Archaeological research into the periods following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia
Katarina PREDOVNIK and Tomaž NABERGOJ
Izvleček
Avtorja predstavljata arheološke raziskave obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku v Sloveniji od prvih začetkov ob koncu 19. stoletja do sedanjosti. Ključne raziskovalne projekte in usmeritve, institucionalne okvire in temeljne koncepte, ki so določali razvoj t. i. arheologije mlajših obdobij, pojasnjujeta v kontekstu sočasnega razvoja slovenske arheologije ter družbenih okoliščin, v katerih stroka deluje. Posebej opozarjata na razmerja med arheologijo na eni ter zgodovino in umetnostno zgodovino na drugi strani, saj so ključna za razumevanje vloge arheologije pri raziskovanju obdobij, ki so bogato dokumentirana s pisnimi viri.
Ključne besede: arheologija mlajših obdobij, arheologija srednjega veka, arheologija novega veka, zgodovina vede
Abstract
The authors outline the archaeological research into the periods following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia, from its beginnings in the late 19'h century up to the present. The key research projects and orientations, institutional frameworks and the main concepts that have been determining the development of the archaeology of these later periods are explained within the context of the development of Slovenian archaeology and the social circumstances that surround the field. The authors point out the relations between archaeology on the one hand and history and art history on the other, seeing them as vital to understanding archaeology's role in researching periods that are well documented in written sources.
Keywords: archaeology of later periods, medieval archaeology, post-medieval archaeology, disciplinary history
INTRODUCTION
Although fully established as an independent branch of archaeology only as recently as the 1990s, archaeological study in Slovenia of the periods following the Early Middle Ages boasts more than 110 years of history and an active development in the last two decades (Nabergoj 1995, 72). This certainly calls for a presentation and evaluation of the past development and achievements of Slovenian archaeology of later periods, as well as its problems and perspectives. And it is only right that this presentation should be published in the main Slovenian archaeological journal. Complementing the overviews published in the jubilee fiftieth issue of Arheološki vestnik more than ten years ago, this text symbolically acknowledges that archaeological study of more recent periods has
a rightful place in Slovenian archaeology, along with the prehistoric, classical, Roman provincial and early medieval archaeology.
Let us take this opportunity to point out again the terminological issues encountered when naming the branch of archaeology that we are describing (cf. Nabergoj 1995, 100-102; Štular 2008, 79-80; Predovnik 2008b, 81-82). The archaeological treatment of the periods following the Early Middle Ages logically continues the established classification of the discipline that follows the periodisation scheme established by historiography. It therefore stands to reason that early medieval archaeology should be followed by high and late medieval archaeology, then by post-medieval archaeology, archaeology of the (Early) Modern Period and ultimately even by contemporary archaeology. Actually, all of these terms are in use within the various archaeologi-
cal communities both in Slovenia and throughout Europe when discussing specific chronologically defined research areas.
With regard to the medieval period, we generally only differentiate between early medieval archaeology and late medieval archaeology, while the High Middle Ages are left out of the naming process. Actually, this dual differentiation is more in line with the development of material culture than is the historians' triple scheme. It is supported by the great changes that occurred within the social and economic structures on the establishment of the feudal system - by the universal rise of Christianity and the Church as a key social and political force. These processes left a distinct mark on material culture, primarily in the form of changing funeral rites on the one hand and the emergence of the feudal architecture on the other. We would thus be justified in speaking of an archaeology of the feudal era that would encompass the High and the Late Middle Ages in the narrower sense, and in the broader sense also the following period up until the dissolution of feudal institutions in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Of the other current concepts, at least the archaeology of capitalism should be mentioned, which encompasses also the very roots of the system in the 16th and 17th centuries (Johnson 1996).
In German-speaking countries and environments rooted in the German archaeological tradition, the term "medieval archaeology" is used indiscriminately for archaeology of the Early, High, and Late Middle Ages, even though early medieval archaeology exists as a separate concept. Medieval archaeology is followed by archaeology of the Early Modern Period (16th to the 18th century), while the archaeological study of later periods remains unsystematic and has yet to be explicitly conceptualised.1 In the British and related archaeological traditions, a distinction is made between medieval - which can encompass also the Early Middle Ages - and post-medieval archaeology. However, the latter term is also problematic, since it is used as a chronologically-limited concept in spite of its semantic breadth and does not cover
1 Lately, certain younger researchers have offered different views. Sören Frommer has recently published his PhD introducing the concept of historical archaeology in an explicit way into the German archaeological milieu, grounding it in terms of epistemology and methodology (Frommer 2007).
either the entire Modern Period or the recent past (cf. West 1999, 8-9).
