periods. This designation was selected
while the archaeological study of later periods as an umbrella term for archaeology of the periods
remains unsystematic and has yet to be explicitly following the Early Middle Ages (Predovnik 1995,
conceptualised.1 In the British and related archaeo- 10). The term is general enough to cover every
logical traditions, a distinction is made between kind of sub-discipline in terms of chronology
medieval – which can encompass also the Early and subject matter, as well as practical consider-
Middle Ages – and post-medieval archaeology. ing the Slovene grammatical rules. The syntagm
However, the latter term is also problematic, since itself is also known in English, German and other
it is used as a chronologically-limited concept in terminologies, though used only rarely in these
spite of its semantic breadth and does not cover linguistic environments.
Slovenian archaeologists have yet to reach a
consensus regarding the proper name for the ar-
chaeology of the periods following the Early Mid-
1 Lately,
certain younger researchers have offered dif- dle Ages. The experience of our colleagues from
ferent views. Sören Frommer has recently published his
abroad tells us that there will always be present
PhD introducing the concept of historical archaeology in
an explicit way into the German archaeological milieu, a certain amount of terminological uncertainty
grounding it in terms of epistemology and methodology and diversity, since any chosen term stands for a
(Frommer 2007). concept which in itself is defined by the subject

Archaeological research into the periods following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia 247
under study, and the understanding and defini-

tion of any given concept are dependent on the
individual researcher’s approach. Regardless of its
designation, the archaeological study of material
remains from the time after 1000 AD has become
thoroughly established in Slovenia over the past
two decades. This is also confirmed by the new
Cultural Heritage Protection Act (Official Gazette
of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 16/2008, Article
3), which was adopted in 2008 and which grants
the status of archaeological cultural heritage to
all material traces of human activity that have
been underground or underwater for at least one
hundred years. Regarding war-related remains, the
archaeological cultural heritage status is granted to
those that have been underground or underwater
for at least fifty years. Though somewhat arbitrary
and not clearly grounded in terms of content, as
we have already noted elsewhere (Predovnik 2008b,
85–86), this definition nonetheless institutes the
archaeological study of material remains from the
more recent past as a legal obligation. It is for this
reason as well that we should take a look into the
past and evaluate how Slovenian archaeology has
so far dealt with the periods following the Early
Middle Ages.2 Fig. 1: Alfons Müllner in ca. 1900 (Grafični kabinet Na-
rodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: I. Kotar).
Sl. 1: Alfons Müllner ok. 1900 (Grafični kabinet NMS;
FIRST STEPS foto: I. Kotar).
The first publications on late medieval finds and of Atilov grad at Spodnji Kocjan (Müllner 1894b)
sites on the territory of Slovenia were contributed and Repnikovo Gradišče near the hamlet of Rep
by Alfons Müllner (fig. 1) at the end of the 19th at Veliko Tinje in the Pohorje mountain range
century. These were often chance discoveries and (Müllner 1894c) were prehistoric “cult locations”.
finds that had been unsystematically obtained, e.g. Müllner was also the first to conduct systematic
from the Karst caves (Nabergoj 1995, 72) or from archaeological investigations of Slovenia’s medieval
the – supposedly prehistoric – Kosova mound in sites. As curator of the Provincial Rudolfinum Mu-
Razvanje (Müllner 1878; Predovnik 2008a). Some seum, he performed excavations in 1892 at the old
of the medieval remains that he had documented, castle in Predjama (fig. 2) and in 1897–1898 in the
studied and published, Müllner failed to interpret area of the former burghers’ hospital on Špitalska
correctly, either in terms of dating or function. ulica (now Stritarjeva) in Ljubljana. Through his
For example, he believed that the medieval forts small-scale excavations in Predjama, his detailed
description and graphic depiction of the castle’s
2 The most comprehensive overview and evaluation architecture and through his analysis of historio-
of the Slovenian medieval and post-medieval archaeology graphic sources on “the most famous knightly castle
so far has been published by Tomaž Nabergoj in his paper in Carniola”, Müllner set out to “critically expose
Arheologija in gotika (Archaeology and Gothic Art) in 1995 the legend of Erasmus Lueger”. He reasoned out the
(Nabergoj 1995). Cf. also Ložar 1939; Slabe 1980; Guštin, place and manner of how Erasmus was killed in
Predovnik 1994; Guštin, Horvat 1994, 7–10; Predovnik 1484 from the ruined castle walls and the stone ball
1995, 78–84; Guštin 1999a; Nabergoj 2008b. The (un)
found in one of the rooms (Müllner 1892a, 1892b,
satisfactory protection of post-medieval archaeological
heritage and the challenges presented by the new law have and 1894a). After the 1895 earthquake, Müllner
recently been discussed by Barbara Nadbath and Andrej conducted archaeological excavations in Ljubljana
Gaspari (Nadbath 2008; Gaspari 2008). where a new administrative building was to be

Furthermore, Müllner’s research into the history

of the iron industry in Carniola, in the Goriško
region and in Istria, from its beginnings and up
until modernity – that is, the 19th century – is also
of importance for medieval and post-medieval
archaeology (Müllner 1909). He studied both
archaeological (material) and written sources.
His work was later continued by Walter Schmid
who, among other things, excavated the ruins of a
smelter commonly called “the Furnace of St. Hema”
in Nomenj near Bohinjska Bistrica in 1938 (fig.
3). He dated the smelter by the Plavževka stream
at the foot of Jelovica Plateau and the remains
of a house initially designated “the Manor of St.
Hema” to the time between the 12th and the 14th
centuries.4
Schmid was also interested in medieval earthen
fortifications, the so-called hausbergs, which have
been studied by Austrian researchers with increas-
ing intensity since the late 19th century. Schmidt
investigated or at least documented several sites,
including Stari grad or Presek near Črešnjevec,
the church of St. Rochus in Breg near Ptuj, Pekre,
the Atilov grob mound at Spodnji Kocjan, Pameče,
Fig. 2: Predjamski Grad (Lueg). Müllner’s drawing of the and Kogel near Raduše (Schmid 1915, 1922, and
castle under excavation in 1892 (from: Argo 1, 1892). 1925). In 1938, he unearthed the ruins of two
Sl. 2: Predjamski grad (Lueg). Müllnerjeva risba gradu ob buildings on a moated site named Groblje at Žlan
raziskavah leta 1892 (iz: Argo 1, 1892). in Bohinj. He interpreted the site as a fortified
farm – a hausberg (Gabrovec 1975, 165; Smolej
erected on the site of the former burghers’ hospital 1938). Like most researchers of the time, Schmid
where the Church of St. Elisabeth had also stood also believed that hausbergs were earthen fortifica-
since the Middle Ages. After the discovery of skeletal tions dating to the time of the Hungarian raids and
remains and because of old reports indicating that thus (mistakenly) dated all of the above-mentioned
the hero of the fight against the Turks, Herbard VIII sites to the 9th and 10th centuries (cf. Predovnik,
Freiherr von Auersperg (died in 1575), was buried Grosman 2007, 209).
at St. Elisabeth’s, they “reviewed each event with There was hardly any other notable field re-
particular care and collected carefully each find” search done until the end of World War II. Of
(Müllner 1897, 30). They excavated the remains of note are the excavations carried out at Predjama
older foundations pertaining to the Baroque and Castle before and during the war (Nabergoj 1995,
Gothic phase of the church building and a total 32–34), and in 1938 the discovery of medieval
of 51 graves containing only rare grave goods and and post-medieval fireplaces and small finds in
dating to between the 14th and 18th centuries.3 In the upper strata inside the Ajdovska jama cave
the hospital complex, they discovered the remains near the village of Nemška vas by Srečko Brodar
of a tanner’s workshop of unknown age (Müllner (Brodar, Korošec 1953, 61–62).
1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900; Stare 1991). During Interestingly, with the exception of Müllner’s
the reconstruction that followed the earthquake, excavations of the Jama (Predjama) Castle, in these
more medieval and post-medieval objects were early days Slovenia witnessed no expressions of
found on the neighbouring house lots on Špitalska that romantic interest in medieval monuments, and
ulica (Müllner 1898; Ložar 1939, 188–189; cf. also
Nabergoj 1999, 42–44). 4 Due to its technological characteristics, the plant was
later dated to the 15th or the 16th century (Smolej 1953),

3 Based on an incorrectly identified coin, Müllner whereas A. Valič speculated that it could even be as late
dated the oldest graves to the 12th or the 13th century. as the 19th century (Valič 1975, 165).

historical ancestors. This meant that historical events,

personalities and monuments from the medieval
period could have no part in the building of the
new national and civil identities.
Until World War II, Slovenian medieval (and
post-medieval) archaeology had no concepts,
theoretical premisses or specific methodologies of
its own; it was merely an offshoot of prehistoric
archaeology. With discoveries mostly occurring by
chance, systematic surveys were rare and modest in
scale. Nevertheless, this phase in the development
of Slovenia’s archaeology of later periods may be
placed within the broader context of contemporary
Central European archaeology, which had only just
begun developing its excavating techniques and
analytical tools, and in terms of interpretation was
barely able to keep pace with the developments in
history, anthropology and the social sciences in
Europe and North America. Then, directly before
the onset of World War II, Slovenian medieval
archaeology gained its founder, Rajko Ložar. His
theoretical insights are deemed to be high up, maybe
even at the forefront of contemporary European
medieval archaeology (Nabergoj 2005).
RAJKO LOŽAR
AND MEDIEVAL ARCHAEOLOGY
Fig. 3: Walter Schmid (Grafični kabinet Narodnega muzeja
Slovenije; photo: studio Benque, Graz). In 1939, Rajko Ložar (fig. 4) published the article
Sl. 3: Walter Schmid (Grafični kabinet NMS; foto: atelje Staroslovansko in srednjeveško lončarstvo v Sloveniji
Benque, Graz). (Early Slavic and Medieval Pottery in Slovenia) in the
Slovenian Museum Society Bulletin (Ložar 1939). In
particularly in the monumental architecture (castles, it, he analysed the early and late medieval pottery
monasteries or churches), that in many parts of from various sites kept by Slovenian museums at
Europe represented one of the vital roots of the later the time. The finds were poorly documented and
academic development of medieval archaeology. The in most cases unsystematically obtained, which is
political changes that occurred after World War I why Ložar could discuss them only typologically
resulted in no new initiatives for Slovenian medieval and base his dating on comparison with finds from
archaeology, while other countries that had been other countries. As a loyal student of the Vienna
created after the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian School of Art History, he used the concepts of the
Empire (Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary) were evolution of form and style to determine the types
intentionally strengthening the national awareness and relative chronology of the objects (Ložar 1939,
of their citizens through archaeological and other 180, 223–224; cf. Nabergoj 2005, 178; Nabergoj 1999,
research into their medieval history, mostly castles 39–41). His typochronological scheme remained the
and the nobility. It was in the medieval period that only tool for classification of late medieval pottery
they sought the roots of their nations as ethnic and from Slovenian territory until the 1970s, when
linguistic communities, as well as the roots of their Vinko Šribar published his analyses of the pottery
national sovereignties, which they were basing on discovered in Otok pri Dobravi (Šribar 1974).
the succession of medieval kingdoms. The position Nowadays it is, of course, regarded as obsolete and
of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and is no longer useful as a reference, though it should
later Yugoslavia was very different in this regard: be noted that Ložar’s chronological definitions still
this was a new multiethnic entity with no direct apply to a certain degree.

Period. He emphasised that the medieval, post-

medieval and prehistoric archaeologies all share
similar issues, and he reflected on the relations
between medieval archaeology and history, art
history and ethnology (Ložar 1939, 180–183).
This introduction is actually a shorter version of
a much longer text entitled Prispevki k arheologiji
našega srednjega veka (Contributions Towards the
Archaeology of our Middle Ages), which Ložar
never published (fig. 5). As this manuscript was
presented in detail a few years ago (Nabergoj 2005,
178–182), only some of its key arguments will be
highlighted here.
In Ložar’s view, medieval archaeology is an
autonomous and self-dependent discipline whose
task it is to study material remains with the aim
of complementing historiography’s findings. He
believed that written sources were more suitable
for reconstructing a comprehensive image of the
past, though this was not to imply that archaeology
as a discipline was subordinate to history. Every
period can be studied by various scientific disci-
plines, every one of them working in accordance
with its own research goals, epistemologies, and
theoretical orientations. Archaeological studies
are justified whenever the specific nature of the
Fig. 4: Rajko Ložar while excavating at Globodol near primary sources demands the use of archaeological
Mirna peč in November 1939 (private archive).
Sl. 4: Rajko Ložar na izkopavanjih v Globodolu pri Mirni
methods and approaches. Archaeology can function
peči novembra 1939 (zasebni arhiv). as an ancillary discipline to history, since “general
historiography cannot do without archaeological
work, especially in outlining the antiquities, the
Ložar also defined the technological features cultural and artistic production, and the craftsman-
and decorative principles of Early Slavic and later ship of a nation, whereas it is more independent in
medieval pottery. He explained the differences tracing the political and other kinds of histories.
observed within the context of wider historical Using merely written sources with regard to all
processes and the dissimilarities between the of these areas would be nonsensical, and even
Early Slavic and the feudal societies (Ložar 1939, impossible, considering that written sources from
203–224). He used a problem-orientated approach, this period are generally silent on such subjects”
understanding pottery as the true research potential (Nabergoj 2005, 180). At the same time, medieval
of archaeology, which should not limit itself to archaeology is primarily an archaeology and, as
mere documentation and description but should such, discusses archaeological monuments in the
also provide autonomous interpretations of mate- same way and with as much independence as
rial culture (cf. Nabergoj 2005, 180). prehistoric archaeology does.
The introduction to Ložar’s article is particu- Ložar’s views on the nature and meaning of
larly important because it contains his theoretical medieval archaeology and its relationship with his-
grounding for the archaeological study of the entire toriography can be paralleled with the discussions
Middle Ages. He highlighted the importance of about the theoretical basis of medieval archaeology
archaeology’s contribution to studying the past, in other European countries. Ložar articulated
even for periods documented with written sources his views surprisingly early, bearing in mind that
and especially taking into account the continuity similar treatises were published elsewhere only
of historical development, which dictates the equal more than three decades later (e.g. Jankuhn 1973;
archaeological treatment of the Early, High and Dymond 1974; Schlesinger 1974). In this regard
Late Middle Ages, including the early Modern as well, Ložar appears to have been an exceptional

years later, Slovenia acquired its own institution

competent for this field (Jogan 2008, 54–57).
The study of archaeology at the Faculty of Arts,
University of Ljubljana, was renewed during the
1946/47 academic year (Novaković 2004, 46).
1947 saw the establishment of the Archaeological
Commission at the Academy of Sciences and Arts,
the predecessor of today’s Institute of Archaeology
at the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian
Academy of Sciences and Arts (Pleterski 1997).
The change in the social system prompted a
serious contemplation of the nature of the disci-
pline, its tasks and methods, with which Slovenian
and Yugoslav archaeology of the time was almost
completely unfamiliar. In 1950, the first meeting
of Yugoslav archaeologists in Niška Banja saw
the establishment of a new agenda and premisses
for the harmonious development of archaeology
throughout the entire Yugoslav territory. They
made it their priority to “...research the material
culture of our nations starting with the period of
the first Slavic lineage communities and up to the
formation of bourgeois class society” (Korošec
1950b, 214).
Despite the fact that the “formation of bourgeois
class society” – a truly Marxist construct – was
not specifically determined and, accordingly, nei-
ther was the chronological span of archaeological
research,5 the chronological limit of archaeology
in Slovenia was implicitly set to the 11th century,
Fig. 5: Front page of Ložar’s 1939 manuscript “Contributions especially in relation to art history (cf. Kastelic
Towards the Archaeology of our Middle Ages” (Arheološki 1964–1965). This decision was a consequence of
oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije). inter-disciplinary relations, that is, the notions of
Sl. 5: Prva stran Ložarjevega rokopisa “Prispevki k arhe- the nature of material sources, more so than of
ologiji našega srednjega veka” iz leta 1939 (Arheološki
denying the existence of these sources and their
oddelek NMS).
relevance to medieval history. It is therefore quite
illustrative that the paper on the current state of
and isolated thinker whose opinions, however, archaeological work in Yugoslavia was presented
failed to find resonance due to his personal fate at the conference in Niška Banja by “Jože Kastelic
(Nabergoj 2005, 182). for archaeology up to the 10th century AD and
by France Stelè for later archaeology and art his-
tory” (sic) – an archaeologist and an art historian/
A NEW REALITY conservator. The ensuing debate “was focused on
the relation of art history to archaeology and its
At the end of World War II, Slovenian archae- subjects” (Korošec 1950b, 212–213).
ology was facing “a complete collapse in terms of In that same year, Josip Korošec published a
staff ” (Novaković 2002b, 87) but it did not become programme article entitled Arheologija in nekatere
paralysed. The birth of a new country brought njene naloge (Archaeology and Some of its Tasks)
with it an opportunity for renewal in terms of (Korošec 1950a). In it, he touched upon the rela-
organisation and staff, and the formation of in-
frastructural centres and networks. Even as early 5 Should it extend to the rise of towns and bourgeoisie
as 1945, the protection of cultural monuments in the Late Middle Ages, or to the 18th and 19th centuries,
and natural sights was regulated by law and, three when the bourgeoisie became the leading force in society?

Fig. 6: Krancelj above Škofja Loka. In situ presentation of the excavated remains of the so-called Upper Tower in 1955
(Loški muzej; photo: T. Mlakar).
Sl. 6: Krancelj nad Škofjo Loko. In situ prezentacija izkopanih ostankov Zgornjega stolpa leta 1955 (Loški muzej; foto:
T. Mlakar).
tionship between archaeology and historiography. areas. Similar debates between archaeologists and
He believed that socio-historical disciplines dif- historians also took place elsewhere in Europe and
fer in their specific methodologies, which make in many respects remain unresolved even now (cf.
them independent and equal, yet also that they Nabergoj 1995, 82–84; Predovnik 2000, 36–45).
are complementary and can help each other. Thus, In Slovenia, Grafenauer’s views, which could
archaeology and its methods are indispensable in be called “the tyranny of the historical record”
the study of “later, e.g. medieval” issues (Korošec (Champion 1990), prevailed – at least implicitly.
1950a, 8). With this, Korošec joined Ložar’s outlook Later, archaeology almost completely ceased defin-
on archaeological research into the Late Middle Ages. ing its position on the matter,6 but in practice it
Korošec’s opinion incited the historian Bogo followed the chronological limitation of its work
Grafenauer to respond with a polemic treatise to the end of the Early Slavic period. Archaeol-
the next year (Grafenauer 1951). He pointed out ogy renounced the systematic investigations of
that, while archaeological sources are indeed direct sites from later periods, and the majority of the
witnesses of the past, they are less reliable than
“the critically assessed written sources” as they 6 An attempt at a reconceptualization of the relation-
are subject to the archaeologist’s interpretation. ship between archaeology and history was made by Andrej
This makes material sources absolutely inferior Pleterski in his treatise on the retrograde analysis of written
to written sources. But most of all, Grafenauer sources and their integration with the material sources, an
was bothered by the fact that Korošec presumed innovative method that he had developed while studying
archaeology to be independent even when dis- the early medieval settlements in the region of Blejski kot.
cussing archaeological sources from “historical” Pleterski advocated the necessity of an integral historical
interpretation of both written and material sources. He
periods. Grafenauer believed that archaeology in
wrote that “archaeology can only function as a science in
this case cannot provide independent interpreta- connection with other disciplines, history in particular”
tions of material sources; it can only assist history. (Pleterski 1979, 508). His argumentation was thoroughly
Also, archaeological sources are supposedly only analysed and problematised by Božidar Slapšak, who pointed
relevant for studying economic history and (partly) out that understanding archaeology in terms of just “a
ethnogenesis. In studying other aspects of the technique with some mechanical rules for the ‘objective’
past, they are only relevant when they are the sole acquisition (and accumulation) of sources” is unproductive
(Slapšak 1981, 53). The first in-depth reflections on the
source, namely in prehistory. The key issues the
nature and role of archaeology in studying the so-called
two disciplines were facing were thus their research later periods of history were published as late as the mid-
competences and the boundaries of their working 1990s (Predovnik 1995; Nabergoj 1995; Predovnik 2000).

of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in

Ljubljana, in the area of a prehistoric burial site
(Korošec 1951, 164–172).7 On Prešernova ulica in
Celje, in the course of rescue excavations which
were mainly undertaken because certain remains
from the Roman period were threatened, the ruins
of a late medieval building with a kitchen and the
pertaining inventory were discovered (Bolta 1953).
After the war, Yugoslav and Slovenian archaeol-
ogy concentrated on research into the Early Slavic
period in order to refute certain controversial ethnic
interpretations by Italian and German archaeolo-
gists and to prove the early onset and the extent of
the Slavic settlement, especially in the Primorska
region (Korošec 1950b, 214; Pleterski 1997, 18).
The primary interest was soon focused on older
churches, where the archaeologists expected to find
Early Slavic burial grounds. Excavations generally
produced not only early medieval, but also later
burials and the foundations of earlier phases of
the church building. The excavations on Bled
Island, both inside and outside the Church of the
Assumption, which took place between 1962 and
1966, represent one of the first extensive research
efforts of this kind (Nabergoj 1995, 10 with ref-
Fig. 7: Vinko Šribar at the island of Bled in 1967 (R. Šribar’s
private archive). erences; fig. 7). The excavations were performed
Sl. 7: Vinko Šribar na Blejskem otoku leta 1967 (zasebni by the Archaeological Scientific Documentation
arhiv R. Šribar). Centre of the National Museum of Slovenia un-
der the leadership of Vinko Šribar. More than
120 inhumation graves were uncovered, three of
recorded discoveries were made by chance, in the them late medieval, as well as the remains of the
framework of rescue or systematic excavations of predecessors to today’s church building. The ar-
multi-period sites whose primary objective was chaeological finds are partly displayed in situ, but
to study the earlier remains. we still lack a comprehensive excavation report.
The excavation of Zgornji stolp (the Upper Founded in 1961, the Archaeological Scientific
Tower) at Krancelj above Škofja Loka (fig. 6) is a Documentation Centre was renamed the Centre
good example. The exposed fortification on the for Early Medieval and Early Slavic Studies three
hill overlooking the castle of Škofja Loka was prob- years later (Stare 1993a; cf. Nabergoj 2008b, 92).
ably built in the 12th century and abandoned after Creating this special research department of the
an earthquake in 1511. The ruins were covered National Museum was the idea of its director, Jože
by soil, which is why Stane Gabrovec began the Kastelic (cf. also Kastelic 1964–1965). Its task was
excavation in 1954 under the assumption that he to perform systematic research into archaeological
was unearthing a prehistoric burial mound. When and other sources from the Early Middle Ages on
the site he was excavating turned out to be the the Slovenian ethnic territory. In this, the archaeolo-
remains of a medieval building, the art historian gists would cooperate with experts from the fields
Cene Avguštin took charge of the excavation of history, (physical) anthropology, art history, and
(Avguštin 1954; Avguštin 1955). linguistics. The Centre was therefore supposed to
At the time, remains from more recent periods research the early history of the Slovenian nation
– if considered and documented at all – were stud- and thus to contribute towards establishing the
ied exclusively in the context of the work done on national identity.
multi-period sites. For example, in the early 1950s,
five storage pits containing pottery from the 11th 7 The dating appears to be incorrect as the published
or the 12th century were excavated in the courtyard pottery is in all probability not older than the 13th century.

JOŽE KASTELIC AND THE BOUNDS OF churches, archaeology was interested in “finding
(EARLY MEDIEVAL) ARCHAEOLOGY Early Slavic burial sites and ... any ground plans
of older cult buildings”, while with regard to cas-
The research performed on Bled Island was one tles its efforts were directed into discovering the
of the factors that prompted the National Museum’s “’early medieval’, that is, Early Slavic layers of a site”
director, Jože Kastelic, to publish a paper on the (Kastelic 1964–1965, 114–116, 118). Thus, from
problems of early medieval archaeology in Slov- the viewpoint of architectural history, research
enia, touching on the research into later periods into sacral buildings and fortifications was left to
(Kastelic 1964–1965). Kastelic placed the Early art historians (and architects).
Middle Ages – archaeologically – between the Late The views articulated by Kastelic were in ac-
Antiquity and the 11th century or the High Middle cordance with the general, more or less implicitly
Ages. He underlined the common issues, namely, established image of archaeology of the time and
“the question of the connection between art monu- were an important determining factor in its further
ments from the High Middle Ages and the objects development. A clear-cut distinction was made
from Early Slavic archaeological sites”, as well as between the “archaeological” and the “historical”
“the all-too-strict methodological differentiation periods of the past, denying the material sources
between archaeology and art history”. However, from the latter the nature and epistemological
he was not entirely consistent: in his opinion, the potential that was at the same time attributed to
archaeological studies of the continuity between the material sources from earlier periods. For the
the Late Antiquity and the Early Slavic period first time ever, the “magical” upper time limit of
should include “the cult buildings and the objects archaeology was set, splitting the Middle Ages into
of the goldsmith’s trade”, which are otherwise (also) the archaeological Early and the (art) historical
studied by art history. On the other hand though, later Middle Ages.8
the remnants from “the period of the Slovenian This understanding of archaeology’s sphere of
Romanesque and Gothic art” – which “speaks to action has become firmly established in Slovenia.
us mainly through its monumental remains, the Attesting to this is the fact that the more recent
architecture, sculpture and painting, and partly periods were not systematically included in the
also through the objects of applied art” – were to central archaeological databases, or were even
be studied by art history (cf. Žvanut 1999). Kas- expressly disregarded (ANSl; Tecco Hvala 1993);
telic defined the material remains from the later they were not considered in multi-period projects
Middle Ages as being “directly a subject of art like the Arheološka topografija Slovenije (The Ar-
history and not archaeology” and differentiated chaeological Topography of Slovenia; Pahič 1962,
between the two disciplines “by their methods 94–95), or even in expert and popular surveys
and mutual chronological boundary” (Kastelic of the field where Slovenian archaeology and its
1964–1965, 110–114; cf. Nabergoj 1995, 78–80). achievements persistently end at the conclusion of
He dedicated a great deal of attention to the latter the Early Slavic period (Nabergoj 2008b, 90). In
and tried to set archaeology’s upper limit using a practice, however, archaeology has been acting in
calendar date from political history that would best a different way for quite some time. In the field of
fit the archaeological dating of the disappearance cultural heritage management, the archaeological
of Early Slavic burials – around the year 1000: as a research of sites from periods following the Early
suitable historical milestone he proposed the year Middle Ages has been gradually gaining in impor-
1024 when the Salian Dynasty came to power in tance at least since the 1970s, and even became a
the Holy Roman Empire. standard prescribed by law in 2008.
Even though Kastelic had mentioned several
questions regarding the continuity between the
Early and the High Middle Ages – especially “the 8 As a consequence of these views, the excavations
contemporaneity of the Romanesque and possibly of certain monuments dating from the Late Middle Ages
Pre-Romanesque architecture and Early Slavic were undertaken by art historians without the assistance
burial sites” based on the example of the excava- of archaeologists – for example Marijan Zadnikar, who
directed the excavations around the church of the Cister-
tions on Bled Island, and about medieval castles
cian monastery in Stična/Sittich (Nabergoj 1995, 38 with
having been built on the sites of older fortified references), as well as the excavations and removal of
settlements, he believed that archaeology’s interest rubble inside the church and the lesser cloister of the Žiče
was limited to retrograde studies. With regard to Carthusian monastery (Zadnikar 1965 and 1967).

