Archaeological Cultures

In the absence of written sources, archaeological discoveries have become the main source for reconstructions of the history, culture, and ethnicity of early medieval society in the Carpathian-Danubian regions. Archaeological cultures have been invented for the sake of the systematization, analysis, and evaluation of discoveries. However, attempts to draw a direct connection between archaeological cultures and ethnic groups have not always been sufficiently substantiated. Ethnic identities are important social components, but they are not typically directly represented in material culture or social structures. Ethnic constructions have thus gradually become controversial topics in archaeology. The historiographical debates mostly refer to interpretations of archaeological discoveries in the context of the concepts of “archaeological cultures” and “ethnic groups.” The Carpathian-Danubian space historically was not only a transit territory for nomadic populations from the east to Central and Southeastern Europe, but also an active area of cultural and ethnic interference. Thus, the ethnic and cultural attribution of archaeological discoveries from this region presents a difficult problem to solve. The attempts of archaeologists and historians to make cultural and ethnic evaluations of early medieval archaeological discoveries have been influenced by political situations, trends, and interests, as archaeological discoveries have been often used in a speculative way by politicians to justify annexations and territorial claims.

On one hand, there has been an attempt to show the regional peculiarities of archaeological cultures, but also to appreciate their homogeneity and uniformity. However, in the context of addressing problems regarding the continuity of habitation and ethnogenesis, archaeological cultures have been identified with certain groups of populations— the Romanic, the Slavs, the Avars, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, the Romanians, and so on. The ethnic background of archaeological cultures is difficult to evaluate because they mostly reflect the material, rather than the ethnic, condition of society. The characteristic features of certain categories of pieces, such as ceramics, for example, may have ethnic relevance, but archaeologists cannot solve the problems of identity based solely on these materials. Archaeological pieces highlight the material aspects of culture and not the ones related to the mentality, spirituality, or language of those who had produced and used them. The concept of archaeological culture is also much broader than its association with a specific ethnic identity. The more so as ethnic identity is constantly changing.