Wissen und Macht im archäologischen Diskurs. Die Chronologie der Oppidazeit

Abstract

The intention of the paper is less to recall to mind the settlement history of southern Germany in the late Iron Age ‒ the 2nd/1st century B.C., the era of the Oppida ‒ let alone weigh up fine-chronology arguments against each other. Its aim is more to provide an overview of around 120 years of research history in order to show that archaeological research is not an innocent search for the truth, but a product of society, dependent on socio-cultural and political conditions. A fitting example for this is the post-1945 German archaeology of the Iron Age, which was characterised on the one hand by the radical break with the research on the ancient Germans undertaken under National Socialism, and on the other by the continuity of academic traditions such as the ethno-historical interpretation of ‘archaeological cultures‘. These two perspectives characterised ‘Oppidum Manching‘, the major new project which began in 1955. The discussion centered on two key aspects, the chronology and the question of a Celtic-Roman cultural continuity which is directly dependent thereon. Although it had been obvious since the 1930s that the end of the Oppida would also have meant a massive drop in population because ‒ in contrast to Gaul ‒ all archaeological trace of a cultural synthesis is lacking on the right-hand side of the Rhine, the leading Iron Age researchers of the first generation stuck unerringly to the postulate of a population continuity between the late La Tène period and the early Roman Imperial Era. The basis of their argument remained a chronology which depended not on empirically gained archaeological parameters, but on historical events documented in written records. Later attempts to provide a scientific foundation for this continuity failed due to the lack of sufficient data. Archaeologically justified counter-arguments met with ignorance or even aggressive rejection right from the start. All this throws up the question from a history of science perspective as to why and how knowledge which is methodologically so questionable could take root and become an unquestionable ‘truth‘ which survived to the next generation and the one after that. An answer is provided by M. Foucault’s approach to discourse theory with its emphasis on the power wielded by the academic discipline. A timeline through six phases of the discourse history on the chronology and continuity of the late Iron Age in southern Germany reveals which authorities and which players exercised this power and the methods they employed to maintain it. The discourse has changed only during the last 20 years or so, and the term paradigm shift can be applied only for the last ten years approximately, i. e. new chronological findings which are compatible with a discontinuity are gradually gaining the upper hand. The continuity discourse in the post-1945 archaeology of the Iron Age is one example which could be transferred to many areas of research: an example for scientific traditions which were damaged under National Socialism, but like all such damage have never been given any thought after 1945 and were therefore defended with all the means available to the disciplinary power of the old German university structure wherein professors wielded sole power; an example for the power of the elites to control ‘what can be said and what can be thought‘, to impose sanctions for knowledge which deviated from this and thus prevent scientific progress.