THE FORCE AND POWER OF IDEOLOGY history “that in earlier periods dealt primarily
with agrarian social history, and in later periods
Concerning the research into castles and, to a with proletarian social history” (Štih 1999, 13). It
lesser degree, into monasteries and churches, we is understandable that, within the “analysis of this
need to point out the ideological obstacles or rather, great line of Slovenian national history, a line of
the politically-biased trends in the development consistent struggle for the economic and social
of historical sciences and the general attitudes to- progress of a small proletarian nation against its
wards the remains of the past after World War II.9 external and internal enemies” (Grafenauer 1947,
Why was there an almost complete lack of modern 25, note 76), this and certain other fields of me-
historical writing providing an in-depth treatment dieval studies were almost completely ignored.
of the aristocracy as such or at least of the devel- With the enforcement of the national or ethnical
opment, role and significance of individual feudal principle (instead of the state) within Slovenian
families on Slovenian territory in the Middle Ages historiography from Levstik onward, “the majority
until the mid-1990s, when the younger generation of the aristocracy, the users of castles and man-
of Slovenian historians contributed several very sions” belonged to the “doubly foreign, hostile
important studies that incited further research? sphere, and was thus unworthy of the historian’s
With the exception of one book by Janko Orožen interest” (Šumi 1983, 10). In 1983, at the Slovenian
published in 1971 (Orožen 1971) and the papers Association of Conservators’ conference on castles,
by Vlado Habjan touching on specific issues (ref. Nace Šumi wrote: “The balance of today’s level
in Habjan 1999), until fairly recently there were no of Slovenian historiography is that the agents of
extensive overviews written even on the history of feudalism, and in particular their strongholds, our
the counts of Cilli, our best known noble family. castles and later mansions, are seen as a necessary
It was the publication of the proceedings of the evil within the Slovenian ethnical group. (...) This
International Symposium held in Celje in 1998 orientation is one of the reasons why, when exam-
(Fugger Germadnik 1999a) and the catalogue of ining our recent history and the historiographic
the Celje Regional Museum 1999–2000 exhibition presentation of this period, we are faced with the
(Fugger Germadnik 1999b; cf. also Guštin 2001f ) typical extreme that could no longer separate the
that summarized the current knowledge from the defeated representatives of the feudal stratum
standpoint of different disciplines and offered a from the creations this stratum brought to life
suitable starting point for further detailed and and which should therefore be treated as cultural
comprehensive study of the Counts of Cilli.10 heritage” (Šumi 1983, 10).
A part of the blame for the situation can undoubt- Characteristically, in the first two decades after the
edly be attributed to Slovenian historiography’s war, Early Slavic burial sites from the 10th and 11th
programme from 1947. According to this, and based centuries were a self-evident subject of archaeological
on historical materialism, “the centre of historical research in Slovenia while the contemporary early
development” was shifted to “the economic and feudal castles were not.11 The ideological aspect
social system, and with it, to the general populace”
(Grafenauer 1947, 22). Research into the aristocracy 11 Supposedly existing as early as 895, Reichenburg
simply had no place in this concept of Slovenian Castle in Brestanica is often cited as the oldest castle in
the Slovenian territory. A deed of King Arnulf from the
same year mentions the Richenburch estate. The deed is
9 Though the influence of Marxist ideology on Yugoslav only preserved as a 12th century copy and it seems that
archaeology and its concepts was negligible (Novaković this part of the text is a later insertion, meaning that the
2002a) it was much more pronounced in historiography. existence of Rajhenburg at the end of the 9 th century
The negative attitude towards the Middle Ages and the is highly questionable (cf. Štih 1996, 18, 24, note 103).
material remains from the feudal age and the ecclesiastical Small-scale excavations were performed in the castle yard
art monuments that marked the broader social climate of in Brestanica during renovation in 1978, yielding the
the post-war era resulted in an inappropriate, often even remains of older walls that could not be dated precisely
openly hostile, treatment of architectural monuments. (Slabe 1982). The oldest castle with reliable written sources
This caused many problems, especially for art historians attesting to its existence in the territory of today’s Slovenia,
working in the area of heritage protection. known as castrum Bosisen in the vicinity of Škofja Loka,
10 The publication of a truly comprehensive collection was first mentioned in 973 and 989, but as yet it has not
of documents on the Counts of Cilli is still in its initial been precisely located (Berčič 2001). One possible site is
stage. The first volume was prepared by Dušan Kos (Kos Kremplnov hrib above Hosta near Suha, where interest-
D. 1996). ing finds were discovered several years ago by members

was obvious, and the concepts of nationality and to, have an interest in the material culture of the
class were politically charged to the point that they “broadest rural populace” – the exploited class of
were mutually exclusive: in the new socialist reality medieval society – not a single deserted medieval
the archaeology of elites, and foreign elites at that, village or farm in Slovenia was researched until
was an impossibility. the late 1990s.12 This was in spite of the fact that
Consequently, the research into medieval stand- already in 1965, Jože Kastelic in his programme
ing buildings was generally limited only to art called attention to the “methodically very impor-
historical or architectural lines of research. It tant” British Deserted Medieval Village Research
would therefore be futile to expect comprehensive Group dedicated to the archaeological research into
analyses that would view, for example, a medi- deserted medieval settlements, especially villages
eval castle or cloister in their primary, material (Kastelic 1964–1965, 122). And yet the agrarian
and social sense – architecture as the concrete settlement was the prevailing form of settlement
remains of places where members of a certain in the Middle Ages, while at the same time it is
social group or stratum once lived – as well as the one that is least documented in the medieval
in their secondary, symbolic sense – architecture written sources, if at all. Consequently, we now
as a hallmark, a distinctive element of a certain know almost nothing about the everyday life of
social entity, e.g. the feudal seigneury, as the the “silent majority” of the medieval population
symbol of a social group or class that is deemed in Slovenia. Nothing about the types, characters
unquestionably exploitative under the principles and the development of their villages and dwell-
of dialectical materialism and the historiography ings, economic facilities, devices and tools. This
based on it. After the socialist revolution, castles could not have been a matter of ideological bias;
and the aristocracy could not have an equal posi- the reason for completely ignoring the research
tion in the new schemes of the social orders, a fact into these complex issues was most likely the
clearly demonstrated by the burning and pillage already mentioned conceptual limitation of ar-
of numerous castles throughout the region of cheology to the so-called “archaeological periods”
Dolenjska and in some parts of Primorska during coupled with an incomprehensible lack of interest
and after World War II. “The national liberation in contemporary archaeological research carried
war has radicalised the anti-feudal position of our out abroad, as well as the lack of cooperation
countryside and thus caused the not so infrequent with historians (and historical geographers and
equation of the struggle against the remnants of ethnologists).
the old social order with the fighting against its As early as 1940, historians had classified
visible outposts, the symbols of that same past. In a archaeology as one of the principal ancillary dis-
certain sense, the part that some important castles ciplines for the history of Slovenian colonisation,
have played as strongholds of the class enemy in even though their interest at this time was only in
this struggle, indeed supported such a position” the period preceding the arrival of the Slovenians
(Šumi 1983, 10–11). (the Antiquity) and the “Early Slovenian period”
Of course, ideological considerations did not (Kos 1940, 30; cf. also Kos 1948–1949, 137–138).
define everything. There is a curious contradiction It could not be said, then, that archaeology did
that can be pointed out: although archaeology (by
definition) studies material culture and – in a so- 12 In 1997–1998, within the scope of archaeological
cialist reality – should, or would at least be allowed research accompanying the construction of the motorway
network, the multi-period site of Gornje njive near Dolga
vas was excavated, where structural and other remains of a
of staff of the Institute of Archaeology at ZRC SAZU medieval settlement from the 12th and 13th centuries were
(Pleterski 2002). First mentioned as Veldes in 1004, the uncovered (Kerman 2008). Supposedly late medieval set-
castle of Bled was renovated for tourism and was never tlement remains were also excavated on a motorway route
the subject of archaeological excavations, even though the at Obrežje and Leskovec near Celje (Mason 2004, 202–203;
Early Slavic burial sites around it were. However, Stanko Brišnik et al. 2006). In 2007, rescue excavations at the site
Pahič did include a symbol for “early medieval castles developed for the expansion of the border crossing at Zavrč
(Hausbergs or mottes)” on the archaeological map within produced the remains of fifteen residential and wooden
the project of the archaeological topography of Slovenia, outbuildings dating from the 13th to the 15 th centuries
actually documenting several in his own topographical (Lubšina-Tušek 2007, 311). For comparison, more than
work (Pahič 1962, 118). Dating these buildings to the 2000 settlement sites from the period between the 11th and
Early Middle Ages is actually incorrect (Hinz 1981; cf. the 16th centuries have been documented archaeologically
Predovnik, Grosman 2007). in the territory of Slovakia (Egyházy-Jurovská 1999, 24).

not receive from the historians any initiatives for THE PERIOD OF PRAGMATISM
investigating later periods. Although the history
of “material culture” – in the broad sense, as There were relatively few systematic archaeo-
recognised for example by Jacques Le Goff for logical studies undertaken on late medieval and
the purposes of research and evaluation of the later sites until the transformation of the heritage
medieval civilisation of Western Europe, namely protection service in the 1970s, when a network of
a “different Middle Ages, one without texts and eight institutes for the protection of monuments
inscriptions”13 – did not attract much interest from was established (Jogan 2008, 84–89). With this
Slovenian historians, they nevertheless empha- network of regional institutions, and the direct
sised the significance of archaeological research and active cooperation from museums (Slabe
for obtaining new and specific “field sources” 1981–1982, 98–99), it was possible to intensify
in the 1970 monograph on Slovenian agrarian and improve the documentation of monuments
history. In addition to archaeological finds, e.g. and the monitoring of the cultural heritage risk
agricultural implements, and the organic remains level within the entire Slovenian territory. Thus
of cultivated plants, domestic and wild animals the profession was stren“lgthened in terms of
from archaeological sites, the remains of buildings staff, which was quickly reflected in the amount
“could be important for researching farmhouses of rescue excavations performed.
up to the 17th century when other sources become Even though the archaeology of the Late Mid-
somewhat more exhaustive” and excavations could dle Ages and later periods was not an established
provide a “more accurate image of the develop- notion in Slovenia at the time, and the knowledge
ment of farming settlements”. The archaeological about the material culture of these periods was
methods of research into agriculture should be extremely limited, the high risk levels and the
supplemented with new techniques and methods number of required rescue interventions on monu-
of the natural sciences: aerial photography (for ments, eventually prompted a pragmatic response
discovering the field systems, field paths and any from the profession. It could be said that theory
underground structures), pollen analysis (for the was overtaken by practice. The preliminary reports
chronology of the changes in vegetation in an on archaeological research into monuments and
agrarian landscape) and the phosphate method sites with medieval and post-medieval remains,
(analysis of the phosphate levels in the soil to published in Varstvo spomenikov (Journal for the
determine the location of abandoned settlements; Protection of Monuments) and elsewhere, clearly
Blaznik et al. 1970, 5–6, 564, 616).14 Unfortunately, document this process: in the 1950–59 decade, 13
historians did not go beyond these fundamental sites were researched, between 1960 and 1969 the
proposals, but even archaeology did not respond number rose to 15, then in the 1970–1979 period
appropriately. There were most likely no real pos- as many as 48 were researched, with 55 researched
sibilities for work. The Slovenian archaeological in the 1980–89 decade (cf. Nabergoj 1995; fig. 8).
community has always been small in number. In The rise in the number of research excavations
the 1970s, when the number of employed (that carried out in the 1970s and the 1980s is linked to
is, active) archaeologists began to grow, this was wider social changes. In the wake of the post-war
primarily due to the increase in staff active in reconstruction, coupled with considerable eco-
the field of heritage protection. Archaeology as nomic growth and industrialisation of the 1960s,
a whole was lacking in the institutional frame- the world was facing an environmental crisis that
work, the financial resources and staff needed set off ecological movements and raised ecological
to perform comprehensive systematic research awareness. Even in the then Yugoslavia, and more
of this kind. Yet the crucial problems remained, so in Slovenia, the first efforts were made to protect
without a doubt, the theoretical premisses and the the environment against the incessant draining of
conceptual framework of Slovenian archaeology. natural resources, the spread of industry and the
concentric expansion of cities. This was reflected in
the legislation, procedures and regulations on spatial
13
planning in the 1970s and 1980s. The preservation
Cf. the quotes from Le Goff ’s La civilisation de
of fertile soil and the protection of farmland against
l´occident médiéval, 1965, translated in Nabergoj 1995, 84.
14 P. Blaznik wrote on the phosphate method in 1940 degradation and development for construction were
without specifically mentioning archaeology (Blaznik particularly strong concerns. Consequently, the
1940, 39). trend of urban centre development was reversed.

Fig. 8: Number of archaeological interventions on sites with remains from the later periods in Slovenia by decade (com-
pleted after Varstvo spomenikov and Nabergoj 1995).
Sl. 8: Število terenskih arheoloških raziskav na najdiščih z ostalinami iz mlajših obdobij v Sloveniji po desetletjih (do-
polnjeno po objavah v reviji Varstvo spomenikov in po Nabergoj 1995).
While the decades after the war witnessed the de- The archaeologists themselves consented to
population and decay of urban historical centres, such a role. They were forced to do so for prac-
from the mid-1970s onwards, the old settlement tical reasons, not due to some deeper insight
nuclei experienced a noticeable rise in construc- arising from the realisation of the necessity and
tion activity, restoration of historic buildings and possibilities of solving general historical issues.
infrastructure, and new building projects within They stressed the need for “expert knowledge”
already urbanised areas. The monument protection and for interdisciplinary treatment. However,
service thus faced an increasing volume of work, due to the “wider social interest”, “researching a
supervising the numerous development projects in ‘non-archaeological’ building with an archaeologi-
the old settlement areas and often performing the cal method” was only justified “for buildings or
necessary rescue archaeological research. parts of buildings where achieving a complex or
The “softening” of ideological views and a more important conclusion can be expected, but cannot
liberal social climate in the late 1960s and early 1970s be performed through other research methods.”
resulted in a more positive evaluation of the past, Found objects “that are mass-produced and were
even of the monuments from the feudal period. The once in relatively common use”, which are “usually
castles and mansions, deliberately neglected and only interesting within the context of excavation”,
hardly ever the subject of systematic and quality must be “sensibly screened in accordance with the
restoration and revitalisation efforts in the post- general principles of screening of the excavated
war period, now once again acquired a cultural finds, especially when dealing with material from
value. A more appropriate attitude towards these later periods uncovered from the ground, more so
monuments started to develop slowly, along with than with material from ancient times. In this way,
investments in their restoration, maintenance and only exceptional finds from excavations of non-
revitalization. The attitude towards ecclesiastical archaeological buildings are to be kept and taken
buildings as cultural monuments developed in a care of by museums” (Mikl-Curk 1981, 92–93).
similar way. Archaeology was given a place in the Marijan Slabe presented a different position, one
preventive interventions on such historic buildings, that was more in favour of the fully-up-to-standard
but only as a specialised (excavation) method for archaeological treatment of remains from more re-
obtaining data on architectural development, while cent periods, while he was undertaking research in
it generally had no important role to play in the Škofja Loka (Slabe 1974; Slabe 1980a; fig. 9). Rescue
interpretation of these monuments. excavations at Mestni trg produced the ruins of a

pots for everyday use to what is commonly called

the precious parlour inventory, which on the one
hand provides an insight into the material life and
social standing of the population in the past, and
sheds light on the well-developed trade routes with
the neighbouring countries of Italy and Austria on
the other...” Slabe underlined the epistemological
value of this material, “which in many ways ex-
plains and illuminates the past way of life and, in
combination with the written sources, completes
the historical image of the town in a certain period
of its late medieval and later development” (Slabe
1974, 75–76).
Experience in conservation and wide profes-
sional interests led the same author to prepare
the first overview of archaeological studies of the
more recent periods. The article was printed in the
publication accompanying the exhibition Rešena
arheološka dediščina Slovenije (The Rescued Ar-
chaeological Heritag“le of Slovenia) (Slabe 1980b).
The achievements presented there led to the con-
clusion “that the archaeological method of work
Fig. 9: Marijan Slabe receiving the Slovenian Archeological cannot be avoided in this historical and cultural
Society’s Life Work Prize in 2003 (Arheološki oddelek structure”, due to the demands of science as well
Narodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: T. Lauko). as those of heritage protection (Slabe 1985, 35).
Sl. 9: Marijan Slabe, prejemnik nagrade Slovenskega arheo- The predominant (mis-)understanding of ar-
loškega društva za življenjsko delo za leto 2003 (Arheološki
oddelek NMS; foto: T. Lauko).
chaeology’s role within the framework of heritage
protection was primarily caused by seeing archae-
ology as the Method – that is, excavation – which
Gothic building of the medieval commune and can be offered as a service to other disciplines and
numerous objects from the Late Middle Ages and can therefore be separated from the appropriate
the Modern period, among them large quantities of interpretative tools. Another problem was that the
decorated tableware from the second half of the 16th nature and epistemological value of material sources
century and the early 17th century. Slabe determined were poorly conceptualised, if at all. The (conserva-
these to be the products from domestic workshops tion) practice separated material sources into two
made according to Italian models, and he termed categories: the architectural remains held a primary
the ware “loška meščanska slikana keramika” (the position and the research was subjected to them,
Loka Painted Burghers’ Ware) (Slabe 1977; cf. also while the unearthed objects were generally “just”
Predovnik 2009). At the same time, he realised how used to explain and illuminate the past way of life
unsuitable the prior practice had been, seeing that it and to complement the historical reconstruction
primarily dictated the protection of archaeological from written sources. More often than not, small
remains “that had originated from no later than the finds were subjected to passing through the thick
11th or the 12th century, simply because the cultural sieve of established art historical and archaeological
heritage from more recent periods was protected criteria on what was important and worth preserving,
mainly because of its art-historical and partly eth- and what was so fragmentary, unimpressive, without
nographic importance.” Experience has shown that meaning, seemingly familiar15 and on the whole
“for various reasons, it is our duty to protect also so uninteresting that it should just be discarded.
the layers of soil in such areas, which are usually
rich in material remains, but have so far often been 15 The
neglected and discarded.” In Škofja Loka, using the deceptive nature of the notion that it is impos-
sible to learn anything new about the recent past, simply
appropriate archaeological approaches to research because its traces are present at every step we make, is the
has resulted in the discovery of a great number of subject of the volume The familiar past? Archaeologies of
“small finds ranging from the remains of ceramic later historical Britain (Tarlow, West 1999).

Context – the spatial relations between individual century (fig. 10). The research was conducted by
structures and finds – which is the third essential archaeologists of the Centre for Medieval and Early
category that can only be evaluated meaningfully Slavic Studies at the National Museum under the
by archaeology and its methods (especially strati- leadership of Vinko Šribar (cf. Nabergoj 1995 with
graphic excavations and appropriate document- references; Bartosiewicz 1999; Stare 2000). Special
ing), was not defined as such and was thus often attention was “given to the share that the Slovenian
neglected. This meant, in practice, that unprofes- early medieval culture had in the formation of
sional (methodologically incorrect) excavating cultural and civilising processes in the context of
or digging through different structures was often mature feudalism” (Šribar, Stare 1981, 7). This is
carried out by the art historians themselves, or else why, at first, the issues of continuity, especially
by architects without the cooperation of archaeolo- the supposed continuous, organic development
gists. Poor documentation of the archaeological of late medieval urban centres from earlier, Early
contexts has resulted in the loss of much valuable Slavic settlements, were at the forefront. Still, the
data and even finds. archaeological record of the site where, beside
We dare to conclude that, up to the second half the rare remains from the Roman period and the
of the 1990s, the monument protection service 10th and 11th centuries,16 mostly the architectural
in Slovenia did not – in practice and even less in remains, infrastructure, burials and, of course,
theory – manage to address adequately, in a sound objects from the Late Middle Ages were found,
and modern way, any of the three vital elements of required an “equal” treatment of the structures
research: the source, the method and the problem. and artefacts from every period. Furthermore, it
Therefore, in contrast to the contemporary devel- eventually caused a widening and shift of research
opment of science in other countries, it could not interests. Vinko Šribar and his colleagues believed
build the conceptual framework and the theoreti- that separating the Middle Ages into the archaeo-
cal foundations for autonomous, legitimate and logical early and “non-archaeological” late Middle
scientifically sound archaeological research into Ages made no sense, and accordingly changed the
the heritage of “non-archaeological” periods. In name of the Centre for Early Medieval and Early
spite of the great progress that has been made in Slavic Studies to the Centre for Medieval Archae-
the last two decades, many problems still persist, ology in 1977. The Centre’s activities prompted
especially with regard to adequate interdisciplinary the National Museum to establish a new post of
research. As Marko Stokin pointed out years ago, museum curator for archaeology of the High Mid-
the consequence of this problematic understanding dle Ages (Stare 1993a).
of (medieval) archaeology and the lack of connec- Based on the data and finds obtained from
tion between the different disciplines is that we Otok, Vinko Šribar and his colleague Vida Stare
still lack the adequate analytical methods which published a number of papers on the urban and
would enable us to address in an appropriate way architectural development of this medieval set-
complex sites, such as urban settlements, or to tlement (Šribar 1975b; Šribar, Stare 1978), on
interpret the social processes, the development of the various groups of artefacts (Šribar 1976;
towns and architecture (Stokin 1995, 53). Stare 1983; Stare 1993b; Stare 2002), and the
typochronologies of metal and ceramic finds
(Šribar 1972–1973; Šribar 1983). Unfortunately,
THE FIRST SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH the latter two schemes, which could serve as basic
PROJECTS AND THE BEGINNINGS dating tools for further studies of late medieval
OF INSTITUTIONALISATION sites in Slovenia, have proven problematic. The
chronological distribution of individual types
In the 1970s, the first major shifts towards estab- follows the relative sequence of the six horizons 17
lishing the archaeology of later periods occurred at the site, which have been dated absolutely to
also in the field of systematic research. As early as individual centuries, in descending order from
1967, systematic archaeological investigation of the
site of Otok pri Dobravi (Otok near Dobrava) in 16 Only a single “residential sunken building” has been
the Šentjernejsko polje plain began on the initiative
published so far. It was supposedly built in the 10th cen-
of the historian Ferdo Gestrin. Otok is the location tury and was still in use in the 11th century (Stare 1993c).
of the medieval market town of Gutenwert (also: 17 Šribar initially defined eight phases of building
Gutenwerth) which was deserted in the late 15th development at the site (Šribar 1968–1969, 34).

Fig. 10: Otok near Dobrava – Gutenwert. Excavation area 1 with uncovered foundations of a Romanesque church and
remains of several workshops (R. Šribar’s private archive).
Sl. 10: Otok pri Dobravi – Gutenwert. Izkopno polje 1 z odkritimi temelji romanske cerkve in delavniškimi objekti
(zasebni arhiv R. Šribar).
the late 15 th century (the 1st horizon) to the early while some very late types are attributed to older
11 th or the late 10th century (the 6th horizon). It horizons. These schemes and the related dates of
is unclear whether these “horizons” stand for the the appearance of individual types are therefore
phases, that is, periods of settlement or perhaps useful as dating tools only with certain reserva-
for the horizontal “cultural” strata, or whether tions and a great deal of scepticism.
they are simply identical to the “plana”, the ar- Despite this, the indisputable fact is that the
bitrary horizontal layers of soil by which the site excavations at Otok pri Dobravi have a special
was excavated in accordance with the then valid place in the history of Slovenian archaeology, and
methodology (cf. Šribar 1972–1973, 23–29 and rightly so. Not only was this the first planned
Šribar 1979, 48–58). As it turns out, the “pla- and systematic investigation of a site from the
num” method of excavation used resulted in the later periods and the first investigation of a de-
mixing of the cultural content of the individual serted medieval settlement, but it was also one
stratigraphic units, e.g. two or more strata, fill of the first open-area excavations carried out in
deposits, and other stratigraphic units that were Slovenia. The excavation director, Vinko Šribar,
(partly) excavated at the same time. It is also was developing new methods for documentation
unclear which objects were found within intact, to meet the requirements of the project (Šribar
closed contexts and which in mixed ones. For this 1974). However, the actual value of the discoveries
reason, the typochronological schemes of pottery from Otok is difficult to assess as we still lack a
and metal objects from Otok pri Dobravi place comprehensive site report. It is as yet impossible
individual early types into the latest horizons, to examine critically the published definitions

Fig. 11: Stari grad above Celje (Arheološki oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: J. Hanc).
Sl. 11: Stari grad nad Celjem (Arheološki oddelek NMS; foto: J. Hanc).
and interpretations of the individual architectural Bled Island and Otok pri Dobravi. The Centre
remains, of the urban development and of the ceased to exist with Vinko Šribar’s retirement in
small finds. The research potential remains, of 1987, but the post of museum curator for archaeol-
course, seeing that the complete documentation ogy of the High Middle Ages still remained at the
and the artefacts are kept in the National Museum National Museum (Stare 1993a, 31).
of Slovenia and the site is suitably protected, al- There is another research project that deserves
lowing for further archaeological research. Vida mentioning – the excavations at Stari grad nad
Stare recently published the results of excavations Celjem (the Old Castle above Celje; fig. 11). As
in the Church of St. Nicholas, the only standing with Otok pri Dobravi, the initiative came from
building in the area of the former settlement. outside archaeology. Archaeologists were invited
Forty-four medieval and post-medieval inhu- to excavate by Ivan Stopar, an art historian and
mations were excavated, along with the remains conservator at the Institute for the Protection of
of older building phases of the existing church, Monuments in Celje. The excavations were car-
the foundations of its predecessor and several ried out by the Department of Archaeology at the
foundations from the Roman period that are Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana and were directed by
interpreted as the remains of a Roman river port Tatjana Bregant in 1972–1983 and 1986 (Bregant
(Stare 2000). St. Nicholas’ is thus the first of the 1974; Stopar 1975; Bregant 1977; Bregant 1983).
three areas excavated at Otok between 1967 and Archaeological excavations covered every accessible
1984 to have a full site report published.18 area inside the castle core and some smaller sec-
Archaeologists from the Centre for Medieval tions of the moat and the castle yard. Considering
Archaeology have researched several sites besides that we still have no comprehensive publication
on these excavations which would include the
18 Beside the church, the excavations also took place full graphical documentation and a catalogue
at the so-called Excavation Areas 1 and 2, located on the of small finds, again the conclusion applies that
southern and central parts of the settlement respectively. the interpretative potential of the archaeological

research performed was and still is not exploited posedly built on the site of an Early Slavic hillfort.
to its full extent.19 A decade ago, a revision was performed of the
Regarding the interpretation of the structures finds from the so-called sectors A and B where
discovered, especially with regard to the castle’s structures and pottery from the first and second
architectural development from the first half of “residential horizons” from the period between
the 13th century onward, the archaeologist’s opin- the 10th and 12th centuries were supposedly found.
ion differed greatly from that of an art historian The revision showed that the preserved collection
and an architect (Kramberger, Stopar 1987; cf. of pottery contains no fragments older than the
Stopar 1982), but due to the lack of published 12 th century, and the reviewer pointed out the
archaeological data it is difficult to judge them problems encountered in establishing a pottery
critically. Tatjana Bregant’s thesis that the Gothic sequence for the site, due to the planum excavation
castle hall developed from the original tower is and documentation methods used (Brišnik 1999,
in all likelihood wrong, but this does not justify 269–270). This calls for further critical assessment
the conclusion that the “methodological starting of the finds and field documentation.
point” of archaeological interpretations is “specu- Despite these attempts at systematic research,
lative” (Kramberger, Stopar 1987, 85). An errone- when discussing the legacy of more recent periods,
ous interpretation of individual archaeological archaeology still accepted the status of a mere
data does not deny the epistemological potential method and critique of sources while relinquishing
of archaeological sources or the epistemological the interpretation of these same sources to history
relevance of archaeological methodology as such. or art history. In 1987, Božidar Slapšak critically
This incomprehension stems from the belief that summed up the state of archaeology in the period
it is sufficient for different disciplines to approach of pragmatism as we have termed it in the title of
an issue each from their own perspective and using the previous chapter: “It needs to be emphasised
their own methods, and then finally to compare that, regarding the interpretation of material sources
the results. Such multidisciplinarity only serves to from the later historical periods (after 1000 AD),
increase the disagreements and distrust between archaeology still acts merely as the interpreter of
the various disciplines, when they should instead vertical relationships – the sequence of construc-
be working together in a truly interdisciplinary tion phases or the phases of use in architectural
way to complement and understand one another remains: it is the only historical discipline with
better (cf. Predovnik 1995, 74–77). suitable stratigraphic and typological methods
The published interpretations of archaeological for evaluation of the stratified finds. Archaeology
data from the Old Castle above Celje have turned figures only as a supporting technical discipline,
out to be problematic in several other points as uncovering through excavations the horizontal
well. Ten “cultural horizons”, that is, eight con- relationships on the micro-level, the explana-
struction phases of stone buildings and two earlier tion of which is then relinquished to disciplines
phases of wooden buildings have been identified. mastering the dominating sources for the period:
The horizons were dated through small, mostly written documents and art. This state of affairs
ceramic finds to the period between the mid-10th is characteristic of a ‘phase of unconceptualised
century and the 17th century and linked with the practice’: the archaeology of later historical periods
information from the written sources (Bregant 1983, in Slovenia as yet has no institutional backing. The
40; Bregant 1984). According to the excavator’s attempt within the framework of the Gutenwerth
interpretation, the rocky promontory overlook- project is, in our circumstances, nothing short of
ing the confluence of the Savinja and Voglajna extraordinary” (Slapšak 1987, 145, note 3).
rivers was occupied even before the construction
of the feudal fortification, as the latter was sup-
NEW CONCEPTS
19 The publications to this date include the (incomplete)
AND THE BIRTH OF A DISCIPLINE
reports on excavations (e.g. Bregant 1974; Bregant 1977),
a selection of excavated stove tiles (Bregant 1984), a few In the 1980s, Slovenian archaeology began to
fragments of “chronologically defined” ceramics (Šribar,
open up intellectually towards the Anglo-Saxon
Stare, Bregant 1974, 45–49), a selection of ceramic and
metal items (Fugger Germadnik 1999a, passim; Guštin world, from which it adopted certain initiatives for
2001f, passim), and the ceramic finds from sectors A and theoretical reflection and conceptual and meth-
B (Brišnik 1999). odological development. In 1981, the Slovenian

Fig. 12: Koper, Kapucinski vrt, the 1986 excavation. Remains

of early medieval, late medieval and postmedieval stone
buildings and infrastructure (Pokrajinski muzej Koper;
photo: V. Šribar).
Sl. 12: Koper, Kapucinski vrt, izkopavanja leta 1986. Ostanki
zgodnjesrednjeveških, poznosrednjeveških in zgodnje-
novoveških kamnitih stavb in infrastrukturnih objektov
(Pokrajinski muzej Koper; foto: V. Šribar).
Fig. 13: Ljubljana Castle. From 1990 until 2000, the

teachers and students of the Department of Archaeology,
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, were involved in
extensive excavations at the northern artillery platform
directed by the City Museum of Ljubljana (Oddelek za
arheologijo FF UL; photo: D. Grosman).
Sl. 13: Ljubljanski grad. Pri obsežnih izkopavanjih, ki jih
je vodil ljubljanski Mestni muzej, so v letih od 1990 in
2000 na območju severne grajske bastije sodelovali tudi
učitelji in študentje Oddelka za arheologijo Filozofske
fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Oddelek za arheologijo FF
UL; foto: D. Grosman).

Archaeological Society began publishing Arheo, a chaeological curriculum at Ljubljana’s Faculty of

journal that featured original theoretical contribu- Arts was complemented with a new course called
tions and translated articles from other publications, the Archaeology of Later Historical Periods (fig. 14;
thus introducing to Slovenian archaeologists the Novaković et al. 2004, 97–100).22 Adhering to the
new (and the not so new) views of their American general structure of the study programme, whose
and British colleagues. New concepts, new inter- core consists of courses devoted to the various
pretative approaches and, last but not least, new archaeological periods, this course was designed
methodologies were presented by foreign visiting so as to include all periods after the end of the
lecturers at the Department of Archaeology at the Early Middle Ages, or rather, everything from the
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana,20 and the traditional upper chronological limit of archaeol-
teachers of the department were testing them in ogy – the 11th century – onwards until modernity.
practice in their own research work at home and The course was actually introduced in the academic
in international projects. year 1993/94, when the first seminars were held,
The development of the archaeology of later complemented with occasional lectures by Slovene
periods is inseparably linked to the introduction and foreign visiting lecturers (Guštin 1994).23 From
of a crucial methodological innovation that also 1992 to 1995, professor Guštin and his students
entered Slovenian archaeology from the West: were excavating the medieval fortress at Stari grad
the stratigraphic excavation method. Consistent nad Podbočjem (the Old Castle above Podbočje;
application of this method demands an equal Predovnik 2003; fig. 15), discussing various topics
treatment of all units of stratification regardless of related to the archaeology of later periods in the
their cultural content or age. The method was tried seminar on prehistoric archaeology of the Bronze
out successfully even before the original manual and Iron Ages.24 The full implementation of the
was translated into Slovenian (Harris 1989) in the course in all four years of the undergraduate pro-
rescue excavations at the Kapucinski vrt (Capuchin gramme followed gradually and only became fully
Garden) in Koper in 1986–1987 (Cunja 1989; Cunja established at the onset of the new millennium.
1996; fig. 12). It was also applied in the lengthy
excavations at Ljubljana Castle which started in
22 In Slovenia, this term was first used by Božidar
1988 (Šinkovec 1991; fig. 13), then again in Koper
Slapšak in 1982 in his article O zgodovini in arheologiji (On
in the excavation inside the Church of St. Clara
History and Archaeology) published in the journal Arheo
in 1989 (Grosman 1991, 32–36) and elsewhere.21 (Slapšak 1981). Slapšak pointed out that “expanding the
Being protective in nature, all of these excavations subject of archaeology to the latest historical periods” is
were rescue interventions performed on complex only possible if the differentiation between archaeology and
multi-period sites with a significant or even prehistory as scientific disciplines is based on the different
dominant share of remains from periods after the nature of their sources. In the opposite case, archaeology
Early Middle Ages. as a “synthesising and integrative science” can be defined
only through the demarcation of its field of interest in
The quantity of data gathered, the number of
relation to history, that is, chronologically (Slapšak 1981,
field projects conducted and artifacts acquired have 52–53). This latter premise has been determining the
gradually demanded a more appropriate treatment relationship between the two disciplines ever since the
of the medieval and post-medieval archaeological discussion between Korošec and Grafenauer in the 1950s,
heritage. This incited the interest of only a small preventing the establishment of the archaeology of later
number of individuals at first, but the circumstances periods as an independent and legitimate scientific (sub)
matured in the early 1990s, when the archaeology discipline. Due to the same consideration the academic
course was renamed in 1995, when the adjective “histori-
of periods following the Early Middle Ages became
cal” was dropped from the course title because it implicitly
established also at the academic level. In 1990/91, supported the traditional separation into archaeological
at the incentive of professor Mitja Guštin, the ar- and historical periods with all of the negative consequences
this had on the discipline’s development.
23 Vinko Šribar held a lecture with the title Uvod v
20 The first one was Lewis Binford, who visited the arheologijo visokega in poznega srednjega veka (An Intro-
Department of Archaeology in the academic year of 1985/86 duction to the Archaeology of the High and Late Middle
(Novaković et al. 2004, 82). Ages) at the Department of Archaeology on 10 May 1988,
21 The fact that none of these excavations have been some years before the official introduction of the course.
published completely does not deny their significance for the 24 This also resulted in the publication of older exca-
archaeology of later periods or their historical place within vations carried out at Stari grad nad Podbočjem (Guštin
the methodological development of Slovenian archaeology. et al. 1993).