The confusion increases when trying to coin an appropriate umbrella term, a group designation for the archaeologies concerning the periods following the Early Middle Ages. Should this be an "archaeology after 1000 AD", "archaeology after the Early Middle Ages" or perhaps "historical archaeology"? The latter term has become established in certain European and particularly in non-European countries where it is understood as the study of the colonial period (Orser 1999). Historical archaeology is specific in a methodological sense, as it involves using both written and material sources. For this reason, some even speak of a documentary archaeology (Beaudry 1993).
Neither of these terms is unproblematic, nor is historical archaeology in itself an unambiguous concept. In the Old World, where writing has a history going back several millennia, the adjective "historical" could also denote the archaeology of ancient civilisations, the European medieval archaeology and many others (cf. Andren 1998). Moreover, this "historical" aspect of archaeology could be understood in yet another way, as a special theoretical orientation of an archaeology aware of the dynamics of history and the contextual specificity of the phenomena it is studying. Historical archaeology in this sense could be seen as an antipode to processual archaeology (Predovnik 2002, 96; Predovnik 2008b, 82).
In the early 1990s, the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, introduced a new subject into its undergraduate programme, the so-called Archaeology of Later (Historical) Periods. This designation was selected as an umbrella term for archaeology of the periods following the Early Middle Ages (Predovnik 1995, 10). The term is general enough to cover every kind of sub-discipline in terms of chronology and subject matter, as well as practical considering the Slovene grammatical rules. The syntagm itself is also known in English, German and other terminologies, though used only rarely in these linguistic environments.
Slovenian archaeologists have yet to reach a consensus regarding the proper name for the archaeology of the periods following the Early Middle Ages. The experience of our colleagues from abroad tells us that there will always be present a certain amount of terminological uncertainty and diversity, since any chosen term stands for a concept which in itself is defined by the subject
under study, and the understanding and definition 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
FIRST STEPS
Fig. 1: Alfons Müllner in ca. 1900 (Grafični kabinet Narodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: I. Kotar). Sl. 1: Alfons Müllner ok. 1900 (Grafični kabinet NMS; foto: I. Kotar).
The first publications on late medieval finds and sites on the territory of Slovenia were contributed by Alfons Müllner (fig. 1) at the end of the 19th century. These were often chance discoveries and finds that had been unsystematically obtained, e.g. from the Karst caves (Nabergoj 1995, 72) or from the - supposedly prehistoric - Kosova mound in Razvanje (Müllner 1878; Predovnik 2008a). Some of the medieval remains that he had documented, studied and published, Müllner failed to interpret correctly, either in terms of dating or function. For example, he believed that the medieval forts
2 The most comprehensive overview and evaluation of the Slovenian medieval and post-medieval archaeology so far has been published by Tomaž Nabergoj in his paper Arheologija in gotika (Archaeology and Gothic Art) in 1995 (Nabergoj 1995). Cf. also Ložar 1939; Slabe 1980; Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Guštin, Horvat 1994, 7-10; Predovnik
1995, 78-84; Guštin 1999a; Nabergoj 2008b. The (un) satisfactory protection of post-medieval archaeological heritage and the challenges presented by the new law have recently been discussed by Barbara Nadbath and Andrej Gaspari (Nadbath 2008; Gaspari 2008).
of Atilov grad at Spodnji Kocjan (Müllner 1894b) and Repnikovo Gradišče near the hamlet of Rep at Veliko Tinje in the Pohorje mountain range (Müllner 1894c) were prehistoric "cult locations".
Müllner was also the first to conduct systematic archaeological investigations of Slovenia's medieval sites. As curator of the Provincial Rudolfinum Museum, he performed excavations in 1892 at the old castle in Predjama (fig. 2) and in 1897-1898 in the area of the former burghers' hospital on Špitalska ulica (now Stritarjeva) in Ljubljana. Through his small-scale excavations in Predjama, his detailed description and graphic depiction of the castle's architecture and through his analysis of historio-graphic sources on "the most famous knightly castle in Carniola", Müllner set out to "critically expose the legend of Erasmus Lueger". He reasoned out the place and manner of how Erasmus was killed in 1484 from the ruined castle walls and the stone ball found in one of the rooms (Müllner 1892a, 1892b, and 1894a). After the 1895 earthquake, Müllner conducted archaeological excavations in Ljubljana where a new administrative building was to be
Fig. 2: Predjamski Grad (Lueg). Müllner's drawing of the castle under excavation in 1892 (from: Argo 1, 1892). Sl. 2: Predjamski grad (Lueg). Müllnerjeva risba gradu ob raziskavah leta 1892 (iz: Argo 1, 1892).
erected on the site of the former burghers' hospital where the Church of St. Elisabeth had also stood since the Middle Ages. After the discovery of skeletal remains and because of old reports indicating that the hero of the fight against the Turks, Herbard VIII Freiherr von Auersperg (died in 1575), was buried at St. Elisabeth's, they "reviewed each event with particular care and collected carefully each find" (Müllner 1897, 30). They excavated the remains of older foundations pertaining to the Baroque and Gothic phase of the church building and a total of 51 graves containing only rare grave goods and dating to between the 14th and 18th centuries.3 In the hospital complex, they discovered the remains of a tanner's workshop of unknown age (Müllner 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900; Stare 1991). During the reconstruction that followed the earthquake, more medieval and post-medieval objects were found on the neighbouring house lots on Špitalska ulica (Müllner 1898; Ložar 1939, 188-189; cf. also Nabergoj 1999, 42-44).
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 increasing 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, and Kogel near Raduše (Schmid 1915, 1922, and 1925). In 1938, he unearthed the ruins of two buildings on a moated site named Groblje at Žlan in Bohinj. He interpreted the site as a fortified farm - a hausberg (Gabrovec 1975, 165; Smolej 1938). Like most researchers of the time, Schmid also believed that hausbergs were earthen fortifications dating to the time of the Hungarian raids and thus (mistakenly) dated all of the above-mentioned sites to the 9th and 10th centuries (cf. Predovnik, Grosman 2007, 209).
There was hardly any other notable field research done until the end of World War II. Of note are the excavations carried out at Predjama Castle before and during the war (Nabergoj 1995, 32-34), and in 1938 the discovery of medieval and post-medieval fireplaces and small finds in the upper strata inside the Ajdovska jama cave near the village of Nemška vas by Srečko Brodar (Brodar, Korošec 1953, 61-62).
Interestingly, with the exception of Müllner's excavations of the Jama (Predjama) Castle, in these early days Slovenia witnessed no expressions of that romantic interest in medieval monuments, and
3 Based on an incorrectly identified coin, Müllner dated the oldest graves to the 12th or the 13th century.
4 Due to its technological characteristics, the plant was later dated to the 15th or the 16th century (Smolej 1953), whereas A. Valič speculated that it could even be as late as the 19th century (Valič 1975, 165).
Fig. 3: Walter Schmid (Grafični kabinet Narodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: studio Benque, Graz). Sl. 3: Walter Schmid (Grafični kabinet NMS; foto: atelje Benque, Graz).
particularly in the monumental architecture (castles, monasteries or churches), that in many parts of Europe represented one of the vital roots of the later academic development of medieval archaeology. The political changes that occurred after World War I resulted in no new initiatives for Slovenian medieval archaeology, while other countries that had been created after the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary) were intentionally strengthening the national awareness of their citizens through archaeological and other research into their medieval history, mostly castles and the nobility. It was in the medieval period that they sought the roots of their nations as ethnic and linguistic communities, as well as the roots of their national sovereignties, which they were basing on the succession of medieval kingdoms. The position of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and later Yugoslavia was very different in this regard: this was a new multiethnic entity with no direct
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
In 1939, Rajko Ložar (fig. 4) published the article Staroslovansko in srednjeveško lončarstvo v Sloveniji (Early Slavic and Medieval Pottery in Slovenia) in the Slovenian Museum Society Bulletin (Ložar 1939). In it, he analysed the early and late medieval pottery from various sites kept by Slovenian museums at the time. The finds were poorly documented and in most cases unsystematically obtained, which is why Ložar could discuss them only typologically and base his dating on comparison with finds from other countries. As a loyal student of the Vienna School of Art History, he used the concepts of the evolution of form and style to determine the types and relative chronology of the objects (Ložar 1939, 180, 223-224; cf. Nabergoj 2005, 178; Nabergoj 1999, 39-41). His typochronological scheme remained the only tool for classification of late medieval pottery from Slovenian territory until the 1970s, when Vinko Šribar published his analyses of the pottery discovered in Otok pri Dobravi (Šribar 1974). Nowadays it is, of course, regarded as obsolete and is no longer useful as a reference, though it should be noted that Ložar's chronological definitions still apply to a certain degree.