Fig. 14: Professor Mitja Guštin, instigator of systematic

development of the archaeology of later periods as an in-
dependent field of study and research (photo: A. Gombač).
Sl. 14: Profesor Mitja Guštin, pobudnik sistematičnega
razvoja arheologije mlajših obdobij kot samostojnega
študijskega in raziskovalnega polja (foto: A. Gombač).
Fig. 15: Stari grad above Podbočje – the fortress of

Kostanjevica. Excavated walls of a square tower and the
foundations of a building dating from ca. 1200 preserved
underneath (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; photo: S. Firšt).
Sl. 15: Stari grad nad Podbočjem – trdnjava Kostanjevica.
Izkopani zidovi kvadratnega stolpa in pod njimi ohranjeni
temelji stavbe iz časa okoli 1200 (Oddelek za arheologijo
FF UL; foto: S. Firšt).
In the 1993/94 seminar on the archaeology of students attending the seminar presented their work
later periods, students discussed the stove tiles to the general public with a small exhibition at the
unearthed at Ljubljana Castle, in cooperation with Jakopičevo Razstavišče gallery and in a published
the City Museum of Ljubljana. The professor and volume. The book entitled Ljubljanski grad. Pečnice

(Ljubljana Castle. Stove Tiles) was published as the centuries following the Early Middle Ages in
the first volume in a new series of monographs Slovenia. Katarina Predovnik, on the other hand,
named Archaeologia historica Slovenica, which tried theoretically to define the epistemological
the Department of Archaeology started publish- possibilities of historical archaeology in accord-
ing with the ambition to stimulate research into ance with the concepts of material culture, literacy
the more recent periods and to create a platform and social theory current in the so-called post-
for the publication of finds and research projects, processual archaeology.
thus expanding knowledge and connecting the Other seminar papers and graduation theses
interested researchers (Guštin, Horvat 1994).25 soon followed. In the period between 1995 and
As early as 1995, the first two graduation the- 2008, eighteen archaeology students completed
ses dealing with the archaeology of later periods their undergraduate studies at Ljubljana’s Faculty
were defended. Both of them were general surveys of Arts, obtaining bachelor’s degree with a thesis
aiming to strengthen the emerging discipline and on the archaeology of later periods. Furthermore,
link it to the domestic and international research two students obtained a master’s degree and one
traditions. An exhaustive overview and analysis a PhD with theses on the same subject (fig. 16).
of archaeological research into the High and Late In 1995, again at the initiative of Mitja Guštin,
Middle Ages in Slovenia was prepared by Tomaž the Centre for Medieval and Post-Medieval Studies
Nabergoj, who published his thesis in the National was established at the Department of Archaeol-
Museum’s exhibition catalogue Gotika na Sloven- ogy at the Faculty of Arts (Novaković et al. 2004,
skem – svet predmetov (Gothic in Slovenia – the 99–100). In 1996 it opened a branch office in Celje,
World of Objects; Nabergoj 1995). The conceptual which operated until 2001 in cooperation with the
development of historical archaeology throughout Celje Regional Museum. Led by professor Guštin,
Europe and the USA was presented by Katarina the Centre was “established with the intention of
Predovnik in her thesis (Predovnik 1995; cf. Pre- speeding up the development of medieval and post-
dovnik 2000). Both authors typically assumed a medieval archaeology in Slovenia and encouraging
somewhat apologetic stance, seeing that the rigid the analysis and publication of the finds lying for-
traditional understanding of archaeology as the gotten in museum storage rooms” (Guštin 2001e,
antipode rather than as another facet of history 7). One of the key initiatives for establishing the
called for a clear definition of the significance of Centre – and its Celje office in particular – was the
archaeological research into “historical” periods.26
Nabergoj pointed out some specific dilemmas
arising from the insufficient consideration of the
archaeological potential of the material culture of
25 To this date, another five volumes have been pub-

lished in the series (Guštin, Predovnik 1997; Guštin 2001f;
Predovnik 2003; Podpečan 2006; Predovnik et al. 2008).
26 It seems that the archaeology of later periods will
not lose this attitude for a while yet, in spite of its recent
development and achievements. Although Slovenian
archaeologists have become more or less reconciled with
researching the medieval and early modern periods, they
remain ambivalent towards research into later periods (cf.
the series of contributions on post-medieval archaeology in
the 25th issue of Arheo). Historical archaeology is regulated
and prescribed as a norm by the new Cultural Heritage
Protection Act, yet the archaeologists and representatives of
related disciplines (history, cultural anthropology, and art Fig. 16: Number of bachelor’s degree, master’s degrees, and
history) still have insufficient knowledge and understanding PhD theses defended at the Department of Archaeology,
of this segment of archaeological research, which is why Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana from 1995 until
they often reject it. The archaeology of later periods has 2008 (source: archive of the Department of Archaeology).
yet to open a debate on the subject with the related disci- Sl. 16: Število diplomskih, magistrskih in doktorskih del s
plines. For now, their perception of archaeology remains področja arheologije mlajših obdobij, obranjenih na Oddelku
within the limits set by Bogo Grafenauer in the mid-20th za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani v obdobju
century (Grafenauer 1951; Grafenauer 1960). 1995–2008 (vir: interni arhiv Oddelka za arheologijo).

desire for a comprehensive analysis and publication by the Slavs and the Early Middle Ages, including
of the finds and data from excavations in Celje, the 11th century”. Even though there were plans to
especially the excavations at Stari grad nad Celjem expand the Institute’s scope of activity beyond this
carried out by the Department of Archaeology and chronological limit as early as in 1989 (Pleterski
those conducted by the Institute for the Protection 1997, 88), this did not happen until the beginning
of Natural and Cultural Heritage in Knežji dvor of the new millennium, when they finally acquired
(the Princely Court) in Celje. The initial idea was a new member of staff – a researcher for the ar-
not realised in full though, since only small assem- chaeology of the Late Middle Ages and the Early
blages of artefacts from these two large excavation Modern period.27 Finally, in the last decade the
projects were actually evaluated and published journal Arheološki vestnik, the principal Slovenian
(e.g. Brišnik 1999a; contributions in Guštin 2001f). archaeological journal published by the Institute,
Still, the Centre documented and often also took began publishing papers on the archaeology of later
care of the publication of archaeological finds from periods. We could say that this was an important
several other medieval and post-medieval sites, symbolic break from tradition and the final af-
e.g. the castles at Slovenska Bistrica, Slovenske firmation of the new discipline as a legitimate and
Konjice, Šalek, Podsreda, Žebnik, Stari grad nad meaningful segment of archaeology.
Podbočjem, Zgornji stolp at Krancelj, along with Another institute active in the fields of medieval
the finds from the monasteries of Olimje, Žiče, and post-medieval archaeology was founded in 2003.
and Ptuj, from the town centres of Slovenj Gradec, Headed by Mitja Guštin, the Institute for Mediter-
Ljubljana and Celje, and the objects recovered from ranean Heritage was established at the Science and
the underwater sites of the Ljubljanica river, Piran Research Centre of Koper, engaging in multi-period
and Sv. Ivan near Umag (Croatia). The Centre also and interdisciplinary research (fig. 17). In coopera-
carried out the Celjski knezi (the Princes of Celje) tion with partners from Italy, Croatia and Austria,
project, prepared a touring exhibition presenting members of the Institute conducted research into
an overview of the archaeological research into the the material heritage of the Venetian Republic on
Middle Ages in the Štajerska and Prekmurje regions the eastern Adriatic coast in the framework of the
and, in 1998, collaborated with the Celje Regional European project called Dediščina Serenissime (The
Museum in the organisation of the resounding in- Heritage of the Serenissima), which extended over
ternational symposium Celjski grofje – stara tema, several years (cf. for example Guštin et al. 2006). The
nova spoznanja (The Counts of Celje – New Findings Institute is especially active in the field of publishing
on an Old Subject; Fugger Germadnik 1999b). The (Preložnik 2008): regarding the archaeology of later
Centre’s activity has died down since the doors of periods, six volumes have already been published in
the Celje branch office finally closed in 2003. the Annales Mediterranea series (Guštin 2004; Lazar
The institutional infrastructure of the archaeol- 2004; Mileusnić 2004; Zagarčanin 2004; Guštin et
ogy of later periods is complemented by the posts al. 2006; Lazar, Willmott 2006; Guštin et al. 2008),
of curators for the archaeology of (High and) Late as well as a number of graduation theses and other
Middle Ages at the National Museum of Slovenia papers by students of cultural heritage studies at the
and the City Museum of Ljubljana. These are in Faculty of Humanities at the University of Primorska
charge of the archaeological movable heritage of the
periods following the Early Middle Ages, research-
27 The Early Slavic period is the last period presented
ing and presenting it to the public at permanent
and temporary exhibitions. Then there is the main in the popular book surveying the archaeology of the
Slovenian territory, Zakladi tisočletij (Treasures of the Mil-
Slovenian archaeological research institution, the
lennia). The volume was written by the researchers of the
Institute of Archaeology at the Scientific Research Institute and their co-workers and was published in 1999
Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and (Aubelj, Božič, Dular 1999). It is an important and richly
Arts (IzA ZRC SAZU). For a long time, its research illustrated popular scientific book aiming at the popu-
activities were limited to researching the “tradi- larisation of archaeology among the general public. The
tional” archaeological periods – in line with the book can also be understood as archaeology’s contribution
orientations and tasks set out by Josip Korošec in towards building a new national identity after Slovenia’s
attainment of independence, even though this was not
1948, on the founding of the Archaeological Sec-
the direct motive for its publication. Still, this “national
tion at the Historical Institute: “the archaeological project” is in keeping with the old understanding of the
scientific research of the Slovenian territory rang- chronological limits of archaeology, which had already
ing from the Neolithic period to the settlement been surpassed in Slovenia at the time.

Fig. 17: Koper, Ukmarjev trg. Rescue excavations were conducted in 2007 by the Institute for Mediterranean Heritage
at the Science and Research Centre of Koper at the University of Primorska (Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja ZRS UP;
photo: A. Ogorelec).
Sl. 17: Koper, Ukmarjev trg. Zaščitna izkopavanja je leta 2007 opravil Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja Znanstveno-
raziskovalnega središča Univerze na Primorskem (Inštituta za dediščino Sredozemlja ZRS UP; foto: A. Ogorelec).
presented in the new periodical Studia universitatis increased significantly (fig. 18). In the last twenty
hereditati (Guštin 2008). years, several comprehensive site reports includ-
The establishment of the archaeology of later ing the catalogues and evaluation of small finds
periods as an independent academic discipline have been published,29 as well as numerous theme
went hand in hand with changes in practice. Ever
more often, the research projects and small finds of Pomurje Museum (Balažic, Kerman 1997); the exhibition
were presented at special permanent and tempo- on the Šaleška valley “between the Romanesque and the
rary exhibitions,28 and the number of publications Baroque” (Ravnikar 1998); the exhibitions on the Counts
of Celje (Fugger Germadnik 1999b), on the medieval and
post-medieval ceramics from the underwater rubbish
28 To name but a few: the exhibitions on the excavations dumps at Sv. Ivan near Umag and in Piran (Guštin 2004),
at Kapucinski vrt in Koper (Guštin, Cunja 1989; Cunja 1989) on research in Škofja Loka (Štukl 2004); and finally, two
and on the pottery and glass vessels from the castles in the recent examples – the exhibitions Zakladi Narodnega muzeja
northern part of the Primorska region (Žbona-Trkman et Slovenije (The Treasures of the National Museum of Slovenia;
al. 1991); the occasional exhibitions in Križanke Cultural- Nabergoj 2006) and Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke
Information Centre on the research conducted by the City (The Ljubljanica – A River and its Past; Turk et al. 2009) at
Museum of Ljubljana, such as the Mesto pod muzejem (The the National Museum of Slovenia.
City under the Museum) exhibition in 2000; the Gotika na 29 E.g. reports on the following sites: Stari grad nad
Slovenskem – svet predmetov exhibition (Gothic in Slovenia – Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993; Predovnik 2003), the Ša-
the World of Objects; Lozar Štamcar 1995); the multi-period lek Castle (Brišnik, Ravnikar 1999), the manor in Polhov
exhibition on pottery in the Šentjernejsko polje region (Križ Gradec (Železnikar 2002), the shepherd’s hut on the Velika
et al. 1996); the exhibition on the archaeological research planina mountain (Železnikar 2006), the Church of St.
conducted on sites from the later periods in the Štajerska Bartholomew in Šentjernej (Predovnik et al. 2008), Mali
region (Guštin, Predovnik 1997); the permanent exhibition grad in Kamnik (Štular 2009) and others.

Fig. 18: Number of publications on the archaeology of later periods in Slovenia by decades. Only comprehensive site
reports (exhaustive reports including a catalogue of small finds), theoretical discussions and problem-orientated studies
are included (sources: Nabergoj 1995 and COBISS).
Sl. 18: Število objav s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij na Slovenskem po desetletjih. Upoštevane so samo celovite
objave terenskih raziskav (izčrpno poročilo s katalogom najdb), teoretske razprave in tematske študije (vir: Nabergoj
1995 in COBISS).
studies on individual groups of artefacts,30 treatises muzej Kromberk museum and the Department of
addressing the issues of urban archaeology (Stokin Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts, University of
1995; Cunja 1998; Guštin 2001a; Guštin 2001c), Ljubljana, jointly organised a discussion meeting
pottery production in the Slovenian territory on medieval and post-medieval archaeological
(Župančič, Cunja 2000; Mileusnić 2008; Predovnik heritage. In cooperation with the Archaeological
2009) and the discipline’s research history, con- Museum of Udine, Italy and the Archaeological
cepts and current state (Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Society of Friuli, they also organised a special sec-
Nabergoj 1995; Guštin 1999a). tion with contributions by Slovenian researchers
Theme meetings and conferences, especially at the conference on late medieval and renaissance
the international ones, offered opportunities for ceramics in North-eastern Italy and the neighbouring
the exchange of knowledge and experience. On regions which took place in Udine, Italy in March
the occasion of the exhibition Drobci nekega vsak- 1996 (Buora et al. 1999). In December 1997, it
dana (Fragments of an Ordinary Day) presented was followed by a conference on research into the
at Kromberk Castle in January 1995, the Goriški high and late medieval and early modern ceramics
in Slovenia organised by the National Museum
30 See for example the treatises on stove tiles (Stare of Slovenia.31 The symposium on the Counts of
1993; Guštin, Horvat 1994, Guštin 2001d), medieval pottery Celje, organised by the Celje Regional Museum
(Nabergoj 1999; Kos, Nabergoj 2000; Štular 2005; Štular in cooperation with the Centre for Medieval and
2007), ceramic goblets and cups (Guštin 1999b; Guštin Post-Medieval Studies in May 1998, was marked
2001b), pottery from highland sites in the Kamniško-Sa- by its international and interdisciplinary character
vinjske Alps (Horvat 1996; Cevc 2000; Predovnik 2006),
(Fugger Germadnik 1999a). Slovenian researchers
decorated tableware (Cunja 2000; Cunja 2001; Guštin
2004; Predovnik 2009), Spanish majolica (Guštin, Gelichi began working more closely with their foreign
2001), glass vessels (Kos, Žvanut 1994; Lazar 2001; Petek colleagues, especially those from the neighbouring
2004), metal objects (Stare 2002), weapons (Nabergoj 2001; states of Italy, Austria and Croatia.32
Štukl 2007; Rozman 2008), and numerous other thematic
contributions. For medieval monetary issues, mints and
coins, see for example Kos P. 1996 and Šemrov 2001. 31 Cf. Nabergoj 1999, 41 and the series of five articles
Modern analytical methods from natural sciences have on the study of medieval and post-medieval ceramics in
already been introduced to artefact studies: non-destructive Slovenia published in Argo 43/1 (Ljubljana 2000, pp. 29–74).
nuclear spectroscopic methods were used in establishing 32 Especially the international projects and theme
the chemical composition of medieval glass vessels (Šmit, conferences organised since 2003 by the Institute for
Kos 2004) and medieval coins (Šmit, Šemrov 2006). Mediterranean Heritage (cf. for example Guštin et al. 2006).

On the whole, the approaches and research innovative way by Matjaž Bizjak in his graduation
objectives of the archaeology of later periods so thesis on the system of defence against the Turks
far do not reach beyond the traditionally estab- in the area of the Pivka and Reka river valleys
lished limits set by the cultural-historical and (Bizjak 2006). 33 GIS tools were also applied by
typochronological paradigms that still visibly Benjamin Štular in his interpretation of the dy-
define the greater part of Slovenian archaeologi- namics of human “conquest” and use of the Alpine
cal output. The attractive ambition to place the environment based on the case of the mountains
archaeology of later periods on a different footing around Bled (Štular 2006) and in his analysis of
at its very beginning, to make it more introspec- the logic of the spatial placement and architec-
tive and link it with modern theoretic approaches tural development of Mali grad (Small Castle) in
(Predovnik 1995 and 2000), unfortunately still re- Kamnik (Štular 2009). Endeavouring to extend and
mains almost completely unrealised. In a way, it is transcend the discipline’s limits in every aspect,
understandable that the protagonists of this young Blaž Podpečan used the current approaches of the
discipline directed most of their research efforts so-called archaeology of emotion in his study on
towards establishing the fundamental database post-medieval tombstones in the Spodnja Savin-
(with the publication of site reports and artefact jska Valley. He treated the tombstones as complex
assemblages) and dating tools (typochronologies). sources with material, artistic and verbal (written)
Still, there have been some attempts to introduce elements forming a total system of communication.
new concepts into the medieval and post-medieval He offered a convincing explanation of the social
studies. They are typically in the field of spatial integration and cultural determination of distinctly
studies. In her analysis of the evolution of settle- personal emotions and the seemingly individualised
ment in the territory of the former Carthusian private experience manifested through the mate-
monastery of Žiče/Seitz, Katarina Predovnik used rial practices of mourning and commemoration
the concept of landscape – and architecture – as (Podpečan 2006).
materialisation of mental models, grounding her In the last two decades, and especially since
explanations on (implicitly) phenomenological the second half of the 1990s, the number of ar-
premises (Predovnik 1997; Predovnik 1998). The chaeological field investigations documented in
concept of landscape as a field of direct sensory professional publications has been rising sharply
perception and experience-based comprehension (fig. 8). There were 55 reported in 1980–1989, 93
of space was introduced in some detail by Dim- in 1990–1999, and as many as 126 in the eight-
itrij Mlekuž. In his case study on modelling the year period between 2000 and 2007. Of course,
soundscape of the surroundings of Polhov gradec this general assertion of the legitimacy and neces-
in the pre-industrial era he practically examined sity of field work carried out on sites containing
the possibilities of applying the GIS tools to spa- the remains from the periods following the Early
tial studies, where space is conceptualised not as Middle Ages is partly the result of systematic
abstract and objective, but instead as centred on education and research efforts in the academic
the subject – the person perceiving, experiencing sphere, but there are also other reasons for this
and interacting with this space (Mlekuž 2002a and high trend of growth.
2002b). The GIS analytical tools were used in an As mentioned previously, since the late 1980s
new fieldwork methods were being introduced into
Slovenian archaeology. The role of the stratigraphi-
The Department of Archaeology of the Faculty of Arts in cal excavation method for the equal treatment of
Ljubljana also collaborated with their Austrian colleagues
all periods has already been referred to. Similarly
in the organisation of the conference on motte-and-bailey
castles in Hollenegg near Deutschlandsberg in Austrian “chronologically” neutral are the various prospecting
Styria in October 2006 (Felgenhauer-Schmiedt et al. 2007). methods for reconnaissance and non-destructive
The archaeologists from Goriški muzej Kromberk have documentation of the (sub)surface archaeological
had a long tradition of professional cooperation and joint
projects with their Italian colleagues from the Archaeo-
logical Museum of Udine. The successful international 33 This study nearly consistently realised the call for
cooperation between the Municipality of Maribor and the “analysing spatial relationships on a regional level” expressed
Maribor Regional Museum, Slovenia, and the Varaždin City by Božidar Slapšak already in 1987 in his contribution on
Museum from Croatia on the so-called Bastion project in fortified churches and other fortifications (slov. tabor)
the framework of the European Interreg IIIA initiative in established as part of the system for defence against the
2004–2006 should also be mentioned here. Turks (Slapšak 1987, 144–145).

Fig. 19: Čadraže on the Šentjernejsko polje plain. The supposedly medieval moated site was discovered in the early
1990s by aerial prospection in the framework of the Roman Countryside Project (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; photo:
D. Grosman).
Sl. 19: Čadraže na Šentjernejskem polju. Domnevno srednjeveški utrjeni objekt je bil odkrit pri aeroprospekcijah v sklopu
projekta Rimsko podeželje v začetku 1990-ih let (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; foto: D. Grosman).
record and its interpretation in terms of past set- of archaeology into the spatial planning processes
tlement patterns and dynamics of the uses of space and activities that affect the physical environment
(cf. Novaković 2003): field surveys, geophysical (Djurić 2004b). All Slovenian archaeological in-
methods, specialised reconnaissance from the air stitutions and almost all archaeologists working
and the interpretation of aerial photographs 34 etc. in Slovenia took part in this project, with varying
(fig. 19). These approaches and methods became fully degrees of intensity. The prescribed methodology
established in Slovenian archaeology owing to the soon became an established norm, not just in the
project for the protection of archaeological heritage motorway project but in general. The development
in the context of the construction of the Slovenian of the so-called preventive archaeology was followed
national motorway network. In 1994, a methodol- by legislation, with the new Cultural Heritage Pro-
ogy was designed in this context for preliminary tection Act applied in 2008.
and rescue interventions in the field, the evalua- This new way of understanding archaeology’s
tion of archaeological potential and incorporation role in spatial planning resulted in a sharp increase
in the overall archaeological work performed, and
34 Substantial use of aerial photography, and especially with it, a rise in the number of documented and
specialised archaeological aerial prospections and recording investigated sites and other remains from the more
from the air, was made possible only after the attainment recent periods. In the framework of the motorway
of independence by Slovenia, when its airspace was opened project, the following sites with late medieval and
up for civil use. For the first discoveries of previously early modern settlement remains must be mentioned:
unknown late medieval sites, see Grosman 1996, 70–73;
cf. also Kerman 1999.
Gornje njive near Dolga vas (Kerman 2008), Obrežje

Fig. 20: Valmarin near Spodnje Škofije. Excavations on the motorway route, section Klanec – Ankaran, were carried out
in 2001 by Pokrajinski muzej Koper in cooperation with the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of
Ljubljana (Oddelek za arheologijo FF UL; photo: D. Grosman).
Sl. 20: Valmarin pri Spodnjih Škofijah. Izkopavanja na trasi avtocestnega odseka Klanec – Ankaran je leta 2001 izvedel
Pokrajinski muzej Koper v sodelovanju z Oddelkom za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (Oddelek
za arheologijo FF UL; foto: D. Grosman).
(Mason 2004) and Leskovec near Celje (Brišnik have – one way or another – “ended up” in seas,
et al. 2006). Further, the remains of the manor of rivers or lakes, there are many objects from the
Forsthof were excavated in Medlog (Tomažič 2004), later periods preserved in excellent condition that
and in Valmarin at Spodnje Škofije the outhouse – despite originating from very particular contexts
of a former grange of the Koper bishopric (Cunja – significantly complement our knowledge of the
2004; fig. 20). At the site of Gošča in the Dolenjska past through material sources.35
region a post-medieval brickworks was discovered
(Žižek 2004), while the excavations at Mrzlo polje
near Ivančna Gorica (Nabergoj 2007), Šušec near AT THE END OF A BEGINNING
Razdrto (Svoljšak 2000–2004) and some other sites
produced old infrastructure – roads and field paths, The described development of archaeological
waste pits, field boundaries and similar. More often research into periods following the Early Middle
than not, the medieval and post-medieval finds re- Ages can be evaluated in various ways. It might
corded in the course of preliminary archaeological seem late and inappropriate when judged by the
investigations are “merely” the scattered traces of
husbandry-related activities, such as various farming
35 For example, valuable data on the consumption and
practices resulting in the “littering” of the landscape.
even production of decorated tablewares on the eastern
The number of new discoveries is boosted also
Adriatic coast were gathered from the finds collected
by the increasingly intense archaeological research from underwater rubbish dumps at Piran and near Umag
of underwater sites, especially since the establish- (Guštin 2004). The riverbed of the Ljubljanica river is an
ment of the Underwater Archaeology Group by the almost inexhaustible source of information that has yet
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage to be fully evaluated (Turk et al. 2009). Certain groups of
of Slovenia (cf. for example Podvodna arh. Slov. 1, items, e.g. swords (cf. Nabergoj 2001), other larger pieces of
1982; Podvodna arh. Slov. 2, 1984; Bitenc, Knific armament and tools, eating knives with decorated handles
etc. are only rarely represented in the usual archaeological
1997; Gaspari, Erič 2008). Among the finds that contexts, if at all.

criteria of the leading research environments, on typological and comparative approaches, and the
such as those of the British and North American rare exceptions which do encompass such analyses
archaeologies. However, when placed within the lack the reflection needed for a full appreciation
context of the central European archaeological of the interpretative potential of the data obtained.
traditions, and taking into account the proverbial Overall, we can conclude that, in dealing with
small size of Slovenian archaeology (in terms of later periods, Slovenian archaeology has not yet
geography, staff and financing), the results of the managed to liberate itself from the “tyranny of the
efforts made so far, especially over the last two historical record” and is only rarely attempting to
decades, seem much more satisfactory. build independent and thoughtful interpretations
We do not wish to present an agenda for further based principally on material sources. Such a stance
development here, but it is necessary to point out is undoubtedly a sign of “beginner’s problems”, but
a few weaknesses. The lack of thorough publica- also of the common lack of theoretical reflection
tions on the primary data is a key obstacle that within Slovenian archaeology.
the discipline will have to overcome as soon as It is probably still too early for a realistic
possible, since further progress will be difficult evaluation of the range and depth of the effects
to achieve without a suitable empirical base. that the “moving of boundaries”, by establishing
With such desiderata as Otok pri Dobravi and a new discipline, will have on the broader under-
Stari grad nad Celjem, the already unfavourable standing of the nature and subject of archaeology.
ratio between the number of researched and the We do believe, however, that this development
number of published sites and artefact collections is required and can only benefit archaeology as
is growing even worse because of the increasing a whole, seeing that it forces the discipline to
intensity of field research. reflect on the fundamental premises of archaeo-
The current extremely limited application of the logical work, its epistemological possibilities
analytical tools of natural sciences in the study of and limitations, directing archaeology towards
artefacts, taphonomic processes, demographic36 a more complete and complex understanding of
and environmental data is another pronounced the past through direct contact and intertwining
weakness.37 Artefact studies are based exclusively with similar disciplines.
36 So far, the anthropological analyses of skeletal re-

Translation: Alkemist, prevajalske storitve, d. o. o.
mains from just two sites with burials from the more recent
periods have been published: the parish church in Kranj
(Leben-Seljak 1996) and the church of St. Bartholomew
in Šentjernej (Leben-Seljak 1999).
37 The only published study of this kind is the analysis
of animal bones from the Otok pri Dobravi site (Bartosie-

wicz 2006).
ANSl = Arheološka najdišča Slovenije [Archaeological Sites AVGUŠTIN, C. 1954, “Zgornji stolp” na Kranclju in nekdanja
of Slovenia], Ljubljana 1975. župna cerkev v Stari Loki. Poročilo o izkopavanjih v l.
Podvodna arh. Slov. 1 = P. Petru (ed.), Najdbe v Ljubljanici. 1954. – Loški razgledi 1, 107–120.
Pridobitve leta 1981 (Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji AVGUŠTIN, C. 1955, Zaključek izkopavanj na Kranclju.
1) Ljubljana 1982. – Loški razgledi 2, 100–104.
Podvodna arh. Slov. 2 = B. Gombač (ed.), Podvodne raz- BALAŽIC, J. and B. KERMAN (eds.) 1997, Pokrajinski muzej
iskave v Sloveniji. Posvet in javna razgrnitev dosežkov, Murska Sobota. Katalog stalne razstave. – Murska Sobota.
Ljubljana, 24. 11. 1982 (Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji BARTOSIEWICZ, L. 2006, Animal bones from the medi-
2) Ljubljana 1984. eval settlement Otok (Gutenwerth) near Dobrava pri
Škocjanu, Slovenia. – Arheološki vestnik 57, 457–478.
ANDRÉN, A. 1998, Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical BEAUDRY, M. C. (ed.) 1993, Documentary Archaeology in
Archaeology in Global Perspective. – New York. the New World. – Cambridge.
AUBELJ, B., D. BOŽIČ and J. DULAR (eds.) 1999, Zakladi BERČIČ, B. 2001, Castrum Bosisen: kje in kaj je bil? Pri-
tisočletij. Zgodovina Slovenije od neandertalcev do Slo- spevek za razmislek. – Loški razgledi 48, 21–26.
vanov. – Ljubljana.