s r
Fig. 4: Rajko Ložar while excavating at Globodol near Mirna peč in November 1939 (private archive). Sl. 4: Rajko Ložar na izkopavanjih v Globodolu pri Mirni peči novembra 1939 (zasebni arhiv).
Ložar also defined the technological features and decorative principles of Early Slavic and later medieval pottery. He explained the differences observed within the context of wider historical processes and the dissimilarities between the Early Slavic and the feudal societies (Ložar 1939, 203-224). He used a problem-orientated approach, understanding pottery as the true research potential of archaeology, which should not limit itself to mere documentation and description but should also provide autonomous interpretations of material culture (cf. Nabergoj 2005, 180).
The introduction to Ložar's article is particularly important because it contains his theoretical grounding for the archaeological study of the entire Middle Ages. He highlighted the importance of archaeology's contribution to studying the past, even for periods documented with written sources and especially taking into account the continuity of historical development, which dictates the equal archaeological treatment of the Early, High and Late Middle Ages, including the early Modern
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 disciplines, 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 primary sources demands the use of archaeological methods and approaches. Archaeology can function as an ancillary discipline to history, since "general historiography cannot do without archaeological work, especially in outlining the antiquities, the cultural and artistic production, and the craftsmanship of a nation, whereas it is more independent in tracing the political and other kinds of histories. Using merely written sources with regard to all of these areas would be nonsensical, and even impossible, considering that written sources from this period are generally silent on such subjects" (Nabergoj 2005, 180). At the same time, medieval archaeology is primarily an archaeology and, as such, discusses archaeological monuments in the same way and with as much independence as prehistoric archaeology does.
Ložar's views on the nature and meaning of medieval archaeology and its relationship with historiography can be paralleled with the discussions about the theoretical basis of medieval archaeology in other European countries. Ložar articulated his views surprisingly early, bearing in mind that similar treatises were published elsewhere only more than three decades later (e.g. Jankuhn 1973; Dymond 1974; Schlesinger 1974). In this regard as well, Ložar appears to have been an exceptional
' /W-






/



r


* fyi-^






t


v




J
1	■srt.-v^





Fig. 5: Front page of Ložar's 1939 manuscript "Contributions Towards the Archaeology of our Middle Ages" (Arheološki oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije). Sl. 5: Prva stran Ložarjevega rokopisa "Prispevki k arheologiji našega srednjega veka" iz leta 1939 (Arheološki oddelek NMS).
and isolated thinker whose opinions, however, failed to find resonance due to his personal fate (Nabergoj 2005, 182).
A NEW REALITY
At the end of World War II, Slovenian archaeology was facing "a complete collapse in terms of staff" (Novakovic 2002b, 87) but it did not become paralysed. The birth of a new country brought with it an opportunity for renewal in terms of organisation and staff, and the formation of in-frastructural centres and networks. Even as early as 1945, the protection of cultural monuments and natural sights was regulated by law and, three
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 (Novakovic 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 discipline, 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, neither was the chronological span of archaeological research,5 the chronological limit of archaeology in Slovenia was implicitly set to the 11th century, especially in relation to art history (cf. Kastelic 1964-1965). This decision was a consequence of inter-disciplinary relations, that is, the notions of the nature of material sources, more so than of denying the existence of these sources and their relevance to medieval history. It is therefore quite illustrative that the paper on the current state of archaeological work in Yugoslavia was presented at the conference in Niška Banja by "Jože Kastelic for archaeology up to the 10th century AD and by France Stele for later archaeology and art history" (sic) - an archaeologist and an art historian/ conservator. The ensuing debate "was focused on the relation of art history to archaeology and its subjects" (Korošec 1950b, 212-213).
In that same year, Josip Korošec published a programme article entitled Arheologija in nekatere njene naloge (Archaeology and Some of its Tasks) (Korošec 1950a). In it, he touched upon the rela-
5 Should it extend to the rise of towns and bourgeoisie in the Late Middle Ages, or to the 18th and 19th centuries, 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. He believed that socio-historical disciplines differ in their specific methodologies, which make them independent and equal, yet also that they are complementary and can help each other. Thus, archaeology and its methods are indispensable in the study of "later, e.g. medieval" issues (Korošec 1950a, 8). With this, Korošec joined Ložar's outlook on archaeological research into the Late Middle Ages.