BITENC, P. and T. KNIFIC 1997, Arheološko najdišče rinascimentale nell’ Istria slovena). – Annales, Series
Ljubljanica (The Ljubljanica as an archaeological site). Historia et Sociologia 10/1 (=20), 63–76.
– Argo 40/2, 19–32. CUNJA, R. 2001, Italijanska majolika iz Celja / Maioliche
BIZJAK, M. 2006, Sistem protiturške obrambe na območju italiane dagli scavi di Celje. – In: Guštin 2001f, 97–123.
Pivškega podolja in doline Reke: uporaba GIS. – Unpubli- CUNJA, R. 2003, Valmarin pri Sp. Škofijah. – In: Djurić
shed graduation thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska (ed.) 2003a, 269–270.
fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo. CUNJA, R. 2004, Valmarin near Spodnje Škofije. – In:
BLAZNIK, P. 1940, O metodah proučevanja kolonizacij- Djurić (ed.) 2004a, 277–278.
ske zgodovine. – Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje DJURIĆ, B. (ed.) 2003a, Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Ar-
35/1–2, 33–40. heologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih.
BLAZNIK, P., B. GRAFENAUER, S. VILFAN and F. – Ljubljana.
ZWITTER (eds.) 1970, Gospodarska in družbena zgo- DJURIĆ, B. 2003b, Terra gentis humanae memoria: varovanje
dovina Slovencev. Zgodovina agrarnih panog 1. Agrarno arheološke dediščine in projekt izgradnje avtocest. – In:
gospodarstvo. – Ljubljana. Djurić (ed.) 2003a, 7–24.
BREGANT, T. 1974, Raziskovanja na Starem gradu nad DJURIĆ, B. (ed.) 2004a, The Earth Beneath Your Feet.
Celjem 1972. leta (Forschungsarbeiten auf Stari Grad in Archaeology on the Motorways in Slovenia. Guide to
Celje im Jahre 1972). – In: Celjski zbornik 1973–1974, Sites. – Ljubljana.
269–307, Celje. DJURIĆ, B. 2004b, Terra gentis humanae memoria: Ar-
BREGANT, T. 1977, Stari grad nad Celjem. Raziskovanja v chaeological heritage protection and the Motorway
letih 1973 in 1974. Poizkus rekonstrukcije rasti grajskega Construction Project. – In: Djurić (ed.) 2004a, 9–28.
jedra. – Ljubljana. DYMOND, D. P. 1974, Archaeology and history: a plea for
BREGANT, T. 1983, Prispevek arheoloških raziskav k reconciliation. – London.
proučevanju stavbnega razvoja Starega gradu Celje (The EGYHÁZY-JUROVSKÁ, B. 1999, Village Settlement in
contribution of archaeological researches for the study Slovakia in the Romanesque period from the Aspect
of the development of the building of the Old Castle of of Archaeology. – In: Romanesque Monuments in Slo-
Celje). – Varstvo spomenikov 25, 1983, 39–52. vakia, Pamiatky múzeá. Cultural Heritage Magazine
BREGANT, T. 1984, Pečnice s Starega gradu Celje. – Ljubljana. 2, 24, Bratislava.
BRIŠNIK, D. 1999, Stari grad nad Celjem: keramično FELGENHAUER-SCHMIEDT, S., P. CSENDES and A.
gradivo iz sektorjev A in B (Die alte Burg Ober-Cilli. EIBNER (eds.) 2007, Motte, Turmhügelburg, Hausberg.
Keramische Funde aus Sektor A und B). – In: Fugger Zum europäischen Forschungsstand eines mittelalterlichen
Germadnik 1999a, 261–307. Burgentypus. – Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in
BRIŠNIK, D. and T. RAVNIKAR 1999, Grad Šalek. – Velenje. Österreich 23.
BRIŠNIK, D., T. ŽIŽEK, G. TICA and M. BRICELJ 2006, FROMMER, S. 2007, Historische Archäologie. Ein Versuch
Ljubečna, Leskovec. – Varstvo spomenikov 43. Poročila, 111. der methodologischen Grundlegung der Archäologie als
BUORA M., B. ŽBONA TRKMAN and M. GUŠTIN (eds.) Geschichtswissenschaft. – Tübinger Forschungen zur
1999, Ceramica dal Bassomedioevo al Rinascimento in historischen Archäologie 2.
Italia nordorientale e nelle aree transalpine: atti della FUGGER GERMADNIK, R. (ed.) 1999a, Zbornik mednaro-
giornata di studio (Udine, 16 marzo 1996). – Archeologia dnega simpozija Celjski grofje, stara tema – nova spoznanja,
di frontiera 2, Udine. Celje, 27. – 29. maj 1998 / Sammelband des internationalen
CEVC, T. 2000, Lončene posode pastirjev: sklede in latvice iz Symposiums Die Grafen von Cilli, altes Thema – neue
poznega srednjega in novega veka iz planin v Kamniških Erkenntnisse, Celje, 27. – 29. Mai 1998. – Celje.
Alpah. – Ljubljana. FUGGER GERMADNIK, R. (ed.) 1999b, Grofje Celjski
CEVC, T. (ed.) 2006, Človek v Alpah: desetletje (1996–2006) / Die Grafen von Cilli. Exhibition catalogue. – Celje.
raziskav o navzočnosti človeka v slovenskih Alpah. – GABROVEC, S. 1975, Žlan. – In: ANSl, 165.
Ljubljana. GASPARI, A. 2008, Perspektiva arheologije bojišč in raziskav
CHAMPION, T. 1990, Medieval archaeology and the tyr- ostankov iz zadnjih dveh stoletij na Slovenskem (Bat-
anny of the historical record. – In: D. Austin, L. Alcock tlefield archaeology and research of military remnants
(eds.), From the Baltic to the Black Sea, 79–95, London. from the last two centuries in the territory of modern
CUNJA, R. 1989, Koper med Rimom in Benetkami. Izko- day Slovenia). – Arheo 25, 101–106.
pavanje na vrtu kapucinskega samostana. – Ljubljana. GASPARI, A. and M. ERIČ 2008, Arheološke raziskave
CUNJA, R. 1996, Poznorimski in zgodnjesrednjeveški Koper: struge Ljubljanice med Verdom in Vrhniko (Archaeolo-
arheološko izkopavanje na bivšem Kapucinskem vrtu v gical research of the Ljubljanica riverbed between Verd
letih 1986–1987 v luči drobnih najdb 5. do 9. stoletja / and Vrhnika). – Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia
Capodistria tardoromana e altomedievale: lo scavo arche- 18/2, 407–430.
ologico nell’ex orto dei Cappuccini negli anni 1986–1987 GRAFENAUER, B. 1951, O arheologiji in zgodovini (On
alla luce dei reperti dal V al IX secolo d. C. – Koper. archaeology and history). – Zgodovinski časopis 5, 163–174.
CUNJA, R. 1998, Archeologia urbana in Slovenia: alcuni GRAFENAUER, B. 1960, Struktura in tehnika zgodovinske
risultati e considerazioni dagli scavi di Capodistria. – vede (uvod v študij zgodovine). – Ljubljana.
Archeologia Medievale 25, 199–212. GROSMAN, D. 1991, Kocka, kocka, kockica ... Od ar-
CUNJA, R. 2000, Poznosrednjeveška in renesančna kera- heološkega zapisa v zemlji do arheološkega zapisa na
mika v slovenski Istri (La ceramica tardomedievale e papirju. – Arheo 12, 25–36.

GROSMAN, D. 1996, Antično Posavje: uporaba nede- GUŠTIN, M., S. GELICHI and K. SPINDLER 2006, The
struktivnih arheoloških metod (Roman Posavje). – In: Heritage of the Serenissima: the presentation of the ar-
M. Guštin et al. (ed.), Rimsko podeželje (Roman Coun- chitectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian
tryside), 43–82, Ljubljana. Republic, proceedings of the international conference,
GUŠTIN, M. 1994, Predgovor / Foreword. – In: Guštin, Izola – Venezia, 4.–9. 11. 2005. – Koper.
Horvat 1994, 7–10. GUŠTIN, M., V. BIKIĆ and Z. MILEUSNIĆ 2008, Ottoman
GUŠTIN, M. 1999a, Le ricerche archeologiche sul Medio- times: the story of Stari Bar / Osmanska vremena: priča
evo e sull’età moderna in Slovenia. – In: Ceramica dal o Starom Baru. – Koper.
Bassomedioevo al Rinascimento in Italia nordorientale HABJAN, V. 1999, Družbeno-razvojni pomen knezov iz
e nelle aree transalpine. Atti della giornata di studio Celja v slovenskem poldrugem tisočletju (Die gesell-
(Udine, 16 Marzo 1996), Archeologia di frontiera 2, schaftlich-entwicklungsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der
121–126, Udine. Fürsten von Cilli in Slowenien des 15. Jahrhunderts).
GUŠTIN, M. 1999b, Srednjeveške keramične čaše iz izko- – In: Fugger Germadnik 1999a, 51–70.
pavanj v mestu Celje (Mittelalterliche Tonbecher aus HARRIS, E. C. 1989, Načela arheološke stratigrafije. –
den Ausgrabungen in der Stadt Celje). – In: Fugger Ljubljana. (Slov. translation of the book: E. C. Harris,
Germadnik 1999a, 249–260. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, London 1979.)
GUŠTIN, M. 2001a, Archeologia urbana in Slovenia. – In: HINZ, H. 1981, Motte und Donjon. Zur Frühgeschichte der
S. Gelichi (ed.), Dalla carta di rischio archeologico di mittelalterlichen Adelsburg. – Zeitschrift für Archäologie
Cesena alla tutela preventiva urbana in Europa, 53–57 des Mittelalters, Beiheft 1.
and 105, Firenze. HORVAT, M. 1996, Obdelava lončenine z Velike planine
GUŠTIN, M. 2001b, Celjske čaše / Die Tonbecher vom (Pottery from Velika Planina). – Traditiones 25, 81–89.
Typ Celje. – In: Guštin 2001f, 139–193. JANKUHN, H. 1973, Umrisse einer Archäologie des Mittelal-
GUŠTIN, M. 2001c, Mittelalterliche Städte auf römischen ters. – Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 1, 9–19.
Ruinen in Slowenien. – In: Zwischen Römersiedlung JOGAN, S. 2008, Pravno varstvo dediščine: ogrožanje in
und mittelalterlicher Stadt: Archäologische Aspekte zur uničevanje kulturne in naravne dediščine ter pravni
Kontinuitätsfrage, Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie vidiki njunega varstva. – Koper.
in Österreich 17, 241–249, Wien. JOHNSON, M. 1996, An Archaeology of Capitalism. – Oxford.
GUŠTIN, M. 2001d, Pečnice z grbom grofov celjskih / KASTELIC, J. 1964–1965, Nekaj problemov zgodnjesre-
Stove tiles with the Celje family coat of arms. – In: dnjeveške arheologije v Sloveniji (Quelques problèmes
Guštin 2001f, 63–68. concernant l’archéologie du Haut moyen âge en Slovénie).
GUŠTIN, M. 2001e, Srednjeveške študije v Celju / Medieval – Arheološki vestnik 15–16, 109–124.
studies in Celje. – In: Guštin 2001f, 7–8. KERMAN, B. 1999, Settlement Structures in Prekmurje
GUŠTIN, M. (ed.) 2001f, Srednjeveško Celje / Medieval from the Air / Poselitvene strukture v Prekmurju iz
Celje. – Archaeologia historica Slovenica 3, Ljubljana. zraka. – Arheološki vestnik 50, 333–347.
GUŠTIN, M. (ed.) 2004, Srednjeveška in novoveška kera- KERMAN, B. 2008, Srednjeveško obdobje. – In: Gornje
mika iz Pirana in Svetega Ivana / Ceramiche medievali njive pri Dolgi vasi, Zbirka Arheologija na avtocestah
e postmedievali da Pirano e San Giovanni / Srednjov- Slovenije 6, 31–36, Ljubljana.
jekovna i novovjekovna keramika iz Pirana i Svetog KOROŠEC, J. 1950a, Arheologija in nekatere njene naloge
Ivana. – Koper, Piran, Umag. (Archaeology and some of its tasks). – Zgodovinski
GUŠTIN, M. (ed.) 2008, Miscellanea aetatis mediae. – Studia časopis 4, 5–22.
universitatis hereditati 1, Koper. KOROŠEC, J. 1950b, Prvo posvetovanje jugoslovanskih
GUŠTIN, M. and R. CUNJA 1989, Koper med Rimom in arheologov. – Zgodovinski časopis 4, 212–215.
Benetkami. Izkopavanje na vrtu kapucinskega samostana. KOROŠEC, P. 1951, Slovanske ostaline na dvorišču SA-
Exhibition catalogue. – Ljubljana. (German / Italian ZU v Ljubljani (Slav remains in the courtyard of the
edition: Koper zwischen Rom und Venedig / Capodistria Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts). – Arheološki
tra Roma e Venezia. – Koper, 1991.) vestnik 2/2, 156–183.
GUŠTIN, M., R. CUNJA and K. K. PREDOVNIK 1993, KOS, D. 1996, Celjska knjiga listin I. Listine svobodnih
Podbočje – Stari grad. – Posavski muzej Brežice 9. gospodov Žovneških do 1341. – Celje.
GUŠTIN, M. and S. GELICHI 2001, Keramika španske KOS, Ma. and T. NABERGOJ 2000, Preučevanje srednje-
proizvodnje v Sloveniji / Ceramiche di produzione veške in novoveške keramike na Slovenskem. – Argo
spagnola dalla Slovenia. – In: Guštin 2001f, 125–138. 43/1, 29–30.
GUŠTIN, M. and Ma. HORVAT (ed.) 1994, Ljubljanski grad. KOS, Ma. and M. ŽVANUT 1994, Ljubljanske steklarne v
Pečnice / Ljubljana Castle. Stove Tiles. – Archaeologia 16. stoletju in njihovi izdelki / Glass factories in Ljubljana
historica Slovenica 1, Ljubljana. in the 16th century and their products. – Viri. Gradivo
GUŠTIN, M. and K. PREDOVNIK 1994, Zu den mittelalter- za materialno kulturo Slovencev 1, Ljubljana.
lichen und neuzeitlichen archäologischen Forschungen KOS, Mi. 1940, Stanje in naloge slovenske kolonizacij-
in Slowenien. – Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in ske zgodovine. – Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje
Österreich 10, 41–49. 35/1–2, 26–32.
GUŠTIN, M. and K. PREDOVNIK (ed.) 1997, Drobci nekega KOS, Mi. 1948–1949, O nekaterih nalogah slovenskega
vsakdana / Bruchstücke eines Alltags. – Archaeologia zgodovinopisja (Some tasks of the Slovene historio-
historica Slovenica 2, Ljubljana. graphy). – Zgodovinski časopis 2–3, 135–143.

KOS, P. 1996, Der Friesacher Pfennig und seine Nachprä- MÜLLNER, A. 1892b, Mittheilungen aus dem Museum.
gungen im slowenischen Gebiet. – In: R. Härtel, M. – Argo 1/4, 78–79.
J. Wenninger (eds.), Die Friesacher Münze im Alpen- MÜLLNER, A. 1894a, Die Felsenburg Lueg in Innerkrain.
Adria-Raum, Akten der Friesacher Sommerakademie – Argo 3/3, 57–66; 3/6, 105–114.
Friesach (Kärnten), 14. bis 18. September 1992 / La MÜLLNER, A. 1894b, Das Gradišče “Attilov Kocian” bei
moneta frisacense nell’Alpe Adria, atti del convegno Kapellen. – Argo 3/11, 218–219, T. XVI: 1–3.
internazionale Friesach (Carinzia), 14–18 settembre MÜLLNER, A. 1894c, Eine heidnische Opferstätte am Bacher
1992, 157–190, Graz. in Steiermark. – Argo 3/11, 216–218, T. XV, fig. 1–5.
KRAMBERGER, D. and I. STOPAR, 1987, Program sanacije MÜLLNER, A. 1897, Die Ausgrabungen in der Spitalgasse
in prezentacije gradu Celje. – In: Celjski zbornik 1987, in Laibach 1896 und 1897. – Argo 5/2, 30–33; 5/3, 51–54;
85–94, Celje. 5/4, 63–66; 5/6, 98–100.
KRIŽ, I. et al. 1996, Od antičnega vrča do majolke / Vom MÜLLNER, A. 1898, Die Ausgrabungen in der Spitalgasse
antiken Krug bis Majolka. Exhibition catalogue. – Novo in Laibach 1896 und 1897. – Argo 6/6, 104–109.
mesto. MÜLLNER, A. 1899, Das Bürgerspital (Meščanski špital).
LAZAR, I. 2001, Srednjeveško steklo iz Celja / Medieval – Argo 7/2, 38–40.
glass from Celje. – In: Guštin 2001f, 69–96. MÜLLNER, A. 1909, Geschichte des Eisens in Krain, Görz
LAZAR, I. (ed.) 2004, Drobci antičnega stekla / Fragments und Istrien von der Urzeit bis zum Anfange des XIX.
of ancient glass. – Koper. Jahrhunderts. – Wien, Leipzig.
LAZAR, I. and H. WILLMOTT 2006, The glass from the NABERGOJ, T. 1995, Arheologija in gotika / Archaeology
Gnalić wreck. – Koper. and Gothic. – In: Lozar Štamcar 1995, 7–107.
LEBEN-SELJAK, P. 1996, Paleodemografska analiza ne- NABERGOJ, T. 1999, Srednjeveška keramika iz Ljubljane
kropole pri farni cerkvi v Kranju / Paleodemographic in Ljubljanice iz zbirk Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega
analysis of the necropolis at the parish church in Kranj. muzeja Slovenije (Medieval pottery from Ljubljanica
– Antropološki zvezki 4, 95–107. and the Ljubljanica from the collections of the Ar-
LEBEN-SELJAK, P. 1999, Antropološke raziskave v Šentjer- chaeological Department of the National Museum of
neju (Anthropologische Untersuchungen in Šentjernej). Slovenia). – Argo 42/1, 39–66.
– In: M. Dražumerič, S. Granda (eds.), Zbornik župnije NABERGOJ, T. 2001, Oboroženi stan srednjeveške družbe
Šentjernej, 61–68, Ljubljana. na Slovenskem na osnovi materialnih virov. Primer:
LOZAR ŠTAMCAR, M. (ed.) 1995, Gotika v Sloveniji – svet meči. – Unpublished MA thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani,
predmetov / Gothic in Slovenia – the world of objects. Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo.
Exhibition catalogue. – Ljubljana. NABERGOJ, T. 2005, Muzealec v Narodnem muzeju in
LOŽAR, R. 1939, Staroslovansko in srednjeveško lončarstvo začetki arheologije srednjega veka (Ložar as curator at
v Sloveniji (Altslawische und mittelalterliche Keramik the National Museum and his beginnings in the archa-
Sloweniens). – Glasnik Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo eology of the Middle Ages). – In: I. Slavec Gradišnik
20, 180–225. (ed.), Pretrgane korenine: sledi življenja in dela Rajka
LUBŠINA-TUŠEK, M. 2007, Zavrč. – Varstvo spomenikov. Ložarja, 159–189, Ljubljana.
Poročila 44, 309–311. NABERGOJ, T. (ed.) 2006, Stopinje v preteklost: zakladi iz
MASON, P. 2003, Obrežje MMP. – In: Djurić (ed.) 2003a, arheoloških zbirk Narodnega muzeja Slovenije. Exhibition
202–203. catalogue. – Ljubljana.
MASON, P. 2004, Obrežje – International Border Crossing. NABERGOJ, T. 2008a, Mrzlo polje. Sektor C. – In: Mrzlo
– In: Djurić (ed.) 2004a, 208–210. polje pri Ivančni gorici, Zbirka Arheologija na avtocestah
MIKL-CURK, I. 1981, Teorija varstva arheoloških spo- Slovenije 5, 46–60, Ljubljana.
menikov v naši praksi (Theory of conservation of NABERGOJ, T. 2008b, Muzeji in arheologija obdobij po
archaeological monuments in our practice). – Varstvo zgodnjem srednjem veku (Museums and archaeology of
spomenikov 23, 81–94. the periods following the Early Middle Ages). – Arheo
MILEUSNIĆ, Z. (ed.) 2004, Gnalić. – Koper. 25, 89–96.
MILEUSNIĆ, Z. 2008, Prispevek k poznavanju lončarskih NADBATH, B. 2008, Posrednjeveška arheološka dediščina:
delavnic v Kopru (Contribution to cognisance of potter’s raziskave, zaščita in varovanje (Post-medieval archaeo-
workshops in Koper). – Annales, Series Historia et So- logical heritage: research, protection and management).
ciologia 18/2, 463–470. – Arheo 25, 97–100.
MLEKUŽ, D. 2002a, Modeliranje preteklih zvočnih krajin. NOVAKOVIĆ, P. 2002a, Archaeology in five states – a
– In: T. Podobnikar, D. Perko, M. Krevs, Z. Stančič, peculiarity or just another story at the crossroads of
D. Hladnik (eds.), Geografski informacijski sistemi v “Mitteleuropa” and the Balkans: a case study of Slovene
Sloveniji 2001-2002, 55–63, Ljubljana. archaeology. – In: P. F. Biehl et al. (ed.), Archäologien
MLEKUŽ, D. 2002b, Prisluhnimo krajinam: modeliranje Europas, 323–352, Münster, New York, München, Berlin.
preteklih zvočnih krajin. – Arheo 22, 59–65. NOVAKOVIĆ, P. 2002b, Refleksija o treh esejih. – Arheo
MÜLLNER, A. 1878, Archäologische Excurse durch Süd- 22, 83–90.
steiermark und Krain I: Die Tumuli nächst Rothwein bei NOVAKOVIĆ, P. 2003, Osvajanje prostora: razvoj prostorske
Marburg. – Mitteilungen der k.k. Zentralkomission 4, 83. in krajinske arheologije. – Ljubljana.
MÜLLNER, A. 1892a, Die Felsenburg Lueg in Innerkrain.
– Argo 1/2, 14–16 and T. II.

NOVAKOVIĆ, P., M. LOVENJAK and M. BUDJA 2004, PREDOVNIK, K. 2008b, Nova obzorja: arheologija mlajših
Osemdeset let študija arheologije na Univerzi v Ljublja- obdobij (New horizons: archaeology of the later peri-
ni. – Ljubljana. ods). – Arheo 25, 81–88.
OROŽEN, J. 1971, Zgodovina Celja in okolice, I. del: Od PREDOVNIK, K. 2009, Prunk bei Tisch. Vom Beginn der
začetka do leta 1848. – Celje. Neuzeit in den slowenischen Ländern. – In: B. Scholk-
ORSER, C. E. 1999, Negotiating our “familiar pasts”. – In: mann et al. (eds.), Zwischen Tradition und Wandel.
Tarlow, West 1999, 273–285. Archäologie des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, Tübinger
PAHIČ, S. 1962, Arheološka topografija Slovenije. – Argo Forschungen zur historischen Archäologie 3, 281–290.
1/4, 93–120. PREDOVNIK, K. and D. GROSMAN 2007, Turmhügelburgen
PETEK, B. 2004, Pregled oblik srednjeveškega stekla iz im Gebiet des heutigen Sloweniens - eine Forschungs-
Turjaške palače v Ljubljani (A summary of forms of lücke. – In: Felgenhauer-Schmiedt et al. 2007, 209–224.
medieval glass from the Auersperg Palace in Ljubljana). PREDOVNIK, K., M. DACAR and M. LAVRINC 2008,
– In: Lazar 2004, 115–126. Cerkev sv. Jerneja v Šentjerneju: arheološka izkopa-
PLETERSKI, A. 1979, Povezovanje tvarnih in pisanih vi- vanja v letih 1985 in 1986 (St. Bartholomew Church
rov pri proučevanju zgodnjega srednjega veka (alpskih in Šentjernej: Archaeological Excavations in 1985 and
Slovanov) (Links between material and written sources 1986). – Archaeologia historica Slovenica 6, Ljubljana.
in the study of the Early Middle Ages – Alpine Slavs). PRELOŽNIK, A. 2008, Izdajateljska dejavnost Inštituta
– Arheološki vestnik 30, 507–519. za dediščino Sredozemlja UP ZRS – serija Annales
PLETERSKI, A. 1997, Inštitut za arheologijo polstoletnik / Mediterranea. – Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia
Fiftieth Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology. – 18/2, 491–493.
Ljubljana. RAVNIKAR, T. (ed.) 1998, Šaleška dolina med romaniko
PLETERSKI, A. 2002, Kremplnov hrib nad Hosto. – In: in barokom. Exhibition catalogue. – Velenje.
Enciklopedija Slovenije 16, Dodatek A–Ž, Kazalo, 114. ROZMAN, L. 2008, Srednjeveško hladno strelno orožje
PODPEČAN, B. 2006, Nagrobnik, podoba živih (The Grave- – arheološke najdbe puščic, lokov in samostrelov. –
stone: An Image of the Living). – Archaeologia historica Unpublished graduation thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani,
Slovenica 5, Ljubljana. Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo.
PREDOVNIK, K. K. 1995, O stvareh in besedah. Arheolo- SCHLESINGER, W. 1974, Archäologie des Mittelalters in
gija mlajših obdobij. – Unpublished graduation thesis. der Sicht des Historikers. – Zeitschrift für Archäologie
Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za des Mittelalters 2, 7–31.
arheologijo. SCHMID, W. 1915, Die Ringwälle des Bacherngebietes. –
PREDOVNIK, K. 1997, Svet puščave: materializacije Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 2/3, 229–305.
kartuzijanske duhovnosti (The world of desert: mate- SCHMID, W. 1922, Beiträge zur Geschichte der frühmit-
rializations of Carthusian spirituality). – Poligrafi 7/8, telalterlichen Besiedelung der Steiermark. – Zeitschrift
year 2, 145–174. des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 18, 27–45.
PREDOVNIK, K. 1998, Die Kartause Seitz: natürliche SCHMID, W. 1925, Südsteiermark im Altertum. – In:
und ideologische Momente in der Genese einer Kultur- F. Hausmann (ed.), Südsteiermark: ein Gedenkbuch,
landschaft. – In: K. Spindler (ed.), Mensch und Natur 1–27, Graz.
im mittelalterlichen Europa. Archäologische, historische SLABE, M. 1974, Varovanje zemeljskih slojev s kultur-
und naturwissenschaftliche Befunde, Schriftenreihe der nimi ostanki na področju Škofje Loke (La protection
Akademie Friesach 4, 261–278, Klagenfurt. des couches de terre contenant les restes des cultures
PREDOVNIK, K. 2000, Cur archaeologia medievalis? anciennes sur le territoire de Škofja Loka). – Loški
– Časopis za kritiko znanosti, domišljijo in novo antro- razgledi 21, 73–78.
pologijo 28/200–201, 31–51. SLABE, M. 1977, Loška slikana meščanska keramika (La
PREDOVNIK, K. 2002, Anders Andrén: Between artifacts céramique peinte de la bougeoisie de Škofja Loka). –
and texts: historical archaeology in global perspective. Loški razgledi 24, 55–57.
– Arheo 22, 91–97. SLABE, M. 1980a, Ob otvoritvi razstave meščanske kera-
PREDOVNIK, K. 2003, Trdnjava Kostanjevica na Starem mike. – Loški razgledi 27, 311–313.
gradu nad Podbočjem (The Fortress of Kostanjevica (Veste SLABE, M. 1980b, Raziskovanje kulturnih ostalin mlaj-
Landestrost) at Stari Grad above the Village of Podbo- ših dob. – In: Rešena arheološka dediščina Slovenije
čje). – Archaeologia historica Slovenica 4, Ljubljana. 1945–1980, 35–36, Ljubljana.
PREDOVNIK, K. 2006, Srednjeveška in novoveška lončenina SLABE, M. 1981–1982, Spomeniško varstvo in muzejstvo –
s planin v Kamniško-Savinjskih Alpah (Mittelalterliche skupne naloge pri celoviti skrbi za kulturno dediščino.
und neuzeitliche Keramik der Almen in den Kamniker – Argo 20–21, 92–99.
Alpen). – In: Cevc 2006, 182–208. SLABE, M. 1982, Raziskave z arheološko metodo na bre-
PREDOVNIK, K. 2008a, Kosova gomila v Razvanju in staniškem gradu. – In: Brestanica. Zbornik člankov in
vprašanje obstoja mot na slovenskem ozemlju (Kos’ razprav, 23–44, Brestanica.
barrow in Razvanje and the question of the existence SLAPŠAK, B. 1981, O zgodovini in arheologiji. – Arheo
of mottes in Slovenia). – Annales, Series Historia et 2, 51–54.
Sociologia 18/2, 369–384. SLAPŠAK, B. 1987, Tabori v sistemu protiturške obrambe.
– Kronika 35/3, 143–146.