Korošec's opinion incited the historian Bogo Grafenauer to respond with a polemic treatise the next year (Grafenauer 1951). He pointed out that, while archaeological sources are indeed direct witnesses of the past, they are less reliable than "the critically assessed written sources" as they are subject to the archaeologist's interpretation. This makes material sources absolutely inferior to written sources. But most of all, Grafenauer was bothered by the fact that Korošec presumed archaeology to be independent even when discussing archaeological sources from "historical" periods. Grafenauer believed that archaeology in this case cannot provide independent interpretations of material sources; it can only assist history. Also, archaeological sources are supposedly only relevant for studying economic history and (partly) ethnogenesis. In studying other aspects of the past, they are only relevant when they are the sole source, namely in prehistory. The key issues the two disciplines were facing were thus their research competences and the boundaries of their working
areas. Similar debates between archaeologists and historians also took place elsewhere in Europe and in many respects remain unresolved even now (cf. Nabergoj 1995, 82-84; Predovnik 2000, 36-45).
In Slovenia, Grafenauer's views, which could be called "the tyranny of the historical record" (Champion 1990), prevailed - at least implicitly. Later, archaeology almost completely ceased defining its position on the matter,6 but in practice it followed the chronological limitation of its work to the end of the Early Slavic period. Archaeology renounced the systematic investigations of sites from later periods, and the majority of the
6 An attempt at a reconceptualization of the relationship between archaeology and history was made by Andrej Pleterski in his treatise on the retrograde analysis of written sources and their integration with the material sources, an innovative method that he had developed while studying the early medieval settlements in the region of Blejski kot. Pleterski advocated the necessity of an integral historical interpretation of both written and material sources. He wrote that "archaeology can only function as a science in connection with other disciplines, history in particular" (Pleterski 1979, 508). His argumentation was thoroughly analysed and problematised by Božidar Slapšak, who pointed out that understanding archaeology in terms of just "a technique with some mechanical rules for the 'objective' acquisition (and accumulation) of sources" is unproductive (Slapšak 1981, 53). The first in-depth reflections on the nature and role of archaeology in studying the so-called later periods of history were published as late as the mid-1990s (Predovnik 1995; Nabergoj 1995; Predovnik 2000).
Fig. 7: Vinko Šribar at the island of Bled in 1967 (R. Sribar's private archive).
Sl. 7: Vinko Šribar na Blejskem otoku leta 1967 (zasebni arhiv R. Šribar).
recorded discoveries were made by chance, in the framework of rescue or systematic excavations of multi-period sites whose primary objective was to study the earlier remains.
The excavation of Zgornji stolp (the Upper Tower) at Krancelj above Škofja Loka (fig. 6) is a good example. The exposed fortification on the hill overlooking the castle of Škofja Loka was probably built in the 12th century and abandoned after an earthquake in 1511. The ruins were covered by soil, which is why Stane Gabrovec began the excavation in 1954 under the assumption that he was unearthing a prehistoric burial mound. When the site he was excavating turned out to be the remains of a medieval building, the art historian Cene Avguštin took charge of the excavation (Avguštin 1954; Avguštin 1955).
At the time, remains from more recent periods - if considered and documented at all - were studied exclusively in the context of the work done on multi-period sites. For example, in the early 1950s, five storage pits containing pottery from the 11th or the 12th century were excavated in the courtyard
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 archaeology concentrated on research into the Early Slavic period in order to refute certain controversial ethnic interpretations by Italian and German archaeologists 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 references; fig. 7). The excavations were performed by the Archaeological Scientific Documentation Centre of the National Museum of Slovenia under the leadership of Vinko Šribar. More than 120 inhumation graves were uncovered, three of them late medieval, as well as the remains of the predecessors to today's church building. The archaeological finds are partly displayed in situ, but we still lack a comprehensive excavation report.
Founded in 1961, the Archaeological Scientific Documentation Centre was renamed the Centre for Early Medieval and Early Slavic Studies three years later (Stare 1993a; cf. Nabergoj 2008b, 92). Creating this special research department of the National Museum was the idea of its director, Jože Kastelic (cf. also Kastelic 1964-1965). Its task was to perform systematic research into archaeological and other sources from the Early Middle Ages on the Slovenian ethnic territory. In this, the archaeologists would cooperate with experts from the fields of history, (physical) anthropology, art history, and linguistics. The Centre was therefore supposed to research the early history of the Slovenian nation and thus to contribute towards establishing the national identity.