SMOLEJ, S. 1953, Najstarejša livarna železa na Slovenskem. ŠRIBAR, V. 1975a, Die Entwicklung der mittelalterlichen
– Kronika 1/1, 54–57. Keramik in Otok bei Dobrava – dem Freisinger Markt
STARE, V. 1983, Werkzeuge zum Gerben von Häuten aus flecken Gutenwerth. – Balcanoslavica 3, 37–47.
Otok bei Dobrava – Gutenwerth in Südslowenien vom ŠRIBAR, V. 1975b, K problemu urbanistične zasnove Otoka
10. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. – Balcanoslavica 10, 93–105. pri Dobravi – freisinškega trga Gutenwerth (Otok bei
STARE, V. 1993a, Center za arheologijo srednjega veka Dobrava – der Freisinger Marktflecken Gutenwerth).
Narodnega muzeja 1960–1987. – Argo 35, 27–33. – Loški razgledi 22, 24–46.
STARE, V. 1993b, Pečnice z Otoka pri Dobravi, freisinškega ŠRIBAR, V. 1976, K poznavanju železarske dejavnosti na
trga Gutenwerth. – Kronika 41/2, 38–44. freisinški posesti v Sloveniji (Zur Kenntnis der Eisenver
STARE, V. 1993c, Stanovanjska jama z Otoka pri Dobravi arbeitung auf dem Freisinger Besitztum in Slowenien).
(Erdwohngrube aus Otok (Gutenwerth) bei Dobrava). – Loški razgledi 23, 47–50.
– Zgodovinski časopis 47/2, 225–249. ŠRIBAR, V. 1979, Arheološko odkrivanje Otoka pri Do-
STARE, V. 2000, Pokopališče v cerkvi sv. Miklavža na bravi – freisinškega trga Gutenwerth. Katalog kovin-
Otoku pri Dobravi (Gutenwert). – Argo 43/2, 32–47. skega gradiva iz Izkopnega polja 1 iz leta 1968–1971
STARE, V. 2002, Kovinski predmeti z jugovzhodnega de- (unpublished catalogue of the National Museum of
la naselja na Otoku pri Dobravi (Gutenwert). – Argo Slovenia). – Ljubljana.
45/1–2, 18–43. ŠRIBAR, V. 1983, Chronologie der Eisenfunde des 10.–15.
STOKIN, M. 1995, Vloga srednjeveške arheologije pri razi- Jh. aus Otok bei Dobrava – Gutenwerth. – Balcanosla-
skavah urbane stavbne dediščine (Ruolo dell’archeologia vica 10, 79–92.
medievale nello studio degli antichi centri urbani). – ŠRIBAR, V. and V. STARE 1978, Zur Entwicklung der
Annales 6, 49–54. Wohnarchitektur vom 10. bis zum 15. Jh. auf Otok bei
STOPAR, I. 1975, Grad Celje. Stavbnozgodovinske razi- Dobrava. – Balcanoslavica 7, 49–70.
skave (The old castle of Celje). – Varstvo spomenikov ŠRIBAR, V. and V. STARE 1981, Srednjeveško naselje Otok
17–19/2, 33–45. pri Dobravi. Arheološka pričevanja o nastajanju slovenskih
STOPAR, I. 1982, K problemu cisterne na gradu Celje mest. Exhibition catalogue. – Ljubljana.
(About the problem of the cistern at the castle of Ce- ŠTIH, P. 1996, Kranjska (Carniola) v zgodnjem srednjem
lje). – Varstvo spomenikov 24, 5–15. veku (Krain (Carniola) im Frühmittelalter). – In: J.
SVOLJŠAK, D. 2000–2004, Razdrto, Šušec – Šušet. – Varstvo Kos et al. (eds.), Zbornik Brižinski spomeniki, Dela 2.
spomenikov 39–41. Poročila, 164–167. razreda SAZU 45, 13–26.
ŠEMROV, A. 2001, Novci grofov (knezov) Celjskih, ŠTIH, P. 1999, Celjski grofje – še vedno raziskovalni pro-
Friderika II. in Ulrika II. / Die Münzen der Grafen blem? (Die Grafen von Cilli – noch immer ein Forsc-
(Fürsten) von Cilli, Friedrichs II. und Ulrichs II. – In: hungsproblem?) – In: Fugger Germadnik 1999b, 11–22.
Guštin 2001f, 45–62. ŠTUKL, J. 2004, Arheološke raziskave srednjeveške Škofje
ŠINKOVEC, I. 1991, Kako smo prehiteli gradbene stroje. Loke, katalog razstave, 24. 6. 2004–1. 6. 2005 (Loški
– Arheo 12, 50–57. muzej). – Škofja Loka.
ŠMIT, Ž. and Ma. KOS 2004, Analize stekla z jedrskimi ŠTUKL, J. 2007, O puščičnih osteh za lok in samostrel z
spektroskopskimi metodami (Glass analyses by means območja srednjeveške Škofje Loke (About the arrow
of nuclear spectroscopic methods). – In: Lazar 2004, and boltheads from the area of medieval Škofja Loka).
141–144. – Arheološki vestnik 58, 367–374.
ŠMIT, Ž. and A. ŠEMROV 2006, Early medieval coinage ŠTULAR, B. 2005, Lončenina s kamniškega Malega gradu:
in the territory of Slovenia. – Nuclear instruments & izkopavanja leta 1992 (The pottery from Mali grad in
methods in physics research. Section B, Beam interactions Kamnik. Excavations 1992). – Arheološki vestnik 56,
with materials and atoms 252, 290–298. 435–452.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1968–1969, O raziskovalnih in konservatorskih ŠTULAR, B. 2006, Prostor blejskih planin v srednjem
problemih pri odkrivanju freisinškega trga Gutenwerth veku (Raum der Bleder Almen im Mittelalter). – In:
(Otok pri Dobravi na Dolenjskem) (Des problêmes des Cevc 2006, 230–241.
recherches et de la conservation dans la découverte du ŠTULAR, B. 2007, Lonci v opremi visokosrednjeveške
bourgade freisingien Gutenwerth). – Varstvo spomenikov kuhinje s kamniškega Malega gradu (High medieval
13–14, 29–38. kitchen pottery. The Kamnik Mali grad case study). –
ŠRIBAR, V. 1972–1973, Razvoj srednjeveške keramike na Arheološki vestnik 58, 375–404.
Otoku pri Dobravi – freizinški trg Gutenwerth (Die ŠTULAR, B. 2008, Kje so meje slovenske arheologije? O
Entwicklung der mittelalterlichen Keramik in Otok bei posrednjeveških arheologijah v Sloveniji (The limits of
Dobrava – dem Freisinger Marktflecken Gutenwerth). Slovenian archaeology? Post-medieval archaeologies in
– Slovenski etnograf 25–26, 9–37. Slovenia). – Arheo 25, 79–80.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1974, Ob dokumentaciji arheološkega odkrivanja ŠTULAR, B. 2009, Mali grad. Visokosrednjeveški grad v
freisinškega trga Otok pri Dobravi – Gutenwerth (On Kamniku / High Medieval Castle in Kamnik. – Opera
the documentation of the archaeological unearthing Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 15, Ljubljana.
of the Freising market place Otok near Dobrava – Gu- ŠUMI, N. 1983, Mesto gradov in dvorcev v zgodovinskih
tenwerth). – Varstvo spomenikov 17–19/1, 7–18. znanostih in naši družbeni zavesti (The place of castles
and mansions in historical sciences and in our social
consciousness). – Varstvo spomenikov 25, 9–12.

TARLOW, S. in S. WEST 1999, The familiar past? Archae- ŽBONA-TRKMAN, B. et al. 1991, Grajska zapuščina.
ologies of later historical Britain. – London, New York. Katalog ob razstavi keramike in stekla, 14. – 17. stol.
TECCO HVALA, S. 1993, Kataster arheoloških najdišč Exhibition catalogue. – Grad Dobrovo.
Slovenije ali zgodba o nastanku neke računalniške baze ŽELEZNIKAR, J. 2002, Graščina v Polhovem gradcu (The
podatkov (prvi del). – Arheo 15/1992, 62–64. manor house at Polhov Gradec). – Arheološki vestnik
TOMAŽIČ, S. 2003, Medlog. – In: Djurić (ed.) 2003a, 53, 301–371.
185–187. ŽELEZNIKAR, J. 2006, Arheološko odkritje ovalne pastirs-
TOMAŽIČ, S. 2004, Medlog. – In: Djurić (ed.) 2004a, ke bajte na Veliki planini (Archäologische Entdeckung
191–193. einer ovalen Sennhütte auf der Velika Planina). – In:
TURK, P., J. ISTENIČ, T. KNIFIC and T. NABERGOJ (eds.) Cevc 2006, 209–229.
2009, Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke. – Ljubljana ŽIŽEK, I. 2003, Gošča. – In: Djurić (ed.) 2003a, 137–138,
(English edition: P. Turk et al. (eds.) 2009, The Ljublja- Ljubljana.
nica – a River and its Past. – Ljubljana.) ŽIŽEK, I. 2004, Gošča. – In: Djurić (ed.) 2004a, 141–142,
VALIČ, A. 1975, Nomenj. – In: ANSl, 165. Ljubljana.
WEST, S. 1999, Introduction. – In: Tarlow, West 1999, 1–15. ŽUPANČIČ, M. and R. CUNJA 2000, K lončarski delavnici
ZADNIKAR, M. 1965, Žičko kartuzijo rešujemo (La char- v Kopru (About the potter’s workshop in Koper). – An-
treuse de Žiče). – Varstvo spomenikov 9, 12–22. nales, Series historia et sociologia 10/1 (= 20), 77–82.
ZADNIKAR, M. 1967, Žička kartuzija (La chartreuse de ŽVANUT, K. 1999, Umetnostna produkcija med antiko in
Žiče – Seitz). – Varstvo spomenikov 11, 30–33. visokim srednjim vekom in problem njenega vrednotenja
ZAGARČANIN, M. 2004, Stari Bar. Keramika venecijanskog (Art between Antiquity and the High Middle Ages, and
doba / Pottery from Venetian Period. – Koper. the Problem of its Evaluation). – Zbornik za umetnostno
zgodovino 35, 33–47.
Arheološke raziskave obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku v Sloveniji
UVOD visoki srednji vek pa iz poimenovanj izpuščamo. Takšna

dvojna členitev celo bolje ustreza razvoju materialne kulture
Arheološko preučevanje obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem kot pa zgodovinarska tridelna shema. Opredelimo jo lahko
veku, ki se je kot samostojna veja arheologije v polni meri z velikimi spremembami družbenih in gospodarskih struk-
uveljavilo šele v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja, se lahko tur ob vzpostavitvi fevdalnega reda, vsesplošni uveljavitvi
na Slovenskem pohvali z več kot stodesetletno zgodovino krščanstva in Cerkve kot ključne družbene in politične sile.
(Nabergoj 1995, 73) in živahnim razvojem v zadnjih dveh Ti procesi so se namreč jasno odrazili tudi v materialni
desetletjih. Prav je torej, da v osrednji slovenski arheološki kulturi, predvsem kot sprememba pogrebnih običajev na eni
reviji podrobneje predstavimo in ovrednotimo dose- in pojav fevdalne arhitekture na drugi strani. Tako bi lahko
danji razvoj in dosežke, pa tudi probleme in perspektive upravičeno govorili tudi o arheologiji fevdalne dobe, ki bi v
arheologije mlajših obdobij. To besedilo se pridružuje ožjem smislu obsegala visoki in pozni srednji vek, v širšem
preglednim člankom, ki so bili v Arheološkem vestniku pa tudi čas do razkroja fevdalnih institucij konec 18. in v
objavljeni v jubilejni petdeseti številki pred desetimi začetku 19. stoletja. Med že uveljavljenimi vsebinskimi pojmi
leti, in na simboličen način potrjuje, da ima v slovenski velja omeniti vsaj še arheologijo kapitalizma, ki zajema tudi
arheološki stroki poleg prazgodovinske, klasične, rimske korenine tega pojava v 16. in 17. stoletju (Johnson 1996).
provincialne in zgodnjesrednjeveške arheologije svoj domicil V nemško govorečih deželah in v okoljih, ki izhajajo iz
tudi arheološko preučevanje mlajših obdobij. nemške arheološke tradicije, namesto o zgodnje-, visoko-
Uvodoma velja – ponovno – opozoriti na terminološke in poznosrednjeveški govorijo preprosto o srednjeveški
zagate pri poimenovanju veje arheologije, ki jo predstav- arheologiji, tudi v primeru, ko ločeno uporabljajo pojem
ljamo (prim. Nabergoj 1995, 99–103; Štular 2008, 79–80; arheologija zgodnjega srednjega veka. Sledi ji arheologija
Predovnik 2008b, 81–82). Arheološka obravnava obdobij zgodnjega novega veka (16. do 18. stoletje), medtem ko
po koncu zgodnjega srednjega veka logično nadaljuje us- arheološko preučevanje kasnejšega časa ni sistematizirano in
taljeno sistematizacijo vede. Ta sledi periodizacijski shemi, tudi ni izrecno konceptualizirano. 1 V britanskem in z njim
kot jo je vzpostavilo zgodovinopisje. Arheologiji zgodnjega povezanih arheoloških okoljih pa ločijo med srednjeveško,
srednjega veka bi potemtakem morala slediti arheologija ta lahko obsega tudi zgodnji srednji vek, in posrednjeveško
visokega in poznega srednjega veka pa arheologija novega arheologijo. A tudi slednji izraz je problematičen, saj je
veka, arheologija moderne dobe in končno celo arheologija kljub svoji semantični širini uporabljan kot časovno zame-
sodobnosti. Vse te izraze dejansko uporabljamo tako v
slovenskem kakor tudi v drugih evropskih arheoloških 1 Drugačne poglede v zadnjem času ponujajo nekateri
okoljih, kadar govorimo o specifičnih časovno opredeljenih mlajši raziskovalci. Sören Frommer je nedavno objavil svojo
raziskovalnih področjih. doktorsko disertacijo, s katero je v nemški prostor prvič
Kar zadeva srednjeveško obdobje, običajno ločimo le eksplicitno vpeljal pojem historična arheologija in ga tudi
med zgodnjesrednjeveško in poznosrednjeveško arheologijo, epistemološko in metodološko utemeljil (Frommer 2007).

jen in ne vključuje moderne dobe in sodobnosti (prim. PRVI KORAKI

West 1999, 8–9).
Zapleti so še večji, ko poskusimo oblikovati nekakšen Prve objave poznosrednjeveških najdb in najdišč z območja
krovni izraz, skupno poimenovanje za arheologije obdobij, Slovenije je konec 19. stoletja prispeval Alfons Müllner (sl.
ki sledijo zgodnjemu srednjemu veku. Naj bo to arheologija 1). Pogosto je šlo za naključna odkritja in nesistematično
po letu 1000, arheologija po zgodnjem srednjem veku ali pridobljeno gradivo, denimo iz kraških jam (Nabergoj 1995,
morda zgodovinska (historična) arheologija? Prav slednji 73) ali iz – domnevno prazgodovinske – Kosove gomile
izraz se je ustalil v nekaterih evropskih in še posebej v zu- v Razvanju (Müllner 1878; Predovnik 2008a). Nekaterih
najevropskih deželah, kjer historično arheologijo razumejo srednjeveških ostalin, ki jih je dokumentiral, raziskal in
kot preučevanje kolonialnega obdobja (Orser 1999). Njena objavil, Müllner ni znal pravilno opredeliti ne v časovnem
specifika je obenem metodološke narave, saj arheologovo ne v funkcijskem pogledu. Tako je za srednjeveški utrdbi
delo obsega tudi uporabo pisnih in ne le materialnih virov. Atilov grad pri Spodnjem Kocjanu (Müllner 1894b) in Rep-
Nekateri zato govorijo celo o dokumentarni arheologiji nikovo gradišče v bližini zaselka Rep pri Velikem Tinju na
(Beaudry 1993). Pohorju (Müllner 1894c) domneval, da sta prazgodovinski
Noben izraz ni neproblematičen in tudi historična arhe- “kultni lokaciji”.
ologija ni enoznačen pojem. V starem svetu je raba pisav Müllner je zaslužen tudi za prvi sistematični arheološki
razširjena že več tisočletij in zato lahko za “historično” raziskavi srednjeveških najdišč pri nas. Kot kustos Deželnega
označimo tudi arheologijo antičnih civilizacij, evropsko muzeja Rudolfinuma je namreč leta 1892 izkopaval v starem
srednjeveško arheologijo in še mnoge druge (prim. Andrén gradu v Predjami (sl. 2) in v letih 1897–1898 na območju
1998). In zakaj ne bi nenazadnje historičnosti arheologije nekdanjega meščanskega špitala v Špitalski ulici (danes
razumeli še drugače, kot posebne teoretske naravnanosti Stritarjevi) v Ljubljani. Z izkopavanji manjšega obsega v
arheologije, ki se zaveda zgodovinske dinamike in kontek- Predjami, z natančnim opisom in izrisom grajske arhitekture
stualne specifičnosti pojavov, ki jih preučuje? V tem smislu ter z analizo historiografskih virov o “najznamenitejšem
bi historično arheologijo lahko videli kot protipol procesni od vseh viteških gradov na Kranjskem” je Müllner želel
arheologiji (Predovnik 2002, 96; Predovnik 2008b, 82). “kritično osvetliti pravljično zgodbo o Erazmu Luegerju”.
V začetku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja je Oddelek Sodeč po porušenem zidu in najdeni kamniti krogli v
za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani v enem od prostorov je predpostavil, kje in kako je bil
študij arheologije vpeljal predmet z nazivom arheologija leta 1484 ubit Erazem Jamski (Müllner 1892a, 1892b in
mlajših (zgodovinskih) obdobij. Ime je bilo izbrano kot 1894a). V Ljubljani pa je po potresu leta 1895 Müllner
krovno poimenovanje za arheologijo obdobij po zgodnjem vodil arheološka izkopavanja ob gradnji nove stavbe
srednjem veku (Predovnik 1995, 10). Izraz je dovolj splošen, kresije na lokaciji nekdanjega meščanskega špitala, kjer je
da vanj lahko umestimo vse različne kronološke in vsebinske že v srednjem veku stala tudi cerkev sv. Elizabete. Zaradi
poddiscipline, dovolj praktičen z vidika slovenske jezikovne najdenih okostij in starih poročil, da je bil tam pokopan
rabe in ga v tej obliki pozna tudi angleška, nemška in še junak bojev proti Turkom Herbard VIII. Turjaški (umrl
katera terminologija, četudi je v teh jezikovnih okoljih 1575), so “s posebno skrbnostjo gledali na vsak dogodek in
uporabljan le poredko. skrbno zbrali vsako najdbo” (Müllner 1897, 30). Izkopali
Slovenska arheološka stroka se v tem pogledu torej še so ostanke starejših temeljev iz baročne in gotske faze ter
ni poenotila. Kot kažejo izkušnje tujih kolegov, bo nekaj skupno enainpetdeset grobov od 14. do 18. stoletja z redkimi
terminološke nedorečenosti in pestrosti vselej ostalo, saj za pridatki.3 V špitalskem kompleksu so odkrili tudi ostanke
imeni stojijo vsebinski koncepti, te pa narekuje sam predmet časovno neopredeljive usnjarske delavnice (Müllner 1897,
raziskave in se spreminjajo v skladu s pristopi raziskovalcev. 1898, 1899 in 1900; Stare 1991). Ob popotresnih gradbenih
Kakorkoli jo že poimenujemo, arheološka obravnava mate- delih so na lokacijah sosednjih hiš v Špitalski ulici našli
rialnih ostalin iz časa po letu 1000 se je tudi na Slovenskem še več srednjeveških in novoveških najdb (Müllner 1898;
v zadnjih dveh desetletjih dodobra uveljavila. Nenazadnje Ložar 1939, 188–189; prim. tudi Nabergoj 1999, 42–44).
to potrjuje tudi novi, leta 2008 uveljavljeni Zakon o varstvu Za arheologijo srednjega in novega veka so nenazadnje
kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 16/2008, 3. člen), ki status pomembne tudi Müllnerjeve raziskave zgodovine železarstva
arheološke kulturne dediščine dodeljuje vsem materialnim na Kranjskem, Goriškem in v Istri, in sicer vse od začet-
sledovom človekovega delovanja, ki so pod površjem zemlje kov pa do sodobnosti, torej 19. stoletja (Müllner 1909).
ali pod vodo že vsaj sto let, v primeru ostalin vojaškega Preučeval je tako arheološke (materialne) kakor tudi pisne
značaja pa imajo status arheološke kulturne dediščine vse vire. Njegovo delo je kasneje nadaljeval Walter Schmid, ki
tiste, ki so v zemlji ali pod vodo že vsaj petdeset let. Takšna
opredelitev je sicer nekoliko arbitrarna in vsebinsko ni jasno
utemeljena, o čemer smo že pisali (Predovnik 2008b, 85–86), Tomaž Nabergoj v prispevku Arheologija in gotika leta
pa vendar je na ta način arheološka obravnava materialnih 1995 (Nabergoj 1995). Prim. tudi Ložar 1939; Slabe 1980;
ostalin mlajših obdobij postala tudi zakonsko predpisana Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Guštin, Horvat 1994, 7–10; Pre-
obveza. Tudi zato je prav, da se ozremo v preteklost in dovnik 1995, 78–84; Guštin 1999a; Nabergoj 2008b. O (ne)
ovrednotimo dosedanje soočanje slovenske arheologije z ustreznem varovanju posrednjeveške arheološke dediščine
obdobji po zgodnjem srednjem veku.2 in izzivih, ki jih pred konservatorsko stroko postavlja novi
zakon, sta nedavno pisala Barbara Nadbath in Andrej
Gaspari (Nadbath 2008; Gaspari 2008).
2
Najobširnejši pregled in ovrednotenje slovenske 3 Na podlagi nepravilno opredeljenega novca je Müll-
arheologije srednjega in novega veka je doslej objavil ner najstarejše grobove sicer datiral v 12. ali 13. stoletje.

je med drugim leta 1938 v Nomenju pri Bohinjski Bistrici fazo v razvoju arheologije mlajših obdobij na Slovenskem
izkopaval ruševine topilnice železa, t. i. “plavž sv. Heme” umestimo v širši kontekst tedanje srednjeevropske arheo-
(sl. 3). Topilnico ob potoku Plavževka ob vznožju Jelovice logije, ki je svoje izkopavalne tehnike in analitična orodja
je skupaj z ostanki hiše, prvotno opredeljene kot “gradič komajda razvijala ter na interpretativnem področju lovila
sv. Heme”, datiral v 12.–14. stoletje.4 korak za razvojem zgodovine, antropologije in socialnih
Schmid se je poleg tega zanimal tudi za srednjeveške ved v Evropi in severni Ameriki. Tik pred drugo svetovno
zemljene utrdbe, t. i. hausberge, ki so jih od konca devet- vojno pa je slovenska srednjeveška arheologija z Rajkom
najstega stoletja vse bolj intenzivno preučevali avstrijski Ložarjem dobila utemeljitelja, čigar teoretski razmisleki
raziskovalci. Raziskal ali vsaj dokumentiral je več lokacij, sodijo v sam vrh, če že ne kar na čelo sočasne evropske
med drugim Stari grad ali Presek pri Črešnjevcu, sv. Rok na arheologije srednjega veka (Nabergoj 2005).
Bregu pri Ptuju, Pekre, Atilov grob pri Spodnjem Kocjanu,
Pameče in Kogel pri Radušah (Schmid 1915, 1922 in 1925).
Leta 1938 je na ledini Groblje v Žlanu pri Bohinju izkopal RAJKO LOŽAR
ostanke dveh stavb znotraj z nasipi utrjenega prostora. IN ARHEOLOGIJA SREDNJEGA VEKA
Najdišče je označil za utrjeno kmetijo – hausberg (Gabrovec
1975; Smolej 1938). Kot večina tedanjih raziskovalcev je bil Leta 1939 je Rajko Ložar (sl. 4) v Glasniku Muzejskega
tudi Schmid mnenja, da so hausbergi zemljene utrdbe iz društva za Slovenijo objavil članek z naslovom Staroslovan-
časa madžarskih vpadov, in je zato vsa omenjena najdišča sko in srednjeveško lončarstvo v Sloveniji (Ložar 1939). V
(napačno) datiral v 9. in 10. stoletje (prim. Predovnik, njem je analiziral zgodnje- in poznosrednjeveško lončenino
Grosman 2007, 209). z različnih najdišč, ki so jo tedaj hranili slovenski muzeji.
Drugih pomembnejših terenskih raziskav do konca Najdbe so bile slabo dokumentirane in večinoma prido-
druge svetovne vojne skorajda ni bilo. Omenimo lahko npr. bljene nesistematično, zato jih je Ložar lahko obravnaval
izkopavanja v Predjamskem gradu v medvojnem obdobju zgolj tipološko, časovno pa je svoje opredelitve utemeljil
in med samo vojno (Nabergoj 1995, 33) ter odkritje sre- s primerjavami iz tujine. Pri določanju tipov in njihovem
dnjeveških in novoveških kurišč in drobnih najdb v vrhnjih relativnokronološkem razvrščanju je kot zvest učenec
plasteh v Ajdovski jami pri Nemški vasi, kjer je leta 1938 dunajske umetnostnozgodovinske šole uporabil koncepte
izkopaval Srečko Brodar (Brodar, Korošec 1953, 61–62). razvoja forme in stila (Ložar 1939, 180, 223–224; prim.
Zanimivo je, da se – z izjemo Müllnerjevih razskav gradu Nabergoj 2005 178; Nabergoj 1999, 39–41). Njegova tipo-
Jama – v tem zgodnjem obdobju pri nas ni izrazilo tisto ro- kronološka shema je vse do sedemdesetih let, ko je Vinko
mantično zanimanje za spomenike srednjega veka, predvsem Šribar objavil analize lončenega posodja z Otoka pri Do-
monumentalno arhitekturo (gradovi, samostani, cerkve), ki je bravi (Šribar 1974), ostala edino orodje za opredeljevanje
mnogokje v Evropi predstavljalo eno od pomembnih korenin poznosrednjeveške lončenine s slovenskega ozemlja. Sedaj
poznejšega akademskega razvoja srednjeveške arheologije. je seveda zastarela in kot referenčno delo ni več uporabna,
Niti politične spremembe po prvi svetovni vojni slovenski ni pa odveč pripomniti, da Ložarjeve časovne opredelitve
srednjeveški arheologiji niso prinesle novih spodbud. Medtem v grobem še vedno veljajo.
pa so druge države, ki so nastale po razpadu Avstro-Ogr- Ložar je poleg tega opredelil tudi tehnološke značilnosti
ske, Poljska, Češkoslovaška in Madžarska, načrtno krepile ter principe okraševanja staroslovanske in kasnejše srednje-
nacionalno zavest svojih državljanov prav z arheološkimi veške lončenine. Opažene razlike je pojasnil v kontekstu
in drugimi raziskavami narodne zgodovine srednjega ve- širših zgodovinskih procesov in razlik med staroslovansko
ka, predvsem gradov in plemstva. Ravno v srednjem veku in fevdalno družbo (Ložar 1939, 203–224). Lončenino je
so namreč iskale korenine svojih narodov kot etničnih in obravnaval problemsko in je v tem videl raziskovalni po-
jezikovnih skupnosti pa tudi korenine svoje državne suve- tencial arheologije, ki naj ne ostaja zgolj pri beleženju in
renosti, ki so jo utemeljevale na nasledstvu srednjeveških opisovanju materialne kulture, marveč naj jo tudi suvereno
kraljestev. Položaj kraljevine Srbov, Hrvatov in Slovencev interpretira (prim. Nabergoj 2005, 180).
oziroma kasnejše Jugoslavije je bil v tem pogledu bistveno Posebej pomemben je uvodni del članka, v katerem je
drugačen: nastala je kot nova polietnična tvorba, ki ni imela Ložar teoretsko utemeljil arheološko preučevanje celotnega
neposrednih zgodovinskih prednikov. Pri oblikovanju nove srednjega veka. Opozoril je na pomen arheološkega prispevka
nacionalne in državljanske identitete zgodovinski dogodki, k preučevanju preteklosti tudi v času, ki je dokumentiran s
osebnosti in spomeniki iz srednjeveškega obdobja zatorej pisnimi viri, še posebej zaradi kontinuitete zgodovinskega
niso mogli odigrati nikakršne vloge. razvoja, ki zahteva enakovredno arheološko obravnavo
Slovenska arheologija srednjega (in tudi novega) veka je zgodnjega, visokega in poznega srednjega veka pa tudi
bila v času do druge svetovne vojne brez lastnih konceptov, novega veka. Poudaril je problemsko sorodnost arheologije
teoretskih izhodišč in specifičnih metodologij in je bila srednjega in novega veka ter prazgodovinske arheologije
le nekakšen odvod prazgodovinske arheologije. Odkritja in razmišljal tudi o razmerjih med arheologijo srednjega
so bila v veliki meri naključna, sistematične raziskave pa veka ter zgodovino, umetnostno zgodovino in etnologijo
maloštevilne in skromnega obsega. In vendar lahko to (Ložar 1939, 180–183). Omenjeni uvod je pravzaprav
krajša različica mnogo obsežnejšega besedila z naslovom
4 Obrat je bil kasneje zaradi tehnoloških značilnosti “Prispevki k arheologiji našega srednjega veka”, ki ga
datiran v 15. ali 16. stoletje (Smolej 1953), A. Valič pa je Ložar ni nikoli objavil (sl. 5). Ta spis je bil pred nekaj leti
bil mnenja, da bi utegnil biti celo mlajši, iz 19. stoletja že podrobno predstavljen (Nabergoj 2005, 178–182), zato
(Valič 1975). bomo v nadaljevanju navedli le nekaj ključnih poudarkov.

Ložar je zagovarjal stališče, da je arheologija srednjega Čeprav “prvi pojav razredne meščanske družbe” – izrazit
veka avtonomna in samostojna veda, katere naloga je razi- marksistični konstrukt – ni bil izrecno določen in s tem tudi
skovanje materialnih ostalin z namenom dopolniti spoznanja kronološki razpon arheoloških raziskav ne,5 je bila časovna
zgodovinopisja. Pisni viri so po njegovem mnenju sicer zamejitev arheologije v Sloveniji implicitno postavljena v
primernejši za rekonstrukcijo celovite podobe preteklosti, 11. stoletje, predvsem v odnosu do umetnostne zgodovine
vendar to ne pomeni, da je arheologija podrejena zgodovinski (prim. Kastelic 1964–1965). Takšna odločitev je bila prej
vedi. Vsako obdobje lahko obravnava več znanstvenih strok, posledica razmerij med strokami oziroma pojmovanj o
vsaka v skladu s svojimi raziskovalnimi cilji, spoznavnimi in naravi materialnih virov, kakor pa negiranja obstoja teh
teoretskimi usmeritvami. Arheološke raziskave so upraviče- virov in njihovega pomena za srednjeveško zgodovino.
ne vselej, kadar specifična narava primarnih virov zahteva Zato je ilustrativno, da sta na posvetu v Niški Banji referat
uporabo arheoloških metod in pristopov. Arheologija lahko o stanju arheološkega dela v Jugoslaviji pripravila “Jože
nastopa kot pomožna veda zgodovine, saj “obče zgodovi- Kastelic za arheologijo do X. stoletja n. e. in France Stelè
nopisje ne more pogrešati arheološkega dela, zlasti ne pri za kasnejšo arheologijo in umetnostno zgodovino” (sic!),
očrtu starožitnosti, kulturne, umetniške in obrtne tvornosti torej arheolog in umetnostni zgodovinar – konservator.
naroda, dočim je pri vrisavanju politične itd. zgodovine Debata po referatu “je bila osredotočena okoli razmerja
bolj neodvisno. Na vseh teh poljih bi bilo golo uporabljanje umetnostne zgodovine do arheologije in njenih področij”
pisanih virov nesmiselno, pa tudi nemogoče, kajti pisani viri (Korošec 1950b, 212–213).
v tem času o takih predmetih večinoma molče” (Nabergoj Josip Korošec je istega leta objavil programski članek z
2005, 180). Hkrati pa je arheologija srednjega veka predvsem naslovom Arheologija in nekatere njene naloge (Korošec
arheologija in obravnava arheološke spomenike na enak 1950a). V njem se je med drugim dotaknil razmerja med
način in enako suvereno kot prazgodovinska arheologija. arheologijo in zgodovinopisjem. Menil je, da se različne
Ložarjeva stališča o naravi in smislu srednjeveške družbenozgodovinske vede med seboj ločijo po specifičnih
arheologije ter o njenem razmerju do zgodovinopisja metodah dela, zato so samostojne in enakopravne, se pa
lahko primerjamo z razpravami, ki so teoretsko utemeljile med seboj dopolnjujejo in so si lahko v pomoč. Tako je
arheologijo srednjega veka v drugih evropskih deželah. tudi arheologija s svojimi metodami lahko nenadomest-
Presenetljivo je, da je Ložar svoje poglede artikuliral že ljiva pri raziskovanju “kasnejših, recimo srednjeveških”
tako zgodaj, saj so podobne razprave drugod objavljali šele vprašanj (Korošec 1950a, 8). Korošec se je s tem pridružil
več kot tri desetletja kasneje (npr. Jankuhn 1973; Dymond Ložarjevemu pogledu na arheološke raziskave poznega
1974; Schlesinger 1974). Tudi v tem se Ložar kaže kot izje- srednjega veka.
men in osamljen mislec, čigar nazori pa so zaradi njegove Koroščevo mnenje je zbodlo zgodovinarja Boga Grafe-
osebne usode ostali brez odmeva (Nabergoj 2005, 182). nauerja, ki je naslednje leto odgovoril s polemično razpra-
vo (Grafenauer 1951). Opozoril je, da so arheološki viri
sicer res neposredne priče preteklosti, a so v primerjavi
NOVA STVARNOST “s kritično preverjenimi pisanimi viri” manj zanesljivi, saj
so podvrženi arheologovi interpretaciji. Zato so materialni
Ob koncu druge svetovne vojne se je slovenska arheologija viri absolutno podrejeni pisnim. Najbolj pa je Grafenau-
soočila s “popolnim kadrovskim kolapsom” (Novaković erja zmotilo to, da je Korošec predpostavil samostojnost
2002b, 87), ki pa je ni ohromil. Nastanek nove države je arheologije pri obravnavi arheoloških virov tudi v “zgodo-
namreč pomenil priložnost za organizacijsko in kadrovsko vinskih” obdobjih. Grafenauer je menil, da arheologija pri
prenovo stroke ter izgradnjo infrastrukturnih centrov in interpretiranju materialnih virov v tem primeru ne more
omrežij. Že leta 1945 je bilo zakonsko urejeno področje biti samostojna, marveč je lahko le v pomoč zgodovini.
zaščite kulturnih spomenikov in naravnih znamenitosti in Poleg tega naj bi bili arheološki viri relevantni predvsem za
tri leta kasneje je Slovenija dobila lastno ustanovo, pristojno preučevanje gospodarske zgodovine in deloma etnogeneze,
za to področje (Jogan 2008, 54–57). Študij arheologije na za preučevanje drugih vidikov preteklosti pa le, kadar so
Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani je bil obnovljen edini vir, torej v prazgodovini. Ključno je bilo potemtakem
v študijskem letu 1946/47 (Novaković 2004, 46), leta 1947 vprašanje raziskovalnih pristojnosti ene in druge vede ter
pa je bila ustanovljena še Arheološka komisija Akademije razmejitev njunih delokrogov. Podobne polemike so med
znanosti in umetnosti, predhodnica današnjega Inštituta arheologi in zgodovinarji potekale tudi drugod po Evropi in
za arheologijo Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra Slovenske v marsičem še danes niso zares presežene (prim. Nabergoj
akademije znanosti in umetnosti (Pleterski 1997). 1995, 81–83; Predovnik 2000, 36–45).
Sprememba družbenega sistema je narekovala resen Pri nas je Grafenauerjev pogled, ki bi ga lahko poimeno-
razmislek o naravi vede, njenih nalogah in metodah dela, vali kar “tiranija zgodovinskega zapisa” (Champion 1990),
kakršnega slovenska in jugoslovanska arheologija dotlej vsaj implicitno obveljal. Arheologija se do njega kasneje
skorajda ni poznala. Na prvem posvetovanju jugoslovanskih skorajda ni več opredeljevala,6 je pa v praksi sledila kro-
arheologov leta 1950 v Niški Banji so bili postavljeni novi
programski temelji in izhodišča za skladen razvoj arheologije 5 Naj bi segal do uveljavitve mest in meščanstva v
v celotnem jugoslovanskem prostoru. Med drugim so za poznem srednjem veku ali vse do 18. in 19. stoletja, ko je
prednostno nalogo določili “raziskovanje materialne kulture buržoazija prevzela vodilno vlogo v družbi?
naših narodov, pričenši od dobe najstarejših slovanskih 6 Razmerja med arheologijo in zgodovino je poskusil
rodovnih združenj do prvega pojava razredne meščanske na novo konceptualizirati Andrej Pleterski v razpravi, v
družbe” (Korošec 1950b, 214). kateri je predstavil inovativno metodo retrogradne analize

nološki zamejitvi svojega dela s koncem staroslovanskega pa je bilo več kot sto dvajset skeletnih pokopov, med njimi
obdobja. Sistematičnim raziskavam najdišč iz kasnejšega trije poznosrednjeveški, ter ostanki predhodnic današnje
časa se je odpovedovala, do večine zabeleženih odkritij cerkvene stavbe. Arheološka odkritja so delno predstavljena
pa je prišlo naključno, v sklopu zaščitnih ali sistematičnih in situ, celovite objave izkopavanj pa še nimamo.
raziskav multiperiodnih najdišč, katerih primarni cilj je Arheološki znanstveni dokumentacijski center je bil
bilo preučevanje starejših ostalin. ustanovljen leta 1961, tri leta zatem pa je bil preimenovan
Lep primer so izkopavanja Zgornjega stolpa na Kranclju v Center za zgodnjesrednjeveške in staroslovanske študije
nad Škofjo Loko (sl. 6). Izpostavljena utrdba je bila na (Stare 1993a; prim. Nabergoj 2008b, 92). Ta posebna raz-
hribu nad loškim gradom verjetno postavljena v 12. sto- iskovalna enota Narodnega muzeja je nastala po zamisli
letju, opuščena pa je bila po potresu leta 1511. Ruševine je tedanjega ravnatelja Jožeta Kastelica (prim. tudi Kastelic
pred izkopom prekrivala zemlja in tako je leta 1954 Stane 1964–1965) in naj bi se posvečala sistematičnim raziskavam
Gabrovec izkopavanje pričel z domnevo, da ima pred seboj arheoloških in drugih virov iz obdobja zgodnjega srednje-
prazgodovinsko grobno gomilo. Ko se je izkazalo, da gre ga veka na slovenskem etničnem ozemlju. Pri tem naj bi
v resnici za ostanke srednjeveškega objekta, je vodenje arheologi sodelovali s strokovnjaki s področja zgodovine,
izkopavanj prevzel umetnostni zgodovinar Cene Avguštin (fizične) antropologije, umetnostne zgodovine in jeziko-
(Avguštin 1954; Avguštin 1955). slovja. Center naj bi torej raziskoval predvsem starejšo
Ostaline iz mlajših obdobij so bile v tem času – če so narodovo zgodovino in s tem pripomogel k vzpostavljanju
sploh bile upoštevane in dokumentirane – raziskovane nacionalne identitete.
izključno v sklopu raziskav multiperiodnih najdišč. Tako
so denimo v začetku petdesetih let na dvorišču SAZU v
Ljubljani na območju prazgodovinskega grobišča izkopali KASTELIČEVA ZAMEJITEV
pet shrambnih jam z ločenino iz 11. ali 12. stoletja (Koro- (ZGODNJESREDNJEVEŠKE) ARHEOLOGIJE
šec 1951, 164–172),7 na Prešernovi ulici v Celju pa so ob
zaščitnih izkopavanjih – zastavljena so bila zlasti zaradi Prav raziskave na blejskem Otoku so med drugim spod-
ogroženosti antičnih ostalin – odkrili ostanke poznosre- budile k razmisleku ravnatelja Narodnega muzeja, Jožeta Kas-
dnjeveške stavbe s kuhinjo in pripadajočim inventarjem telica, ki je objavil razpravo o problemih zgodnjesrednjeveške
(Bolta 1953). arheologije v Sloveniji in se z njo dotaknil tudi raziskav
Jugoslovanska in slovenska arheologija je po vojni na- poznejših obdobij (Kastelic 1964–1965). Kastelic je zgodnji
menila posebno pozornost raziskovanju staroslovanskega srednji vek – v arheološkem smislu – umestil med pozno
obdobja, da bi tako ovrgla nekatere sporne etnične inter- antiko in 11. stoletje oziroma visoki srednji vek. Opozoril
pretacije italijanskih in nemških arheologov ter dokazala je na problemske stične točke oziroma “vprašanja zveze
starodavnost in obseg slovanske poselitve, posebno še na umetnostnih spomenikov visokega srednjega veka in star-
Primorskem (Korošec 1950b, 214; Pleterski 1997, 18). Kaj oslovanskih arheoloških terenov” ter na “preostro metodično
kmalu so postale predmet zanimanja starejše cerkve, ob delitev med arheologijo in zgodovino umetnosti”. A pri
katerih so arheologi predvidevali obstoj staroslovanskih tem ni bil dosleden: tako bi naj po njegovem mnenju v
grobišč. Izkopavanja so običajno razkrila ne le zgodnjesre- arheološke raziskave vprašanja kontinuitete med pozno antiko
dnjeveške, marveč tudi kasnejše pokope in temelje starejših in staroslovansko dobo morali vključiti “kultne objekte in
gradbenih faz cerkvene stavbe. Ena prvih obsežnih raziskav umetno zlatarsko obrt”, ki so sicer (tudi) predmet raziskav
te vrste so bila izkopavanja na blejskem Otoku, znotraj in umetnostne zgodovine. Nasprotno pa naj bi preostanke iz
okoli cerkve Marijinega vnebovzetja v letih 1962–1966 “dobe slovenske romanike in gotike”, ki “nam govori predvsem
(Nabergoj 1995, 9–11 z literaturo; sl. 7). Izkopavanja je s svojimi monumentalnimi ostanki, z arhitekturo, plastiko
opravil Arheološki znanstveni dokumentacijski center in slikarstvom, deloma pa tudi s spomeniki umetne obrti”,
Narodnega muzeja pod vodstvom Vinka Šribarja, odkritih preučevala umetnostna zgodovina (prim. Žvanut 1999).
Kastelic je materialne ostaline iz kasnejšega srednjega veka
označil kot “neposredno predmet umetnostne zgodovine
pisnih virov ter integrirane uporabe materialnih in pisnih
in ne arheologije”, obe znanosti pa ločil “po metodi in po
virov, ki jo je razvil ob študiju zgodnjesrednjeveške poselitve
medsebojni kronološki razmejitvi” (Kastelic 1964–1965,
Blejskega kota. Pleterski je zagovarjal nujnost integralne
110–114; prim. Nabergoj 1995, 79–81). Slednji je posvetil
zgodovinske interpretacije tako pisnih kot materialnih
precej pozornosti in je poskušal zgornjo časovno mejo
virov in je med drugim zapisal, da je “le v povezavi z arheologije opredeliti s koledarskim datumom iz politične
drugimi vedami (zlasti zgodovino) arheologija sploh lahko zgodovine, ki bi kar najbolje ustrezal arheološki dataciji
znanost” (Pleterski 1979, 508). Njegova izvajanja je teme- prenehanja staroslovanskih pokopov v času okoli leta 1000:
ljito razčlenil in jih problematiziral Božidar Slapšak, ki je kot ustrezen zgodovinski mejnik je tako predlagal leto 1024,
opozoril, da je razumevanje arheologije kot zgolj “tehnike ko je v nemškem cesarstvu zavladala salijska dinastija.
z nekimi mehanskimi pravili za 'objektivno' pridobivanje Čeprav je Kastelic navedel nekatera vprašanja kontinu-
(in kopičenje) virov” neproduktivno (Slapšak 1981, 53). itete med zgodnjim in visokim srednjim vekom, predvsem
Prvi temeljiti razmisleki o naravi in vlogi arheologije pri “paralelnost romanske in morebitne predromanske arhitek-
preučevanju t. i. mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij so bili ture s staroslovanskim grobiščem” (na primeru izkopavanj
opravljeni šele sredi devetdesetih let (Predovnik 1995; na blejskem Otoku) in nastanek srednjeveških gradov na
Nabergoj 1995; Predovnik 2000). mestu starejšega utrjenega selišča, pa naj bi bilo zanimanje
7 Kot kaže, je datacija napačna, saj objavljena lončenina
arheologije omejeno le na retrogradne raziskave: v primeru
najbrž ni starejša od 13. stoletja.

cerkva na “iskanje staroslovanskih nekropol in ... morebitnih nekaj pomembnih študij in spodbudi nadaljnje raziskave,
starejših tlorisov kultnih arhitektur”, v primeru gradov pa pravzaprav ni bilo sodobnih zgodovinopisnih del, ki bi
na odkrivanje “’zgodnjesrednjeveške’, to je staroslovanske poglobljeno obravnavala plemstvo nasploh ali vsaj razvoj,
plasti lokalitete” (Kastelic 1964–1965, 114–116, 118). vlogo in pomen posameznih fevdalnih rodbin na Slo-
Preučevanje sakralne in utrdbene arhitekture je bilo tako venskem v srednjem veku. Celo za grofe Celjske smo – z
prepuščeno umetnostnim zgodovinarjem (in arhitektom), izjemo študije Janka Orožna iz leta 1971 (Orožen 1971)
seveda predvsem z vidika arhitekturne zgodovine. in tematskih člankov Vlada Habjana (nav. v Habjan 1999)
Stališča, ki jih je artikuliral Kastelic, so se skladala s te- – šele z zbornikom mednarodnega simpozija v Celju leta
danjo splošno, bolj ali manj implicitno uveljavljeno podobo 1998 (Fugger Germadnik 1999a) in s katalogom razstave
arheologije in so pomembno določala tudi njen nadaljnji v Pokrajinskem muzeju Celje v letih 1999–2000 (Fugger
razvoj. Vzpostavljen je bil oster rez med “arheološkimi” in Germadnik 1999b; prim. tudi Guštin 2001f) dobili obsežen
“zgodovinskimi” obdobji preteklosti, materialnim virom pregled dosedanjih spoznanj z vidika različnih strok ter
slednjih pa je ta pogled odrekal naravo in spoznavni po- primerno izhodišče za poglobljeno in celovito raziskovanje
tencial, kakršnega je hkrati pripisoval materialnim virom te najbolj znane plemiške rodbine pri nas.10
starejšega časa. Prvič je bila izrecno zakoličena “magična” Del krivde za takšno stanje nedvomno lahko pripišemo
zgornja časovna meja arheologije, ki je srednji vek prese- programu slovenskega zgodovinopisja iz leta 1947. Po njem
kala na arheološki zgodnji in (umetnostno)zgodovinski je bilo na podlagi historičnega materializma “težišče zgo-
poznejši srednji vek.8 dovinskega razvoja” preneseno na “gospodarski in družbeni
Takšno razumevanje delokroga arheologije se je na ustroj in s tem na široke ljudske množice” (Grafenauer
Slovenskem trdno zasidralo. Nenazadnje o tem priča dej- 1947, 22). V takšnem konceptu slovenske zgodovine, “ki
stvo, da mlajša obdobja niso bila sistematično upoštevana se je v starejših obdobjih ukvarjala predvsem z agrarno-
v centralnih podatkovnih bazah – ali so bila iz njih celo socialno, v novejših pa s proletarsko-socialno zgodovino”,
izrecno izključena – (ANSl; Tecco Hvala 1993), multi- raziskave plemstva niso imele pravega mesta (Štih 1999,
periodnih projektih, kot je bila Arheološka topografija 13). Razumljivo je, da so “v analizi te velike linije slovenske
Slovenije (Pahič 1962, 94–95), in tudi ne v strokovnih in narodne zgodovine, v liniji dosledne borbe majhnega prole-
poljudnih pregledih, v katerih se slovenska arheologija in tarskega naroda proti zunanjim in notranjim sovražnikom
njeni dosežki vztrajno zaključujejo s koncem staroslovanske za gospodarski in družbeni napredek” (Grafenauer 1947,
dobe (Nabergoj 2008b, 90). Ob tem pa se je stroka v praksi 25 op. 76), ta in nekatera druga področja srednjeveških
že dolgo vedla drugače in se je arheološko raziskovanje raziskav ostala skoraj povsem neobdelana. Zaradi uvelja-
najdišč obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku na področju vitve narodnostnega oziroma etničnega načela (namesto
varovanja kulturne dediščine postopno uveljavljalo vsaj državnega) v slovenskem zgodovinopisju vse od Levstika
od sedemdesetih let dalje, leta 2008 pa je postalo celo z naprej je “velik del plemstva, uporabnikov gradov in dvor-
zakonom predpisan standard. cev”, sodil v “dvakrat tujo, sovražno sfero, zatorej nevredno
zgodovinarjevega zanimanja” (Šumi 1983, 10). Nace Šumi je
leta 1983 ob posvetu Slovenskega konservatorskega društva
SILA IN MOČ IDEOLOGIJE o gradovih zapisal: “Bilanca današnje stopnje slovenskega
zgodovinopisja je ta, da se nosilci fevdalizma, še zlasti pa
V zvezi s preučevanjem gradov, v manjši meri tudi njihove postojanke, naši gradovi in kasneje dvorci, upo-
samostanov in cerkva, je treba posebej opozoriti na ide- števajo kot nujno zlo znotraj slovenske etnije. /.../ V naši
ološke prepreke oziroma politično pogojene smernice v najnovejši zgodovini in zgodovinopisni podobi tega časa
razvoju zgodovinskih ved in obravnave ostalin preteklosti se med drugim tudi zaradi take usmeritve srečamo s tisto
po drugi svetovni vojni.9 Zakaj vse do srede devetdesetih značilno skrajnostjo, ki ni znala več ločevati premaganih
let, ko mlajša generacija slovenskih zgodovinarjev prispeva zastopnikov fevdalne plasti od stvaritev, ki jih je ta plast
priklicala v življenje in ki naj bi jih torej obravnavali kot
8 Posledica teh pogledov je, da so se izkopavanja nekaterih kulturno dediščino” (Šumi 1983, 10).
Značilno je, da so bila v prvih dveh povojnih desetletjih
spomenikov iz poznega srednjega veka lotevali umetnostni
staroslovanska grobišča iz 10. in 11. stoletja samoumeven
zgodovinarji brez sodelovanja arheologov – npr. Marijan
predmet arheoloških raziskav na Slovenskem, sočasni
Zadnikar, ki je vodil izkopavanja ob cerkvi cistercijanskega
najzgodnejši fevdalni gradovi pa ne.11 Ideološki moment
samostana v Stični (Nabergoj 1995, 37–39 z literaturo) ter
izkopavalno-očiščevalna dela v cerkvi in malem križnem
hodniku kartuzije Žiče (Zadnikar 1965 in 1967). 10 Objava zares obsežnega diplomatarija Celjskih je
9 Vpliv marksistične ideologije na razvoj jugoslovanske šele na začetku. Prvi zvezek je pripravil Dušan Kos (Kos
arheologije in njenih konceptov je bil sicer zanemarljiv D. 1996).
(Novaković 2002a), bolj opazen pa je bil v zgodovinopisju. 11 Kot najstarejši grad na današnjem slovenskem oze-
Negativno vrednotenje srednjega veka in materialnih ostalin mlju se pogosto navaja grad Rajhenburg v Brestanici, ki
fevdalne dobe ter cerkvenih umetnostnih spomenikov, ki naj bi bil obstajal že leta 895. V darovnici kralja Arnulfa iz
je zaznamovalo širšo družbeno klimo v povojnem času, je tega leta, ki je sicer ohranjena le v prepisu iz 12. stoletja,
privedlo do neustreznega in neredko odkrito sovražnega je namreč omenjena posest Richenburch. Kakor kaže, je
ravnanja s stavbnimi spomeniki. To je povzročalo težave ta del besedila kasnejši vrinek, to pa pomeni, da je obstoj
predvsem umetnostnim zgodovinarjem, ki so delovali na Rajhenburga konec 9. stoletja zelo vprašljiv (prim. Štih
področju spomeniškega varstva. 1996, 18, 24 op. 103). Na dvorišču brestaniškega gradu so

je bil tu očiten, koncepta nacionalnosti in razrednosti je Jože Kastelic v svojem programskem prispevku že leta
pa preveč politično obremenjena in zato izključujoča: 1965 opozoril na “metodično zelo važno” skupino za arhe-
arheologija elit, in še tujih vrh tega, v novi socialistični ološke raziskave opuščenih srednjeveških naselij, predvsem
stvarnosti ni bila mogoča. vasi, v Angliji (Kastelic 1964–1965, 122). In vendar je bila
Raziskovalna problematika srednjeveških stoječih arhi- agrarna naselbina najbolj razširjena naselbinska oblika
tektur nasploh je bila zato zvedena na umetnostnozgodo- v srednjem veku, hkrati pa tista, o kateri srednjeveški
vinske ali arhitekturne vidike preučevanja. Zaman bi torej pisni viri povedo najmanj, če sploh kaj. O vsakdanjem
pričakovali celostne analize, ki bi npr. srednjeveški grad ali življenju “molčeče večine” srednjeveškega prebivalstva pri
samostan videla tako v njunem primarnem, materialnem nas, o vrstah, značaju in razvoju njihovih vasi in bivališč,
in družbenem pomenu – arhitektura kot konkretni preo- gospodarskih objektov in naprav ter orodij zato ne vemo
stanek bivališča pripadnikov določene družbene skupine skoraj ničesar. Ideološke obremenjenosti tu ni moglo biti;
ali plasti – kot v drugotnem, simbolnem – arhitektura vzrok popolnemu zanemarjanju raziskav te kompleksne
kot zaščitni znak, kot prepoznavni element določene problematike je bila najbrž že omenjena konceptualna
socialne entitete, npr. fevdalnega gospostva, kot simbol zamejitev v deklarirana “arheološka obdobja”, ob tem pa še
družbene skupine ali razreda, vsekakor “eksploatatorske- nerazumljivo nezanimanje za sočasne arheološke raziskave
ga” po naziranjih dialektičnega materializma in na njem v tujini in nesodelovanje z zgodovinarji (in historičnimi
utemeljenega zgodovinopisja. Gradovi in plemstvo po geografi ter etnologi).
socialistični revoluciji v novih shemah družbenih redov Zgodovinarji so npr. že leta 1940 uvrščali arheologijo
niso mogli dobiti enakopravnega mesta, kar se je pokazalo med poglavitne pomožne vede za slovensko koloni-
tudi v požigih in ropanjih številnih gradov na Dolenjskem zacijsko zgodovino, čeprav sta jih tedaj s tega vidika
in delno na Primorskem med drugo svetovno vojno in po zanimala le obdobje pred prihodom Slovencev (antika)
njej. “Narodnoosvobodilni boj je radikaliziral protifevdalno in “staroslovenska doba” (Kos 1940, 30; prim. tudi Kos
razpoloženje našega podeželja, zato je mogel povzročiti ne 1948–1949, 137–138). Ne bi mogli reči, da arheologija
tako redko izenačitev boja proti ostankom starega družbe- v tem niti za raziskave poznejših dob ni dobila nobene
nega reda z bojem proti vidnim postojankam, simbolom te vzpodbude s strani zgodovinske stroke. Čeprav zgodovina
preteklosti. Delež nekaterih pomembnih gradov kot trdnjav “materialne kulture” v tistem širokem pomenu, kakor ga
razrednega sovražnika v tem boju je seveda takšen položaj je za raziskovanje in vrednotenje srednjeveške civiliza-
po svoje podpiral” (Šumi 1983, 10–11). cije zahodne Evrope priznaval npr. Jacques Le Goff, in
Seveda pa ideološki oziri niso bili vsedoločujoči. torej “drugačen srednji vek, brez tekstov in napisov”, 13
Opozorimo lahko na zanimivo nasprotje: čeprav arheo- slovenskih zgodovinarjev resda nista kaj dosti zanimala,
logija po definiciji preučuje materialno kulturo in bi se v so v monografski obravnavi slovenske agrarne zgodovine
socialistični stvarnosti morala in smela zanimati vsaj za leta 1970 vendarle poudarili pomen arheoloških raziskav
materialno kulturo “najširših kmečkih množic” kot izkori- za pridobivanje novih in specifičnih “virov terenskega
ščanega razreda srednjeveške družbe, pri nas vse do konca značaja”. Poleg arheoloških najdb, npr. poljskega orodja,
devetdesetih let ni bila raziskana niti ena sama opuščena ter organskih preostankov kulturnih rastlin, domačih
srednjeveška vas ali vsaj kmetija.12 In to kljub dejstvu, da živali in divjadi z arheoloških najdišč bi namreč stavbni
ostanki “utegnili biti pomembni za raziskavo kmečkega
bila ob prenovi leta 1978 opravljena manjša testna izkopa- doma prav do 17. stol., ko postajajo drugi viri nekoliko
vanja. Odkriti so bili ostanki starejših zidov, ki pa jih ni izčrpnejši”, in izkopavanja bi lahko dala “točnejšo sliko o
razvoju kmečkih naselij”. Arheološke metode v razisko-
bilo mogoče natančneje časovno opredeliti (Slabe 1982).
vanju poljedelstva pa bi dopolnili z novimi tehnikami
Najstarejši, s pisnimi viri zanesljivo izpričan grad na tleh
in naravoslovnimi metodami: fotografijo iz zraka (za
današnje Slovenije je t. i. castrum Bosisen pri Škofji Loki,
odkrivanje oblik poljske razdelitve in poljskih poti ter
omenjen leta 973 in 989, ki še ni zagotovo lokaliziran (Berčič
struktur pod zemljo), pelodno analizo (za kronologijo
2001); morda gre za lokacijo Kremplnov hrib nad Hosto
razvoja rastlinstva v agrarni pokrajini) in fosfatno metodo
pri Suhi, kjer so pred nekaj leti zanimive najdbe odkrili
(analiza vsebnosti fosforne kisline v zemlji za ugotavljanje
sodelavci Inštituta za arheologijo ZRC SAZU (Pleterski
lokacij propadlih naselbin; Blaznik et al. 1970, 5–6, 564,
2002). Blejski grad, prvič omenjen kot Veldes leta 1004, ki
so ga za potrebe turizma sicer prenovili in ob njem raziskali
staroslovanska grobišča, sam ni bil predmet izkopavanj.
Je pa npr. Stanko Pahič med simbole za arheološko karto poznosrednjeveški naselbinski ostanki so bili prav tako
v okviru projekta arheološke topografije Slovenije uvrstil v sklopu avtocestnih izkopavanj odkriti še na Obrežju in
tudi enega za “zgodnjesrednjeveške gradiče (Hausberge)” v Leskovcu pri Celju (Mason 2003, 202–203; Brišnik et
in je nekatere pri lastnem topografskem delu dejansko al. 2006). Leta 2007 pa so ob zaščitnih raziskavah zaradi
dokumentiral (Pahič 1962, 118). Datiranje teh objektov širitve mejnega prehoda v Zavrču izkopali ostanke petnaj-
v zgodnji srednji vek sicer ni pravilno (Hinz 1981; prim. stih bivalnih in gospodarskih lesenih objektov, datiranih v
Predovnik, Grosman 2007). 13.–15. stoletje (Lubšina-Tušek 2007, 311). Za primerjavo:
12 V letih 1997 in 1998 je bilo v sklopu arheoloških na Slovaškem je bilo arheološko dokumentiranih več kot
raziskav ob gradnji avtocestnega omrežja raziskano mul- 2000 lokalitet naselbinskega značaja iz obdobja od 11. do
tiperiodno najdišče Gornje njive pri Dolgi vasi, kjer so 16. stoletja (Egyházy-Jurovská 1999, 24).
med drugim odkrili stavbne idr. ostaline srednjeveškega 13 Prim. citate iz Le Goffovega dela La civilisation de
naselja iz 12. in 13. stoletja (Kerman 2008). Domnevni l´occident médiéval, 1965, prevedene pri Nabergoj 1995, 83.