7 The dating appears to be incorrect as the published pottery is in all probability not older than the 13th century.
JOŽE KASTELIC AND THE BOUNDS OF (EARLY MEDIEVAL) ARCHAEOLOGY
The research performed on Bled Island was one of the factors that prompted the National Museum's director, Jože Kastelic, to publish a paper on the problems of early medieval archaeology in Slovenia, touching on the research into later periods (Kastelic 1964-1965). Kastelic placed the Early Middle Ages - archaeologically - between the Late Antiquity and the 11th century or the High Middle Ages. He underlined the common issues, namely, "the question of the connection between art monuments from the High Middle Ages and the objects from Early Slavic archaeological sites", as well as "the all-too-strict methodological differentiation between archaeology and art history". However, he was not entirely consistent: in his opinion, the archaeological studies of the continuity between the Late Antiquity and the Early Slavic period should include "the cult buildings and the objects of the goldsmith's trade", which are otherwise (also) studied by art history. On the other hand though, the remnants from "the period of the Slovenian Romanesque and Gothic art" - which "speaks to us mainly through its monumental remains, the architecture, sculpture and painting, and partly also through the objects of applied art" - were to be studied by art history (cf. Žvanut 1999). Kas-telic defined the material remains from the later Middle Ages as being "directly a subject of art history and not archaeology" and differentiated between the two disciplines "by their methods and mutual chronological boundary" (Kastelic 1964-1965, 110-114; cf. Nabergoj 1995, 78-80). He dedicated a great deal of attention to the latter and tried to set archaeology's upper limit using a calendar date from political history that would best fit the archaeological dating of the disappearance of Early Slavic burials - around the year 1000: as a suitable historical milestone he proposed the year 1024 when the Salian Dynasty came to power in the Holy Roman Empire.
Even though Kastelic had mentioned several questions regarding the continuity between the Early and the High Middle Ages - especially "the contemporaneity of the Romanesque and possibly Pre-Romanesque architecture and Early Slavic burial sites" based on the example of the excavations on Bled Island, and about medieval castles having been built on the sites of older fortified settlements, he believed that archaeology's interest was limited to retrograde studies. With regard to
churches, archaeology was interested in "finding Early Slavic burial sites and ... any ground plans of older cult buildings", while with regard to castles its efforts were directed into discovering the "'early medieval', that is, Early Slavic layers of a site" (Kastelic 1964-1965, 114-116, 118). Thus, from the viewpoint of architectural history, research into sacral buildings and fortifications was left to art historians (and architects).
The views articulated by Kastelic were in accordance with the general, more or less implicitly established image of archaeology of the time and were an important determining factor in its further development. A clear-cut distinction was made between the "archaeological" and the "historical" periods of the past, denying the material sources from the latter the nature and epistemological potential that was at the same time attributed to the material sources from earlier periods. For the first time ever, the "magical" upper time limit of archaeology was set, splitting the Middle Ages into the archaeological Early and the (art) historical later Middle Ages.8
This understanding of archaeology's sphere of action has become firmly established in Slovenia. Attesting to this is the fact that the more recent periods were not systematically included in the central archaeological databases, or were even expressly disregarded (ANSI; Tecco Hvala 1993); they were not considered in multi-period projects like the Arheološka topografija Slovenije (The Archaeological Topography of Slovenia; Pahič 1962, 94-95), or even in expert and popular surveys of the field where Slovenian archaeology and its achievements persistently end at the conclusion of the Early Slavic period (Nabergoj 2008b, 90). In practice, however, archaeology has been acting in a different way for quite some time. In the field of cultural heritage management, the archaeological research of sites from periods following the Early Middle Ages has been gradually gaining in importance at least since the 1970s, and even became a standard prescribed by law in 2008.
8 As a consequence of these views, the excavations of certain monuments dating from the Late Middle Ages were undertaken by art historians without the assistance of archaeologists - for example Marijan Zadnikar, who directed the excavations around the church of the Cistercian monastery in Stična/Sittich (Nabergoj 1995, 38 with references), as well as the excavations and removal of rubble inside the church and the lesser cloister of the Žiče Carthusian monastery (Zadnikar 1965 and 1967).
THE FORCE AND POWER OF IDEOLOGY
Concerning the research into castles and, to a lesser degree, into monasteries and churches, we need to point out the ideological obstacles or rather, the politically-biased trends in the development of historical sciences and the general attitudes towards the remains of the past after World War II.9 Why was there an almost complete lack of modern historical writing providing an in-depth treatment of the aristocracy as such or at least of the development, role and significance of individual feudal families on Slovenian territory in the Middle Ages until the mid- 1990s, when the younger generation of Slovenian historians contributed several very important studies that incited further research? With the exception of one book by Janko Orožen published in 1971 (Orožen 1971) and the papers by Vlado Habjan touching on specific issues (ref. in Habjan 1999), until fairly recently there were no extensive overviews written even on the history of the counts of Cilli, our best known noble family. It was the publication of the proceedings of the International Symposium held in Celje in 1998 (Fugger Germadnik 1999a) and the catalogue of the Celje Regional Museum 1999-2000 exhibition (Fugger Germadnik 1999b; cf. also Guštin 2001f) that summarized the current knowledge from the standpoint of different disciplines and offered a suitable starting point for further detailed and comprehensive study of the Counts of Cilli.10
A part of the blame for the situation can undoubtedly be attributed to Slovenian historiography's programme from 1947. According to this, and based on historical materialism, "the centre of historical development" was shifted to "the economic and social system, and with it, to the general populace" (Grafenauer 1947, 22). Research into the aristocracy simply had no place in this concept of Slovenian
9	Though the influence of Marxist ideology on Yugoslav archaeology and its concepts was negligible (Novakovic 2002a) it was much more pronounced in historiography. The negative attitude towards the Middle Ages and the material remains from the feudal age and the ecclesiastical art monuments that marked the broader social climate of the post-war era resulted in an inappropriate, often even openly hostile, treatment of architectural monuments. This caused many problems, especially for art historians working in the area of heritage protection.
10	The publication of a truly comprehensive collection
of documents on the Counts of Cilli is still in its initial stage. The first volume was prepared by Dušan Kos (Kos D. 1996).
history "that in earlier periods dealt primarily with agrarian social history, and in later periods with proletarian social history" (Štih 1999, 13). It is understandable that, within the "analysis of this great line of Slovenian national history, a line of consistent struggle for the economic and social progress of a small proletarian nation against its external and internal enemies" (Grafenauer 1947, 25, note 76), this and certain other fields of medieval studies were almost completely ignored. With the enforcement of the national or ethnical principle (instead of the state) within Slovenian historiography from Levstik onward, "the majority of the aristocracy, the users of castles and mansions" belonged to the "doubly foreign, hostile sphere, and was thus unworthy of the historian's interest" (Šumi 1983, 10). In 1983, at the Slovenian Association of Conservators' conference on castles, Nace Šumi wrote: "The balance of today's level of Slovenian historiography is that the agents of feudalism, and in particular their strongholds, our castles and later mansions, are seen as a necessary evil within the Slovenian ethnical group. (... ) This orientation is one of the reasons why, when examining our recent history and the historiographic presentation of this period, we are faced with the typical extreme that could no longer separate the defeated representatives of the feudal stratum from the creations this stratum brought to life and which should therefore be treated as cultural heritage" (Šumi 1983, 10).
Characteristically, in the first two decades after the war, Early Slavic burial sites from the 10th and 11th centuries were a self-evident subject of archaeological research in Slovenia while the contemporary early feudal castles were not.11 ^e ideological aspect
11 Supposedly existing as early as 895, Reichenburg 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 only preserved as a 12th century copy and it seems that this part of the text is a later insertion, meaning that the existence of Rajhenburg at the end of the 9th century is highly questionable (cf. Štih 1996, 18, 24, note 103). Small-scale excavations were performed in the castle yard in Brestanica during renovation in 1978, yielding the remains of older walls that could not be dated precisely (Slabe 1982). The oldest castle with reliable written sources attesting to its existence in the territory of today's Slovenia, known as castrum Bosisen in the vicinity of Škofja Loka, was first mentioned in 973 and 989, but as yet it has not been precisely located (Berčič 2001). One possible site is Kremplnov hrib above Hosta near Suha, where interesting finds were discovered several years ago by members
was obvious, and the concepts of nationality and class were politically charged to the point that they were mutually exclusive: in the new socialist reality the archaeology of elites, and foreign elites at that, was an impossibility.