616). 14 Dlje od teh načelnih predlogov zgodovinarji žal sredine sedemdesetih let dalje opaziti porast gradbene
niso šli, a tudi v arheologiji nanje ni bilo odziva. Prej- dejavnosti v starih poselitvenih jedrih, obnavljanje stavb-
kone pa ni bilo niti pravih možnosti za delo. Slovenska ne dediščine in infrastrukture ter novogradnje znotraj že
arheološka srenja je bila od nekdaj maloštevilna. Ko se je urbaniziranih predelov. Spomeniškovarstvena služba je
v sedemdesetih letih število zaposlenih oziroma aktivnih bila tako soočena z vse večjim obsegom dela, saj je bilo v
arheologov pričelo povečevati, pa je šlo predvsem za starih naselbinskih območjih potrebno poskrbeti vsaj za
kadre, dejavne na področju spomeniškega varstva. Za nadzor gradbenih izkopov, neredko pa tudi za izvedbo
sistematične obsežne raziskave te vrste stroka ni imela predhodnih arheoloških raziskav.
ne institucionalnega okvira ne finančnih in kadrovskih “Mehčanje” ideoloških nazorov in nekoliko svobodnejša
možnosti. A brez dvoma je bila glavna težava prav v te- družbena klima ob koncu šestdesetih in v začetku sedem-
oretskih podmenah in konceptualni zasnovi (takratne) desetih let sta privedla tudi do drugačnega, bolj pozitivnega
slovenske arheologije. vrednotenja preteklosti, celo spomenikov fevdalnega časa.
Gradovi in dvorci, po vojni načrtno zanemarjani in le redko
predmet sistematičnih in kvalitetnih obnov in revitalizacij,
OBDOBJE PRAGMATIZMA so ponovno postali kulturna vrednota. Počasi se je pričel
vzpostavljati ustreznejši odnos do teh spomenikov, z njim
Načrtnih arheoloških raziskav na poznosrednjeveških pa tudi vlaganja v njihovo obnovo, vzdrževanje in ponovno
in kasnejših najdiščih je bilo vse do preoblikovanja spo- oživitev. Podobno je bilo tudi z odnosom do cerkvenih
meniškovarstvene službe v sedemdesetih letih, ko se je objektov kot kulturnih spomenikov. Arheologija je v za-
izoblikovala mreža osmih zavodov za varstvo spomenikov ščitnih posegih na tej stavbni dediščini dobila svoje mesto,
(Jogan 2008, 84–89), razmeroma malo. Ta pokrajinsko vendar zgolj kot specializirana (izkopavalna) metoda za
zasnovana mreža inštitucij pa je – ob neposrednem in pridobivanje podatkov o stavbnem razvoju, medtem ko
aktivnem sodelovanju muzejev (Slabe 1981–1982, 98–99) v postopku interpretacije spomenika največkrat ni igrala
– omogočila intenzivnejše dokumentiranje in ustreznejše pomembne vloge.
spremljanje stanja ogroženosti kulturne dediščine na celo- Na takšno vlogo so arheologi pristajali sami. Vanjo jih je
tnem ozemlju Slovenije. Stroka se je s tem tudi kadrovsko silila praksa in ne kak globlji uvid, ki bi izhajal iz zavedanja
okrepila, kar se je hitro odrazilo v številu opravljenih o nuji in možnostih razreševanja splošnih zgodovinskih
zaščitnih raziskav na terenu. vprašanj. Pri tem so poudarjali potrebo po “strokovnosti”
Četudi arheologija poznega srednjega veka in kasnejših in interdisciplinarni obravnavi. Vendar naj bi bilo zaradi
obdobij tedaj v Sloveniji še ni bila uveljavljen pojem in “širšega družbenega interesa” “raziskovanje 'nearheološkega'
je bilo poznavanje materialne kulture tega časa izredno objekta z arheološko metodo” upravičeno “le na objektu
skromno, sta stopnja ogroženosti in število potrebnih ali na delu objekta, kjer pričakujemo kompleksno ali po-
zaščitnih intervencij na spomenikih sčasoma privedla do membno spoznanje, pa do njega z drugimi raziskovalnimi
pragmatičnega odziva stroke. Lahko bi rekli, da je praksa metodami ne moremo.” Pri najdenih predmetih “še dokaj
prehitela teorijo. Objave preliminarnih poročil o arheoloških pogoste rabe in serijske izdelave”, ki so “navadno zanimivi
raziskavah spomenikov in najdišč z ostalinami iz obdobja le v kontekstu izkopavanja”, se je zato “treba pri obravnavi
srednjega in novega veka v reviji Varstvo spomenikov in gradiva iz novejših dob, ki smo ga našli v zemlji, prej kot
drugih publikacijah nazorno dokumentirajo ta proces: v pri gradivu iz starih dob odločiti za pametno selekcijo v
desetletju 1950–1959 je bilo raziskanih trinajst, v letih od skladu s splošnimi načeli selekcije gradiva z izkopavanja.
1960–1969 petnajst, v razdobju 1970–1979 pa kar osemin- Muzejske oskrbe je torej z izkopavanj nearheoloških objek-
štirideset in v desetletju 1980–1989 petinpetdeset najdišč tov deležno le izjemno gradivo” (Mikl-Curk 1981, 92–93).
(prim. Nabergoj 1995; sl. 8). Drugačen, polnovredni arheološki obravnavi ostalin
Razmah zaščitnih raziskav v sedemdesetih in osemde- mlajših obdobij bolj naklonjen pogled je predstavil Marijan
setih letih je povezan s širšimi družbenimi spremembami. Slabe ob raziskavah v Škofji Loki (Slabe 1974; Slabe 1980a;
Svet se je po obdobju povojne obnove, velike gospodarske sl. 9). Zaščitna izkopavanja na Mestnem trgu so namreč
rasti in industrializacije v šestdesetih letih soočal z okoljsko razkrila ostanke gotske stavbe srednjeveškega komuna ter
krizo, ki je privedla do vzpona ekoloških gibanj in dviga številne predmete iz poznega srednjega in novega veka,
ekološke zavesti. Tudi v tedanji Jugoslaviji in posebno še med drugim velike količine okrašenega namiznega posodja
v Sloveniji so se pričeli zavzemati za zaščito okolja pred iz druge polovice 16. in začetka 17. stoletja. Slabe jih je
nezadržnim izčrpavanjem naravnih virov, širjenjem indu- opredelil za izdelke domačih delavnic po italijanskih vzorih
strije in koncentrično ekspanzijo mest. V sedemdesetih ter produkcijo poimenoval loška meščanska slikana kera-
in osemdesetih letih se je to odrazilo tudi v zakonodaji, mika (Slabe 1977; prim. tudi Predovnik 2009). Ob tem se
postopkih in predpisih za prostorsko načrtovanje. Posebej je zavedel neustreznosti dotedanje prakse, ki je narekovala
je bila izražena skrb za ohranjanje rodovitne zemlje ter varovanje predvsem tistih arheoloških ostalin, “ki po svojem
zaščito kmetijskih zemljišč pred degradacijo in pozidavo. poreklu niso presegale 11. oziroma 12. stoletja, in sicer iz
Posledično se je obrnil trend razvoja urbanih središč. Med- preprostega vzroka, ker je bila kulturna dediščina iz mlajših
tem ko so se v povojnih desetletjih zgodovinska mestna obdobij zavarovana predvsem po umetnostnozgodovinski
središča praznila in je stavbni fond v njih propadal, je od in deloma po etnografski strani.” Izkušnje so pokazale,
da “smo iz več vidikov dolžni varovati na takem prostoru
tudi zemeljske sloje, ki so po navadi bogati z materialnimi
14 O fosfatni metodi je že leta 1940 pisal P. Blaznik, ostanki, a so bili doslej pogosto zanemarjeni in odvrženi.”
ki pa arheologije posebej ni omenil (Blaznik 1940, 39).

Uporaba ustreznih arheoloških pristopov pri raziskavah v no obravnavala nobenega od treh bistvenih elementov
Škofji Loki je rezultirala v odkritju velikega števila “drobnih raziskovanja: vira, metode, problema. Zato v nasprotju s
najdb od ostankov keramičnih posod vsakdanje uporabe sočasnim razvojem znanosti v tujini ni zmogla izoblikovati
do tako imenovanega žlahtnega, salonskega inventarja, ki konceptualnih okvirov in teoretskih podlag za vzpostavljanje
odraža na eni strani vpogled v samo materialno življenje avtonomnega, enakopravnega in znanstveno utemeljenega
in socialni nivo takratnega prebivalstva, na drugi pa tudi arheološkega preučevanja dediščine iz “nearheoloških” ob-
razvite trgovske vezi z bližnjimi deželami Italije in Avstrije”. dobij. Kljub izrazitemu napredku v zadnjih dveh desetletjih
Slabe je poudaril spoznavno vrednost tega gradiva, “ki mnogi problemi ostajajo, predvsem kar zadeva ustrezno
nam v mnogočem pojasnjuje in osvetljuje takratni način interdisciplinarno obravnavo. Kakor je pred leti opozoril
življenja in tako ob pisnih virih dopolnjuje historično Marko Stokin, je posledica problematičnega razumevanja
podobo mesta v določenem obdobju njegovega predvsem (srednjeveške) arheologije in nepovezanosti različnih strok
poznosrednjeveškega in tudi kasnejšega razvoja” (Slabe ta, da nimamo ustreznih analitičnih metod, s katerimi bi
1974, 75–76). bilo mogoče ustrezno obravnavati kompleksna najdišča,
Konservatorske izkušnje in široki strokovni interesi so kot so na primer urbana naselja, interpretirati družbene
botrovali tudi nastanku prvega pregleda arheoloških raziskav procese, razvoj mest in stavbarstva (Stokin 1995, 53).
mlajših obdobij izpod peresa istega avtorja. Prispevek je
bil objavljen v publikaciji, ki je izšla ob razstavi Rešena
arheološka dediščina Slovenije (Slabe 1980b). Predsta- PRVE SISTEMATIČNE RAZISKAVE
vljeni dosežki so naravnost silili k ugotovitvi, “da se v tej IN ZAMETKI INSTITUCIONALIZACIJE
zgodovinski-kulturni strukturi ni mogoče izogniti arheo-
loškemu načinu dela”, in sicer tako zaradi zahtev znanosti V sedemdesetih letih so se prvi večji premiki v smeri
kot spomeniškega varstva (Slabe 1985, 35). uveljavitve arheološke obravnave mlajših obdobij zgodili
Prevladujoče (ne)razumevanje vloge arheologije v okviru tudi na polju sistematičnega raziskovalnega dela. Že leta
spomeniškega varstva je izhajalo predvsem iz obravnave 1967 so se na pobudo zgodovinarja Ferda Gestrina raz-
arheologije kot metode, beri: izkopavanja, ki jo je mogoče iskav konec 15. stoletja opustelega srednjeveškega trga
preprosto ponuditi kot uslugo drugim strokam in jo ločiti Gutenwert (tudi: Gutenwerth) na ledini Otok pri Dobravi
od ustreznih interpretativnih orodij. Druga kleč je bila ta, na Šentjernejskem polju (sl. 10) lotili sodelavci Centra za
da sta bili narava in spoznavna vrednost materialnih virov zgodnjesrednjeveške in staroslovanske študije Narodnega
pomanjkljivo – če sploh – konceptualizirani. V (konserva- muzeja pod vodstvom Vinka Šribarja (prim. Nabergoj
torski) praksi so bili materialni viri ločeni na dve kategoriji: 1995 z literaturo; Bartosiewicz 1999; Stare 2000). Posebno
primarni pomen so imeli arhitekturni preostanki in tem pozornost so sicer “posvetili deležu, ki ga ima slovenska
so bile podrejene raziskave, predmeti, ki so bili odkriti pri kultura zgodnjega srednjega veka pri formiranju kulturne
izkopu zemeljskih plasti, pa so načeloma “le” pojasnjevali in civilizatorične tvornosti v času razvitega fevdalizma”
in osvetljevali takratni način življenja ter dopolnjevali (Šribar, Stare 1981, 7), in tako so bila v začetku v ospredju
historično podobo, znano iz pisnih virov. Drobno gradivo vprašanja kontinuitete, predvsem vprašanje o morebitnem
je nemalokrat šlo skozi gosto sito uveljavljenih umetno- organskem razvoju poznosrednjeveških urbanih središč
stnozgodovinskih in tudi arheoloških meril o tem, kaj je iz starejših, staroslovanskih naselbin. Toda arheološki
pomembno in vredno ohranitve, kaj pa tako fragmentarno, zapis na najdišču, kjer so bili poleg skromnih ostalin
neizrazito, nepovedno, navidez poznano15 in nasploh tako iz rimskega obdobja ter iz 10. in 11. stoletja16 odkriti
nezanimivo, da se zavrže. predvsem arhitekturni ostanki, infrastruktura, pokopi in
Tretja pomembna kategorija, ki jo arheologija s svojimi seveda predmeti iz poznega srednjega veka, je zahteval
metodami (posebno stratigrafskimi izkopavanji in ustre- ne le “enakopravno” obravnavo struktur in artefaktov iz
znim dokumentiranjem) edina lahko relevantno obravnava, vseh obdobij, marveč je sčasoma privedel do razširitve in
namreč kontekst – prostorski odnosi med posameznimi premika težišča raziskovalnih interesov. Svoje prepričanje,
strukturami in najdbami –, ni bila posebej opredeljena in da je ločevanje srednjega veka na arheološki zgodnji in
je bila pogosto zapostavljena. V praksi je to pomenilo, da “nearheološki” pozni srednji vek nesmiselno, so Vinko
so bili zaradi nestrokovnega (metodološko nepravilnega) Šribar in sodelavci izrazili tudi s preimenovanjem Centra
izkopavanja ali prekopavanja različnih struktur, ki so ga za zgodnjesrednjeveške in staroslovanske študije v Center
neredko opravili kar umetnostni zgodovinarji ali arhitekti za arheologijo srednjega veka, kar se je zgodilo leta 1977.
brez sodelovanja arheologov, in zaradi pomanjkljivega V Narodnem muzeju je poleg tega prav zaradi dejavnosti
dokumentiranja najdiščnih kontekstov izgubljeni številni Centra nastal nov arheološki kustodiat za visoki srednji
dragoceni podatki in tudi najdbe. vek (Stare 1993a).
Drznemo si zaključiti, da spomeniškovarstvena služba Vinko Šribar in njegova sodelavka Vida Stare sta na
vse do druge polovice devetdesetih let pri nas ne v praksi podlagi podatkov in gradiva, pridobljenega na Otoku,
in še manj v teoriji ni primerno, utemeljeno in sodob- objavila več razprav o urbanističnem in arhitekturnem
razvoju tega srednjeveškega naselja (Šribar 1975b; Šribar,
Stare 1978), o posameznih sklopih drobnih predmetov
15 O tem, kako varljiv je lahko občutek, da o bližnji
preteklosti ne moremo izvedeti nič novega zgolj zato, ker
nas njeni ostanki spremljajo na vsakem koraku, pišejo 16 Objavljena je le ena “stanovanjska jama”, bivalni
avtorji zbornika The familiar past? Archaeologies of later objekt, ki naj bi bil nastal v 10. stoletju, uporabljan pa naj
historical Britain (Tarlow, West 1999). bi bil vsaj še v 11. stoletju (Stare 1993c).

(Šribar 1976; Stare 1983; Stare 1993b; Stare 2002) in Sodelavci Centra za arheologijo srednjega veka so po-
tudi tipokronologijo kovinskega in keramičnega gradiva leg blejskega Otoka in Otoka pri Dobravi raziskali še več
(Šribar 1972–1973; Šribar 1983). Prav slednji dve shemi, drugih najdišč. Z delovanjem je Center dokončno prenehal
ki bi lahko predstavljali temeljno datacijsko orodje za po upokojitvi Vinka Šribarja leta 1987, vendar je Narodni
nadaljnje raziskave poznosrednjeveških najdišč pri nas, muzej ohranil delovno mesto kustosa arheologa za visoki
sta se izkazali za problematični. Časovna razvrstitev srednji vek (Stare 1993a, 31).
posameznih oblikovnih tipov namreč sledi relativnemu Druga raziskava, ki jo velja omeniti, so izkopavanja
zaporedju šestih horizontov17 na najdišču, ki so na drugi Starega gradu nad Celjem (sl. 11). Pobuda zanje je po-
strani absolutnokronološko datirani v posamezna stoletja, dobno kot v primeru Otoka pri Dobravi prišla od zunaj.
in sicer v padajočem zaporedju od poznega 15. (1. horizont) K izkopavanjem je arheologe namreč povabil umetnostni
do začetka 11. ali konca 10. stoletja (6. horizont). Ob tem zgodovinar Ivan Stopar, konservator v celjskem Zavodu
ni povsem jasno, ali so “horizonti” faze oziroma obdobja za spomeniško varstvo. Izkopavanja je prevzel Oddelek
poselitve, horizontalne “kulturne” plasti ali pa so morda za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani in jih pod
izenačeni kar s “planumi” oz. režnji, po katerih je bilo vodstvom Tatjane Bregant opravil v letih 1972–1983 in
najdišče izkopavano – skladno s tedaj veljavno izkopavalno 1986 (Bregant 1974; Stopar 1975; Bregant 1977; Bregant
metodologijo (prim. Šribar 1972–1973, 23–29 in Šribar 1983). Arheološko izkopavanje je zajelo vse dostopne
1979, 48–58). Kot se izkaže, je izkop po poljubnih režnjih površine v grajskem jedru ter manjše predele v grajskem
privedel do mešanja kulturnega inventarja posameznih jarku in predgradju. Spet pa velja ugotovitev, da interpre-
stratigrafskih enot, denimo dveh ali več plasti, polnil jam tativni potencial opravljenih arheoloških raziskav ni (bil)
idr. enot stratifikacije, ki so bile (delno) izkopane hkrati. izkoriščen v polni meri, kajti celovite objave izkopavanj z
Prav tako ni jasno, kateri predmeti so nastopali v intaktnih, grafično dokumentacijo in katalogom drobnega gradiva
zaprtih kontekstih in kateri v premešanih. Zato so v tipo- še danes nimamo.19
kronoloških shemah lončenine in kovinskih predmetov z Pri interpretaciji odkritih struktur in predvsem stavbnega
Otoka pri Dobravi nekateri zgodnji oblikovni tipi uvrščeni razvoja gradu od prve polovice 13. stoletja dalje je med
v najmlajše horizonte, nekateri zelo pozni pa so pripisani arheologinjo ter umetnostnim zgodovinarjem in arhitektom
starejšim horizontom. Kot datacijsko orodje sta zatorej ti prišlo do bistvenih razhajanj (Kramberger, Stopar 1987;
preglednici, in s tem tudi časovne opredelitve pojavnosti prim. Stopar 1982), ki pa jih je zaradi pomanjkljivih objav
posameznih oblikovnih tipov, uporabni le pogojno in z arheoloških podatkov težko kritično presojati. Teza Tatjane
veliko mero kritičnosti. Bregant, da je gotski palacij gradu nastal iz prvotnega stolpa,
Kljub zadnji pripombi ostaja nesporno dejstvo, da gre je najverjetneje zares napačna, toda sklep, da je “metodo-
izkopavanjem na Otoku pri Dobravi v zgodovini slovenske loško izhodišče” arheoloških interpretacij “spekulativno”,
arheologije posebno mesto. Ne samo, da je bila to prva ni upravičen (Kramberger, Stopar 1987, 85). Napačna
načrtna in sistematična raziskava najdišča iz mlajših ob- interpretacija konkretnih arheoloških podatkov ne zanika
dobij in hkrati prva raziskava opustelega srednjeveškega izpovednosti arheoloških virov in tudi ne epistemološke
naselja, marveč je šlo tudi za eno prvih izkopavanj večjih, relevantnosti arheološke metodologije kot take. Bistvo tega
odprtih površin. Ob tem je vodja izkopavanj Vinko Šribar nerazumevanja je v prepričanju, da je dovolj, če različne
razvijal tudi nove metode dokumentacije (Šribar 1974). stroke posamezen raziskovalni problem obravnavajo vsaka
Vendar pa je dejanski pomen odkritij z Otoka težko real- s svojega zornega kota in vsaka z lastnimi metodami, nato
no ovrednotiti, kajti celovite objave izkopavanj še vedno pa primerjajo rezultate. Takšna multidisciplinarnost samo
nimamo. To onemogoča kritično preverjanje že objavljenih še povečuje razhajanja in nezaupanje med vedami, namesto
opredelitev in interpretacij posameznih arhitekturnih osta- da bi se ob resničnem interdisciplinarnem delu medsebojno
lin, urbanističnega razvoja naselja in drobne materialne dopolnjevale in zbliževale (prim. Predovnik 1995, 74–77).
kulture. Potencial ostaja, saj vso dokumentacijo in drobno Objavljene interpretacije arheoloških podatkov s Sta-
gradivo hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije, poleg tega je naj- rega gradu nad Celjem se sicer tudi na nekaterih drugih
dišče ustrezno zaščiteno in so še vedno mogoče nadaljnje točkah kažejo kot problematične. Prepoznanih je bilo
arheološke raziskave. Nedavno je Vida Stare objavila re- deset “kulturnih horizontov” (osem gradbenih faz zidane
zultate izkopavanj v cerkvi sv. Nikolaja (Miklavža), edini arhitekture in dve predhodni fazi lesenih stavb), ki so jih
še stoječi stavbi na območju nekdanjega naselja. Izkopanih s pomočjo drobnih najdb, predvsem keramičnih, datirali
je bilo štiriinštirideset skeletnih pokopov iz srednjega in od sredine 10. do 17. stoletja in jih povezali s podatki
novega veka ter ostanki starejših stavbnih faz obstoječe iz pisnih virov (Bregant 1983, 40; Bregant 1984). Pred
cerkve, temelji zidov njene predhodnice in nekaj temeljev nastankom fevdalne utrdbe naj bi bil skalni pomol nad
iz rimskega obdobja, ki jih interpretirajo kot ostanke stavb sotočjem Savinje in Voglajne že poseljen; na njem naj bi
nekdanjega rečnega pristanišča (Stare 2000). S tem je zao- stalo utrjeno staroslovansko gradišče. Pred desetletjem je
kroženo objavo dočakalo prvo od treh izkopišč, ki so bila
na Otoku raziskana v letih od 1967 do 1984.18
19 Doslej so bila objavljena (delna) poročila o izkopa-
vanjih (npr. Bregant 1974; Bregant 1977), izbor izkopanih

pečnic (Bregant 1984), nekaj fragmentov “časovno oprede-
17 Šribar je sprva opredelil osem gradbenih faz (Šribar ljene” keramike (Šribar, Stare, Bregant 1974, 45–49), izbor
1968–1969, 34). keramičnih in kovinskih predmetov (Fugger Germadnik
18 Poleg cerkve še t. i. izkopno polje 1 na južnem in 1999a, passim; Guštin 2001f, passim) ter keramično gradivo
izkopno polje 2 na osrednjem delu naselja. iz sektorjev A in B (Brišnik 1999).

bil opravljen revizijski pregled gradiva iz t. i. sektorjev A in vsebino ali starost. Še preden je bil v slovenščino preve-
B, kjer naj bi bile odkrite strukture in lončenina iz prvega den izvirni priročnik (Harris 1989), so metodo uspešno
in drugega “stanovanjskega horizonta”, torej iz časa od 10. preizkusili pri zaščitnih izkopavanjih na Kapucinskem
do 12. stoletja. Revizija je pokazala, da med ohranjenim in vrtu v Kopru leta 1986–1987 (Cunja 1989; Cunja 1996;
pregledanim keramičnim gradivom ni odlomkov, ki bi bili sl. 12), vpeljali so jo tudi pri dolgoletnih izkopavanjih na
starejši od 12. stoletja, avtorica revizije pa je opozorila tudi Ljubljanskem gradu, ki so se pričela leta 1988 (Šinkovec
na težave, ki jih pri vzpostavljanju relativne kronologije in 1991; sl. 13), nato ponovno v Kopru pri izkopu notranjo-
vrednotenju gradiva povzroča tedanji način izkopavanja sti cerkve sv. Klare leta 1989 (Grosman 1991, 32–36) in
in dokumentiranja po poljubnih režnjih (Brišnik 1999, drugod.21 Vsa ta izkopavanja so bila sicer zaščitne narave,
269–270). Problematika vsekakor zahteva nadaljnje kritično potekala pa so na kompleksnih multiperiodnih najdiščih
ovrednotenje najdb in dokumentacije. s pomembnim ali celo prevladujočim deležem ostalin iz
Kljub navedenim poskusom sistematičnega raziskovalnega obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku.
dela je arheologija pri obravnavi zapuščine mlajših obdobij Količina zbranih podatkov, opravljenih raziskav in
še vedno pristajala na status metode in kritike virov, katerih pridobljenega drobnega gradiva je sčasoma sama na sebi
interpretacijo pa je prepuščala zgodovini ali umetnostni zahtevala ustreznejšo obravnavo arheološke dediščine
zgodovini. Stanje stroke v obdobju, ki smo ga v naslovu srednjega in novega veka. Sprva je vzbudila zanimanje
prejšnjega razdelka označili za obdobje pragmatizma, je le redkih posameznikov, v začetku devetdesetih let pa so
Božidar Slapšak leta 1987 kritično povzel z besedami: “Velja razmere dozorele tudi za uveljavitev arheologije obdobij
poudariti, da je pri nas k preučevanju materialnih virov za po zgodnjem srednjem veku na akademskem nivoju. Na
mlajša zgodovinska obdobja (po l. 1000) arheologija inter- pobudo profesorja Mitje Guština je bil v letu 1990/91 študij
pretacijsko pritegnjena še vedno zgolj kot pojasnjevalka arheologije na ljubljanski Filozofski fakulteti dopolnjen
vertikalnih razmerij (sosledja gradbenih faz oz. faz uporabe z novim predmetom, poimenovanim Arheologija mlaj-
pri stavbnih ostalinah: za to ima pač edina med historič- ših zgodovinskih obdobij (sl. 14; Novaković et al. 2004,
nimi vedami izdelano primerno stratigrafsko pa tipološko 97–100).22 Predmet je bil zasnovan tako, da je – sledeč
za vrednotenje gradiva v plasteh – metodo), sicer nastopa siceršnji strukturi študija, katerega osnovo tvorijo obdobni
zgolj kot pomožna tehnična disciplina, z izkopavanjem arheološki predmeti – zajel vsa obdobja po koncu zgodnjega
razkriva horizontalna razmerja na mikro ravni, njih razlaga srednjega veka oziroma vse od tradicionalno pojmovane
pa je prepuščena vedam, ki obvladujejo dominantni (pisni, zgornje časovne meje arheologije v 11. stoletju pa do so-
umetnostni) vir za ta obdobja. Takšno stanje je značilno dobnosti. Predmet je dejansko zaživel šele v študijskem letu
za 'fazo nekonceptualizirane prakse': arheologija mlajših 1993/94, ko so bili izvedeni prvi seminarji, dopolnjevala
zgodovinskih obdobij v Sloveniji še nima institucionalnega pa so jih občasna predavanja domačih in tujih gostujočih
zaledja. Za naše razmere izjemen je poskus v okviru projekta predavateljev (Guštin 1994).23 Že od leta 1992 dalje (do
Gutenwerth” (Slapšak 1987, 145 op. 3).
21 Dejstvo, da nobeno od omenjenih izkopavanj še ni
v celoti objavljeno, ne zanika njihovega pomena za arheo-

NOVI KONCEPTI IN ROJSTVO DISCIPLINE logijo mlajših obdobij in tudi ne zgodovinskega mesta, ki
ga imajo v metodološkem razvoju slovenske arheologije.
V osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja se je slovenska 22 Ta pojem je pri nas prvi uporabil Božidar Slapšak
arheologija pričela intelektualno odpirati proti anglosaškemu leta 1982 v svojem prispevku “O zgodovini in arheolo-
svetu, od koder je prevzela nekatere pobude za teoretsko
giji” v reviji Arheo (Slapšak 1981), kjer je opozoril, da
refleksijo, konceptni in metodološki razvoj. Leta 1981 usta-
je “razširitev predmeta arheologije na najmlajša zgodo-
novljena revija Slovenskega arheološkega društva, Arheo, je
vinska obdobja” mogoča le, če arheologijo in zgodovino
z objavljanjem izvirnih teoretskih prispevkov in prevodov
kot vedi razločujemo na osnovi različnosti njunih virov.
slovenske arheologe seznanjala z novimi (pa tudi ne več
V nasprotnem primeru je mogoče arheologijo kot “sin-
povsem novimi) pogledi ameriških in britanskih kolegov.
tetizirajočo in integrirajočo vedo” opredeliti zgolj na
Nove koncepte, nove interpretativne pristope in nenazadnje
podlagi razmejitve njenega delovnega področja v odnosu
nove metodologije so predstavljali tuji predavatelji, ki so
do zgodovine, torej v kronološkem smislu (Slapšak 1981,
gostovali na Oddelku za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete
52–53). Prav slednje izhodišče je vse od diskusije med
Univerze v Ljubljani,20 v lastnem raziskovalnem delu doma
in v mednarodnih projektih pa so jih praktično preizkušali Korošcem in Grafenauerjem v petdesetih letih prejšnjega
tudi učitelji oddelka sami. stoletja določalo razmerja med strokama in onemogočalo
Z razvojem arheologije mlajših obdobij je neločljivo vzpostavitev arheologije mlajših obdobij kot samostojne in
povezana uvedba pomembne metodološke novosti, ki je legitimne znanstvene (pod)discipline. Enak razmislek je
v slovensko arheologijo prav tako prišla z zahoda: metode botroval preimenovanju študijskega predmeta v letu 1995:
stratigrafskega izkopavanja. Dosledna uporaba te metodologije iz imena je bil izpuščen pridevnik “zgodovinskih”, saj je
namreč ne dopušča nobenega (vrednostnega) razlikovanja namreč implicitno potrjeval tradicionalno ločevanje na
pri obravnavi enot stratifikacije glede na njihovo kulturno arheološka in zgodovinska obdobja z vsemi negativnimi
posledicami, ki jih je imelo za razvoj vede.
23 Že nekaj let pred uradno uvedbo študijskega pred-
20 Prvi med njimi je bil Lewis Binford, ki je na Od- meta je imel Vinko Šribar na Oddelku za arheologijo
delku za arheologijo gostoval v študijskem letu 1985/86 predavanje z naslovom “Uvod v arheologijo visokega in
(Novaković et al. 2004, 82). poznega srednjega veka” (10. maja 1988).

1995) je profesor Guštin s študenti izkopaval srednjeveško stoletij po zgodnjem srednjem veku pri nas, K. Predovnik
utrdbo na Starem gradu nad Podbočjem (Predovnik 2003; pa je poskušala teoretsko opredeliti spoznavne možnosti
sl. 15) in v okviru seminarja iz arheologije prazgodovinskih historične arheologije v skladu s sodobnimi koncepti ma-
kovinskih obdobij obravnaval posamezne teme s področja terialne kulture, pismenosti in družbene teorije, značilnimi
arheologije mlajših obdobij.24 Polno izvajanje predmeta za t. i. poprocesno arheologijo.
skozi vse štiri letnike dodiplomskega študija se je sicer Kmalu so sledila nova seminarska in diplomska dela.
razvijalo postopoma in se je v celoti ustalilo šele v začetku Tako je med leti 1995 in 2008 študij na ljubljanski Filozofski
novega tisočletja. fakulteti z univerzitetno diplomo iz arheologije mlajših
V sklopu seminarja iz arheologije mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij zaključilo osemnajst arheologov in arheologinj,
obdobij so študentje v letu 1993/94 v sodelovanju z Me- magisterij sta pridobila dva arheologa, en arheolog in ena
stnim muzejem Ljubljana obravnavali pečnice, izkopane arheologinja pa sta pridobila tudi naziv doktorja oziroma
na Ljubljanskem gradu. Profesor in seminaristi so svoje doktorice znanosti (sl. 16).
delo predstavili javnosti z manjšo razstavo v Jakopičevem Leta 1995 je bil, spet na pobudo Mitje Guština, ustano-
razstavišču in tudi v knjižni obliki. Monografija z naslovom vljen Center za srednjeveške in novoveške študije Oddelka
“Ljubljanski grad. Pečnice” je izšla kot prvi zvezek v novi za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete (Novaković et al. 2004,
seriji Archaeologia historica Slovenica, ki jo je Oddelek 99–100). Leta 1996 je nastala njegova izpostava v Celju, ki
za arheologijo pričel izdajati z namenom, spodbuditi je nato v povezavi s Pokrajinskim muzejem Celje delovala
raziskovanje mlajših obdobij ter oblikovati platformo za do leta 2001. Center, ki ga je vodil profesor Guštin, je bil
objavljanje gradiva in raziskav, širjenje znanja in povezovanje “ustanovljen z namenom, da pospeši razvoj arheologije
vseh zainteresiranih raziskovalcev (Guštin, Horvat 1994).25 srednjega in novega veka na Slovenskem ter vzpodbudi
Že v letu 1995 sta sledili prvi dve diplomski deli iz obdelavo in objavo gradiva, ki je pozabljeno ležalo v mu-
arheologije mlajših obdobij. V obeh primerih gre za pre- zejskih depojih” (Guštin 2001e, 7). Ena ključnih pobud za
gledni študiji, ki naj bi nastajajočo disciplino utemeljili in ustanovitev Centra in še posebej njegove celjske izpostave
jo povezali z domačo in tujo raziskovalno tradicijo. Izčrpen je bila želja po celoviti obravnavi in objavi gradiva in po-
pregled in analizo arheoloških raziskav visokega in poznega datkov z izkopavanj v Celju, predvsem izkopavanj Oddelka
srednjega veka na Slovenskem je pripravil Tomaž Naber- za arheologijo na Starem gradu nad Celjem in izkopavanj
goj, ki je svoje diplomsko delo v celoti objavil v katalogu Zavoda za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine v Knežjem
razstave Narodnega muzeja “Gotika na Slovenskem – svet dvoru v Celju. Pobuda je bila uresničena le v manjši meri,
predmetov” (Nabergoj 1995). Konceptni razvoj historične saj so bili prav od obeh velikih izkopavanj ovrednoteni
arheologije v Evropi in Združenih državah Amerike je in objavljeni le manjši sklopi najdb (npr. Brišnik 1999a;
predstavila Katarina Predovnik (Predovnik 1995; prim. prispevki v Guštin 2001f ). Sodelavci Centra so poleg tega
Predovnik 2000). Značilno je, da sta oba avtorja zavzela dokumentirali ali tudi poskrbeli za objavo arheoloških najdb
nekakšno apologetsko držo, kajti rigidno tradicionalno z nekaterih drugih srednjeveških in novoveških najdišč,
pojmovanje arheologije kot antipoda in ne drugega jaza npr. gradov Slovenska Bistrica, Slovenske Konjice, Šalek,
zgodovine je zahtevalo jasno utemeljitev smisla arheolo- Podsreda, Žebnik, Stari grad nad Podbočjem, Zgornji stolp
ških raziskav v “zgodovinskih” obdobjih.26 T. Nabergoj je na Kranclju, samostanov Olimje, Žiče, Ptuj, mestnih jeder
opozoril predvsem na konkretne zagate zaradi premajhnega Slovenj Gradca, Ljubljane in Celja in podvodnih najdb iz
upoštevanja arheološkega potenciala materialne kulture Ljubljanice, Pirana in Sv. Ivana pri Umagu. Center je izpeljal
raziskovalni projekt Celjski knezi, pripravil je potujočo
24 Rezultat pregledno razstavo arheoloških raziskav srednjega veka
tega dela je med drugim tudi objava starih
na Štajerskem in v Prekmurju, leta 1998 pa je sodeloval s
izkopavanj na Starem gradu nad Podbočjem (Guštin et
Pokrajinskim muzejem Celje pri organizaciji odmevnega
al. 1993).
25 Doslej je v tej seriji poleg navedenega izšlo še pet mednarodnega simpozija “Celjski grofje – stara tema, nova
spoznanja” (Fugger Germadnik 1999a) in razstave “Grofje
zvezkov (Guštin, Predovnik 1997; Guštin 2001f; Predovnik
Celjski” (Fugger Germadnik 1999b). Od dokončne ukinitve
2003; Podpečan 2006; Predovnik et al. 2008).
26 Zdi se, da se arheologija mlajših obdobij te drže še celjske izpostave leta 2003 je dejavnost Centra zamrla.
Institucionalno infrastrukturo arheologije mlajših obdo-
dolgo ne bo otresla, vsemu razvoju in uspehom navkljub.
bij dopolnjujeta še kustodiata za (visoki in) pozni srednji
Če se je slovenska arheologija že bolj ali manj sprijaznila
vek v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije in v Mestnem muzeju
z raziskovanjem srednjega in zgodnjega novega veka, pa v Ljubljani, ki skrbita za arheološko premično dediščino
ostaja ambivalentna do raziskav novejšega časa (prim. blok obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku, jo raziskujeta in
prispevkov o posrednjeveški arheologiji v 25. številki revije javnosti predstavljata v sklopu stalnih in občasnih razstav.
Arheo). Kot normo jih predpisuje novi Zakon o varstvu Prav tako ne gre pozabiti temeljne slovenske raziskovalne
kulturne dediščine, vendar je tako med arheologi kakor ustanove za področje arheologije, Inštituta za arheologijo
tudi med predstavniki sorodnih disciplin (zgodovine, kul- ZRC SAZU. Njegova raziskovalna dejavnost je bila dolgo
turne antropologije, umetnostne zgodovine) poznavanje in usmerjena le v raziskave “tradicionalnih” arheoloških
razumevanje tega segmenta arheološkega raziskovanja še obdobij, pač v skladu z usmeritvami in nalogami, ki jih
premajhno in stališča zato neredko odklonilna. Diskusije s je ob ustanovitvi tedanji Arheološki sekciji pri Zgodovin-
sorodnimi vedami sicer arheologija mlajših obdobij sploh še skem inštitutu začrtal Josip Korošec leta 1948: “arheološko
ni odprla. Percepcija arheologije s stališča teh strok zaenkrat znanstveno raziskovanje Slovenije, časovno od mlajše
ostaja v okvirih, ki jih je že sredi dvajsetega stoletja začrtal kamnite dobe /neolita/ do naselitve Slovanov in zgodnji
Bogo Grafenauer (Grafenauer 1951; Grafenauer 1960).

srednji vek do vključno XI stoletja”. Četudi so že leta 1989 dejavnost (sl. 18). V zadnjih dvajsetih letih je izšlo več
nameravali svoje delovanje razširiti tudi onkraj te časovne celovitih objav terenskih raziskav, ki vsebujejo katalog in
meje (Pleterski 1997, 88), se to ni zgodilo vse do začetka vrednotenje drobnega gradiva,29 številne tematske študije
novega tisočletja, ko so končno pridobili novega sodelavca o posameznih skupinah artefaktov30 pa tudi problemske
– raziskovalca za področje arheologije poznega srednjega razprave o arheoloških raziskavah urbanih naselij (Stokin
in novega veka.27 Nenazadnje je v minulem desetletju z 1995; Cunja 1998; Guštin 2001a; Guštin 2001c), produkciji
objavljanjem člankov s področja arheologije mlajših ob- keramike na slovenskem ozemlju (Župančič, Cunja 2000;
dobij pričel tudi Arheološki vestnik, osrednja slovenska Mileusnić 2008; Predovnik 2009) ter pregledi zgodovine,
arheološka revija, ki nastaja na inštitutu. Lahko rečemo, konceptov in stanja stroke (Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Na-
da je bil to na simbolni ravni pomemben prelom, ki je bergoj 1995; Guštin 1999a).
novo disciplino “ustoličil” kot legitimen in polnopraven Priložnost za izmenjavo znanja in izkušenj so prinesla
segment arheologije. tematska srečanja in posvetovanja, še posebno tista z
Leta 2003 je nastala še ena ustanova, ki je dejavno posegla mednarodno udeležbo. Pogovor o arheološki dediščini
na polje arheologije srednjega in novega veka. V okviru srednjega in novega veka sta ob razstavi “Drobci nekega
Znanstveno-raziskovalnega središča Koper je bil namreč vsakdana” na gradu Kromberk januarja 1995 pripravila
ustanovljen Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja pod vodstvom Goriški muzej in Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofske fa-
Mitje Guština, katerega dejavnost je sicer multiperiodna in kultete Univerze v Ljubljani. V sodelovanju z muzejem iz
interdisciplinarna (sl. 17). V okviru večletnega evropskega italijanskega Vidma in Furlanskim arheološkim društvom
projekta Dediščina Serenissime so tako sodelavci inštituta z sta Goriški muzej in Oddelek za arheologijo v okviru
italijanskimi, hrvaškimi in avstrijskimi partnerji preučevali posveta o poznosrednjeveški in renesančni keramiki v
materialno zapuščino iz časa beneške republike na vzhodni severovzhodni Italiji in sosednjih deželah, ki je potekal v
jadranski obali (prim. npr. Guštin et al. 2006). Posebno Vidmu marca 1996, organizirala poseben blok predavanj
bogata je publicistična dejavnost Inštituta (Preložnik 2008): slovenskih raziskovalcev (Buora et al. 1999). Decembra
v zbirki Annales Mediterranea je doslej izšlo že šest knjig 1997 je sledil posvet o raziskavah visoko- in poznosre-
s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij (Guštin 2004; La- dnjeveške ter zgodnjenovoveške keramike na Slovenskem
zar 2004; Mileusnić 2004; Zagarčanin 2004; Guštin et al.
2006; Lazar, Willmott 2006; Guštin et al. 2008), tematski
prispevki – diplomska in druga dela študentov kulturnega
dediščinarstva na Fakulteti za humanistične študije Uni- Šaleški dolini “med romaniko in barokom” (Ravnikar 1998),
verze na Primorskem – pa izhajajo tudi v novi periodični o Celjskih grofih (Fugger Germadnik 1999b), o srednjeveški
publikaciji Studia universitatis hereditati (Guštin 2008). in novoveški keramiki s smetišč na morskem dnu pri Sv.
Uveljavitev arheologije mlajših obdobij kot suverene Ivanu blizu Umaga in v Piranu (Guštin 2004), o raziskavah
discipline v akademskem okolju je šla z roko v roki s v Škofji Loki (Štukl 2004), nedavno pa denimo tudi razstavi
spremembami v praksi. Raziskave in gradivo so bili vse “Zakladi Narodnega muzeja Slovenije” (Nabergoj 2006) in
pogosteje predstavljani na posebnih občasnih in stalnih “Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke” (Turk et al. 2009)
razstavah, 28 izrazito se je okrepila tudi publicistična v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije.
29 Npr. objave izkopavanj na najdiščih Stari grad nad
27 S staroslovanskim obdobjem se tako končuje tudi Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993; Predovnik 2003), grad Šalek
pregled arheologije slovenskega ozemlja v monografiji (Brišnik, Ravnikar 1999), graščina v Polhovem Gradcu (Že-
“Zakladi tisočletij”, ki so jo pripravili raziskovalci inšti- leznikar 2002), pastirski stan na Veliki planini (Železnikar
tuta s sodelavci in je izšla leta 1999 (Aubelj, Božič, Dular 2006), cerkev sv. Jerneja v Šentjerneju (Predovnik et al.
1999). Gre za pomembno poljudnoznanstveno delo, ki je 2008), Mali grad v Kamniku (Štular 2009) idr.
bogato ilustrirano in namenjeno čim širši uveljavitvi arhe- 30 Gl. npr. razprave o lončenih pečnicah (Stare 1993;
ologije med laično publiko. Knjigo lahko razumemo tudi Guštin, Horvat 1994, Guštin 2001d), srednjeveški lončenini
kot prispevek arheologije k oblikovanju nove nacionalne (Nabergoj 1999; Kos, Nabergoj 2000; Štular 2005; Štular
zavesti po osamosvojitvi Slovenije, četudi to ni bil izrecni 2007), keramičnih čašah in lončkih (Guštin 1999b; Guštin
motiv za njen nastanek. Pri tem pa ta “nacionalni projekt” 2001b), lončenini z visokogorskih najdišč v Kamniško-
ne odstopa od starih, tedaj tudi v Sloveniji že preseženih Savinjskih Alpah (Horvat 1996; Cevc 2000; Predovnik
pojmovanj o časovni zamejenosti arheologije. 2006), okrašeni namizni lončenini (Cunja 2000; Cunja
28 Če omenimo le nekatere: razstava o izkopavanjih 2001; Guštin 2004; Predovnik 2009), španski majoliki
na Kapucinskem vrtu v Kopru (Guštin, Cunja 1989; Cunja (Guštin, Gelichi 2001), steklenem posodju (Kos, Žvanut
1989), o lončenini in steklovini iz severnoprimorskih gra- 1994; Lazar 2001; Petek 2004), kovinskih predmetih (Stare
dov (Žbona-Trkman et al. 1991), priložnostne razstave o 2002), orožju (Nabergoj 2001; Štukl 2007; Rozman 2008)
opravljenih raziskavah, ki jih je v Kulturno-informacijskem in številne druge tematske prispevke. O srednjeveškem
centru Križanke pripravljal Mestni muzej Ljubljana (npr. denarništvu, kovnicah in novcih prim. npr. Kos P. 1996 in
Mesto pod muzejem leta 2000), razstava “Gotika na Slo- Šemrov 2001. V artefaktne študije so že bile vpeljane tudi
venskem – svet predmetov” (Lozar Štamcar 1995), razstava sodobne analitske metode naravoslovnih ved: nedestruk-
o lončarstvu na Šentjernejskem polju skozi čas (Križ et al. tivne jedrske spektroskopske metode so bile uporabljene
1996), o arheoloških raziskavah najdišč mlajših obdobij za ugotavljanje kemične sestave srednjeveškega steklenega
na Štajerskem (Guštin, Predovnik 1997), stalna razstava posodja (Šmit, Kos 2004) in srednjeveških novcev (Šmit,
Pomurskega muzeja (Balažic, Kerman 1997), razstava o Šemrov 2006).

v organizaciji Narodnega muzeja Slovenije.31 Mednarodna in doline Reke (Bizjak 2006), 33 in Benjamin Štular pri
in interdisciplinarna udeležba je zaznamovala simpozij o interpretaciji dinamike človekovega “osvajanja” in rabe
Celjskih grofih, ki ga je Pokrajinski muzej Celje v sode- visokogorja na primeru blejskih planin (Štular 2006) ter v
lovanju s Centrom za srednjeveške in novoveške študije analizah logike prostorske umestitve in stavbnega razvoja
pripravil maja 1998 (Fugger Germadnik 1999a). Slovenski kamniškega Malega gradu (Štular 2009). Disciplinarne
raziskovalci so začeli dejavneje sodelovati s tujimi kolegi, meje vseh vrst pa poskuša premakniti in celo preseči
posebno še iz sosednjih dežel Italije, Avstrije in Hrvaške.32 študija Blaža Podpečana o novoveških nagrobnikih na
V splošnem lahko rečemo, da dosedanji raziskovalni območju Spodnje Savinjske doline, v kateri je uporabil
pristopi in zastavljeni cilji arheologije mlajših obdobij ne novejše pristope t. i. emotivne arheologije. Nagrobnike je
sežejo onkraj tradicionalno uveljavljenih okvirov kultur- obravnaval kot kompleksne vire z materialnimi, likovnimi
nozgodovinske in tipološko-kronološke paradigme, ki še in verbalnimi (pisnimi) prvinami, ki sooblikujejo celovit
vedno prepoznavno določata večji del slovenske arheološke sistem komunikacij. Prepričljivo je pojasnil družbeno
produkcije. Privlačna zamisel, da bi arheologijo mlajših vpetost in kulturno določenost izrazito osebnih čustev
obdobij že ob samem nastanku zasnovali na drugačnih in dozdevno individualiziranih intimnih izkušenj, ki se
izhodiščih, bolj reflektirano in na sodobnejših teoretskih manifestirajo v materialnih praksah žalovanja in ohranjanja
podmenah (Predovnik 1995 in 2000), ostaja skorajda v spomina na pokojnike (Podpečan 2006).
celoti neuresničena. Seveda je na nek način razumljivo, Izredno hitro je v zadnjih dveh desetletjih naraščalo
da je levji delež raziskovalnih naporov protagonistov število opravljenih in z objavami v strokovnih publikacijah
mlade discipline usmerjen v vzpostavljanje osnovne baze dokumentiranih terenskih raziskav, posebno še od druge
podatkov (beri: objavljanje terenskih raziskav in artefaktnih polovice devetdesetih let dalje (sl. 8). Medtem ko smo jih
zbirov) in temeljnih datacijskih orodij (tipokronologij). za obdobje 1980–1989 našteli petinpetdeset, jih je bilo v
In vendar beležimo tudi drugačne poskuse, ki v študij desetletju 1990–1999 triindevetdeset in v dve leti krajšem
srednjega in novega veka vnašajo nove koncepte. Značil- obdobju 2000–2007 že sto šestindvajset. Seveda je splošna
no je, da so povečini povezani s prostorskimi študijami. uveljavitev terenskega raziskovanja najdišč z ostalinami
Katarina Predovnik je v svoji študiji o razvoju poselitve iz obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku tudi posledica
na območju nekdanje kartuzije Žiče uporabila koncept sistematičnega izobraževalnega in raziskovalnega dela v
krajine – in arhitekture – kot udejanjenja idejnih modelov akademski sferi, vendar obstajajo še drugi razlogi za tako
in je svoje pojasnitve utemeljila na (implicitno) fenome- visok trend rasti.
noloških izhodiščih (Predovnik 1997; Predovnik 1998). Kot smo že omenili, se je slovenska arheologija od
Koncept krajine kot polja neposredne čutne zaznave in konca osemdesetih let dalje seznanjala z metodološkimi
izkustvenega dojemanja prostora je podrobneje predstavil novostmi v terenskem raziskovanju. O vlogi metode strati-
Dimitrij Mlekuž. Na konkretnem študijskem primeru grafskih izkopavanj za nediskriminatorno obravnavo vseh
modeliranja zvočne podobe okolice Polhovega Gradca v obdobij smo že govorili. Podobno “obdobno nevtralne”
predindustrijski dobi je praktično preveril možnost upo- so različne prospekcijske metode, ki omogočajo prepo-
rabe GIS-orodij za prostorske študije, v katerih prostor znavanje in nedestruktivno dokumentiranje površinske-
ni razumljen kot abstraktna in objektivna danost, marveč ga in podpovršinskega arheološkega zapisa ter njegovo
je osrediščen okrog subjekta – človeka, ki ta prostor za- interpretacijo v smislu preteklih poselitvenih vzorcev in
znava in je z njim v interakciji (Mlekuž 2002a in 2002b). dinamike rabe prostora (prim. Novaković 2003): terenski
Analitska orodja GIS sta na inovativen način uporabila: pregledi, geofizikalne metode, namenska aerosnemanja in
Matjaž Bizjak, ki je v svojem diplomskem delu obravnaval interpretacija zračnih posnetkov34 idr. (sl. 19) Dokončno
sistem protiturške obrambe na območju Pivškega podolja uveljavitev teh pristopov in metod pa slovenska arheologija
dolguje projektu varovanja arheološke dediščine ob gradnji
avtocestnega omrežja, v okviru katerega je bila leta 1994
31 Prim. izdelana metodologija za izvedbo predhodnih in zaščitnih
Nabergoj 1999, 41 in tematski blok petih član-
raziskav, vrednotenje arheološkega potenciala in vključeva-
kov o preučevanju srednjeveške in novoveške keramike na
nje arheologije v postopke načrtovanja in izvedbe posegov
Slovenskem v reviji Argo 43/1 (Ljubljana 2000, str. 29–74).
32 Predvsem imamo v mislih mednarodne projekte in v prostor (Djurić 2003b). Pri izvedbi teh raziskav so bolj
ali manj intenzivno sodelovale vse slovenske arheološke
tematska posvetovanja, ki jih od leta 2003 izvaja Inštitut
ustanove in tudi skorajda vsi v Sloveniji dejavni arheolo-
za dediščino Sredozemlja (prim. npr. Guštin et al. 2006). gi. Predpisana metodologija je kmalu postala uveljavljen
Oddelek za arheologijo ljubljanske Filozofske fakultete je
poleg tega sodeloval z avstrijskimi kolegi pri organizaciji
in izvedbi posvetovanja o motah in sorodnih utrdbah 33 Ta študija je tako rekoč dosledno uresničila zamisli
oktobra 2006 v Holleneggu pri Deutschlandsbergu na av- o “analizi prostorskih razmerij na regionalni ravni”, ki jih
strijskem Štajerskem (Felgenhauer-Schmiedt et al. 2007). je že leta 1987 artikuliral Božidar Slapšak v svojem pri-
Dolgo tradicijo strokovnih stikov in skupnih projektov spevku o taborih v sistemu protiturške obrambe (Slapšak
imajo sodelavci Goriškega muzeja z italijanskimi kolegi 1987, 144–145).
iz Mestnega muzeja v Vidmu. Omeniti velja tudi uspešno 34 Uporabo aerofotografije in še posebej izvajanje
čezmejno sodelovanje Mestne občine Maribor, Pokrajin- namenskih snemanj in prospekcij iz zraka je omogočilo
skega muzeja Maribor in Mestnega muzeja Varaždin v šele odprtje zračnega prostora po nastanku nove države. Za
projektu Bastion v programu evropske pobude Interreg prva odkritja dotlej neznanih poznosrednjeveških najdišč
IIIA v letih 2004–2006. gl. Grosman 1996, 70–73; prim. tudi Kerman 1999.

standard, ne le ob raziskavah na trasah avtocest, marveč Na tem mestu ne želimo zapisovati programskih izhodišč
tudi sicer. Razvoju t. i. preventivne arheologije je z novim za nadaljnji razvoj. Opozorimo le na nekaj šibkih točk. Ena
Zakonom o varstvu kulturne dediščine iz leta 2008 sledila ključnih ovir, ki jih bo stroka morala čimprej premostiti, je
še zakonodaja. pomanjkanje kvalitetnih objav primarnih podatkov, kajti
Posledica novega razumevanja vloge arheologije v po- brez ustrezne empirične baze bo težko napredovala. Vse
segih v prostor je izrazito povečan obseg dela, s tem pa se intenzivnejša terenska raziskovalna dejavnost ob starih
je seveda povečalo tudi število evidentiranih in raziskanih dezideratih (Otok pri Dobravi, Stari grad nad Celjem)
najdišč in drugih ostalin iz mlajših obdobij. V sklopu neugodno razmerje med številom raziskanih in številom
avtocestnega projekta velja omeniti odkritja poznosre- objavljenih najdišč in artefaktnih zbirov le še poslabšuje.
dnjeveških in zgodnjenovoveških naselbinskih ostankov Druga izrazita pomanjkljivost je zaenkrat zares skrajno
na najdiščih Gornje njive pri Dolgi vasi (Kerman 2008), omejena uporaba analitskih orodij naravoslovnih ved pri
Obrežje (Mason 2003) in Leskovec pri Celju (Brišnik et al. preučevanju artefaktov, tafonomskih procesov, demograf-
2006). V Medlogu so bili raziskani ostanki dvorca Forsthof skih36 in okoljskih podatkov.37 Artefaktne študije temeljijo
(Tomažič 2003), v Valmarinu pri Spodnjih Škofijah pa izključno na tipološkem in komparativističnem pristopu,
gospodarsko poslopje nekdanje pristave koprske škofije redke izjeme, ki vključujejo naravoslovne analize, pa so
(Cunja 2003; sl. 20). Na lokaciji Gošča na Dolenjskem je premalo reflektirane, da bi uspele v polni meri izkoristiti
bila odkrita novoveška opekarna (Žižek 2003), na Mrzlem interpretativni potencial pridobljenih podatkov.
polju pri Ivančni Gorici (Nabergoj 2007), na Šušcu pri Končno lahko ugotovimo, da se slovenska arheologija
Razdrtem (Svoljšak 2000–2004) in še na nekaterih drugih pri obravnavi mlajših obdobij doslej še ni otresla “gospostva
najdiščih pa stari infrastrukturni objekti – cestišča in poljske zgodovinskega vira” in se le redko loteva suverenih, pre-
poti, odpadne jame, poljske meje ipd. Še najbolj pogosto mišljenih in prvenstveno na materialnih virih utemeljenih
so srednjeveške in novoveške najdbe, evidentirane ob interpretacij. Takšna drža je brez dvoma znak začetniških
predhodnih arheoloških raziskavah, “zgolj” razpršena sled težav in siceršnjega pomanjkanja teoretskega premisleka
gospodarske rabe prostora, denimo kmetijskih dejavnosti v slovenski arheologiji.
in z njimi povezanega “smetenja” krajine. Najbrž je še prezgodaj, da bi lahko realno ovrednotili
Število novih odkritij dodatno povečuje vse intenzivnejše domet in globino učinkov, ki jih za širše razumevanje narave
arheološko raziskovanje podvodnih najdišč, posebno še po in predmeta arheologije ima in jih bo še imelo “premikanje
ustanovitvi Skupine za podvodno arheologijo pri Zavodu za meja” z vzpostavljanjem nove discipline. Verjamemo pa,
varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije (prim. npr. Podvodna da je ta razvoj za arheološko vedo kot celoto lahko samo
arh. Slov. 1, 1982; Podvodna arh. Slov. 2, 1984; Bitenc, Knific koristen in celo nujen. Sili jo namreč v razmislek o temelj-
1997; Gaspari, Erič 2008). Med najdbami, ki so tako ali nih podmenah arheološkega dela, njegovih spoznavnih
drugače “končale” v morju, rekah ali jezerih, je seveda veliko možnostih in omejitvah ter arheologijo ob neposrednem
odlično ohranjenih predmetov iz mlajših obdobij, ki – četudi srečevanju in prepletanju s sorodnimi disciplinami usmerja
izhajajo iz specifičnih kontekstov – pomembno dopolnjujejo k bolj integralnemu in hkrati kompleksnemu pojmovanju
naše poznavanje preteklosti po materialnih virih.35 preteklosti.
OB KONCU NEKEGA ZAČETKA 36 Doslej so bile objavljene antropološke analize le z

dveh grobišč s pokopi iz mlajših obdobij: farne cerkve v
Opisani razvoj arheoloških raziskav obdobij po zgo-
Kranju (Leben-Seljak 1996) in cerkve sv. Jerneja v Šen-
dnjem srednjem veku lahko seveda ocenjujemo različno.
tjerneju (Leben-Seljak 1999).
Če ga presojamo z merili vodilnih raziskovalnih okolij, 37 Edina objavljena študija te vrste je analiza živalskih
kot sta denimo britanska in severnoameriška arheologija,
kostnih ostankov z najdišča Otok pri Dobravi (Bartosi-
se morda zdi zapoznel in neustrezen. Če pa ga umestimo
ewicz 2006).
v kontekst srednjeevropskih arheoloških tradicij in upo-
števamo pregovorno majhnost slovenske arheologije (v
geografskem, kadrovskem in finančnem oziru), tedaj se
izkupiček dosedanjih prizadevanj, posebno v zadnjih dveh
desetletjih, vendarle zdi bolj zadovoljiv. Katarina Predovnik
Oddelek za arheologijo
Filozofska fakulteta
Univerza v Ljubljani
35 Dragocene podatke o potrošnji in celo proizvodnji Aškerčeva 2
dekorativnega namiznega posodja na vzhodni jadranski 1000 Ljubljana
obali tako na primer prinašajo najdbe s podvodnih sme- [email protected]
tišč pri Piranu in v bližini Umaga (Guštin 2004). Skorajda
neizčrpen vir podatkov, ki jih še nismo niti približno
ovrednotili, je seveda predvsem struga Ljubljanice (Turk et Tomaž Nabergoj
al.2009). Nekatere skupine predmetov, kot so denimo meči Narodni muzej Slovenije
(prim. Nabergoj 2001), drugi večji kosi bojne opreme in Prešernova 20
orodja, jedilni noži z okrašenimi ročaji ipd., so v običajnih SI-1000 Ljubljana
arheoloških kontekstih redko, če sploh, zastopane. [email protected]

Archaeological Research Into The Periods, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Research Into The Periods, 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Research Into The Periods, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SLOVENSKA AKADEMIJA ZNANOSTI IN UMETNOSTI

Razred za zgodovinske in družbene vede

ZNANSTVENORAZISKOVALNI CENTER SAZU

zacetek_AV_61.indd 1 11.11.2010 10:36:19

Izdala in založila / Published by Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti in / and

Glavna urednica / Editor-in-chief Marjeta Šašel Kos

Izvršna urednica / Managing editor Andreja Dolenc Vičič

Prelom / DTP Mateja Belak

Naslov uredništva / Address Arheološki vestnik, Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU,

E-naslov / E-mail [email protected]

Spletni naslov / Website http://av.zrc-sazu.si

Tisk / Printed by Formatisk d. o. o., Ljubljana

Naklada / Printrun 750 izvodov / copies

zacetek_AV_61.indd 2 12.11.2010 12:59:58

Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS: Cernunos v Sloveniji? (Povzetek) ..........................................................................186

Ivan KNEZOVIĆ: Čaščenje Savusa in Nemeze v Andavtoniji (Povzetek) ............................................. 201

Helga SEDLMAYER: “Tuja domovina” – avtohtono in priseljeno prebivalstvo v vzhodnem Noriku v

Ante ŠKEGRO: Naronska škofija (Ecclesia Naronitana) (Povzetek) ...................................................... 244

Katarina PREDOVNIK in Tomaž NABERGOJ: Arheološke raziskave obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem

Knjižne ocene in prikazi

Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta

Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta (Tina MILAVEC) ............................................................314

zacetek_AV_61.indd 3 12.11.2010 12:59:58

Marjeta ŠAŠEL KOS: Cernunnos in Slovenia? . ..................................................................................... 175

Helga SEDLMAYER: “Fremde Heimat” – Autochthones und Allochthones in Ostnoricum während

Ante ŠKEGRO: The Diocese of Narona (Ecclesia Naronitana) . .............................................................229

Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta

Bibliographia archaeologica Slovenica selecta (Tina MILAVEC) ............................................................314

zacetek_AV_61.indd 4 12.11.2010 12:59:58

zacetek_AV_61.indd 5 11.11.2010 10:36:20

Archaeological research into the periods

INTRODUCTION a rightful place in Slovenian archaeology, along

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 245 10.11.2010 13:31:49

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 246 10.11.2010 13:31:49

under study, and the understanding and defini-

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 247 10.11.2010 13:31:50

Furthermore, Müllner’s research into the history

later dated to the 15th or the 16th century (Smolej 1953),

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 248 10.11.2010 13:31:51

historical ancestors. This meant that historical events,

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 249 10.11.2010 13:31:51

Period. He emphasised that the medieval, post-

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 250 10.11.2010 13:31:52

years later, Slovenia acquired its own institution

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 251 10.11.2010 13:31:53

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 252 10.11.2010 13:31:53

of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 253 10.11.2010 13:31:54

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 254 10.11.2010 13:31:54

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 255 10.11.2010 13:31:54

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 256 10.11.2010 13:31:55

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 257 10.11.2010 13:31:55

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 258 10.11.2010 13:31:55

pots for everyday use to what is commonly called

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 259 10.11.2010 13:31:56

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 260 10.11.2010 13:31:56

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 261 10.11.2010 13:31:57

Predovnik_AV_61.indd 262 10.11.2010 13:31:58