Consequently, the research into medieval standing buildings was generally limited only to art historical or architectural lines of research. It would therefore be futile to expect comprehensive analyses that would view, for example, a medieval castle or cloister in their primary, material and social sense - architecture as the concrete remains of places where members of a certain social group or stratum once lived - as well as in their secondary, symbolic sense - architecture as a hallmark, a distinctive element of a certain social entity, e.g. the feudal seigneury, as the symbol of a social group or class that is deemed unquestionably exploitative under the principles of dialectical materialism and the historiography based on it. After the socialist revolution, castles and the aristocracy could not have an equal position in the new schemes of the social orders, a fact clearly demonstrated by the burning and pillage of numerous castles throughout the region of Dolenjska and in some parts of Primorska during and after World War II. "The national liberation war has radicalised the anti-feudal position of our countryside and thus caused the not so infrequent equation of the struggle against the remnants of the old social order with the fighting against its visible outposts, the symbols of that same past. In a certain sense, the part that some important castles have played as strongholds of the class enemy in this struggle, indeed supported such a position" (Šumi 1983, 10-11).
Of course, ideological considerations did not define everything. There is a curious contradiction that can be pointed out: although archaeology (by definition) studies material culture and - in a socialist reality - should, or would at least be allowed
of staff of the Institute of Archaeology at ZRC SAZU (Pleterski 2002). First mentioned as Veldes in 1004, the castle of Bled was renovated for tourism and was never the subject of archaeological excavations, even though the Early Slavic burial sites around it were. However, Stanko Pahič did include a symbol for "early medieval castles (Hausbergs or mottes)" on the archaeological map within the project of the archaeological topography of Slovenia, actually documenting several in his own topographical work (Pahič 1962, 118). Dating these buildings to the Early Middle Ages is actually incorrect (Hinz 1981; cf. Predovnik, Grosman 2007).
to, have an interest in the material culture of the "broadest rural populace" - the exploited class of medieval society - not a single deserted medieval village or farm in Slovenia was researched until the late 1990s.12 This was in spite of the fact that already in 1965, Jože Kastelic in his programme called attention to the "methodically very important" British Deserted Medieval Village Research Group dedicated to the archaeological research into deserted medieval settlements, especially villages (Kastelic 1964-1965, 122). And yet the agrarian settlement was the prevailing form of settlement in the Middle Ages, while at the same time it is the one that is least documented in the medieval written sources, if at all. Consequently, we now know almost nothing about the everyday life of the "silent majority" of the medieval population in Slovenia. Nothing about the types, characters and the development of their villages and dwellings, economic facilities, devices and tools. This could not have been a matter of ideological bias; the reason for completely ignoring the research into these complex issues was most likely the already mentioned conceptual limitation of archeology to the so-called "archaeological periods" coupled with an incomprehensible lack of interest in contemporary archaeological research carried out abroad, as well as the lack of cooperation with historians (and historical geographers and ethnologists).
As early as 1940, historians had classified archaeology as one of the principal ancillary disciplines for the history of Slovenian colonisation, even though their interest at this time was only in the period preceding the arrival of the Slovenians (the Antiquity) and the "Early Slovenian period" (Kos 1940, 30; cf. also Kos 1948-1949, 137-138). It could not be said, then, that archaeology did
12 In 1997-1998, within the scope of archaeological 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 medieval settlement from the 12th and 13th centuries were uncovered (Kerman 2008). Supposedly late medieval settlement remains were also excavated on a motorway route at Obrežje and Leskovec near Celje (Mason 2004, 202-203; Brišnik et al. 2006). In 2007, rescue excavations at the site developed for the expansion of the border crossing at Zavrč produced the remains of fifteen residential and wooden outbuildings dating from the 13th to the 15th centuries (Lubšina-Tušek 2007, 311). For comparison, more than 2000 settlement sites from the period between the 11th and the 16th centuries have been documented archaeologically in the territory of Slovakia (Egyhazy-Jurovska 1999, 24).
not receive from the historians any initiatives for investigating later periods. Although the history of "material culture" - in the broad sense, as recognised for example by Jacques Le Goff for the purposes of research and evaluation of the medieval civilisation of Western Europe, namely a "different Middle Ages, one without texts and inscriptions"13 - did not attract much interest from Slovenian historians, they nevertheless emphasised the significance of archaeological research for obtaining new and specific "field sources" in the 1970 monograph on Slovenian agrarian history. In addition to archaeological finds, e.g. agricultural implements, and the organic remains of cultivated plants, domestic and wild animals from archaeological sites, the remains of buildings "could be important for researching farmhouses up to the 17th century when other sources become somewhat more exhaustive" and excavations could provide a "more accurate image of the development of farming settlements". The archaeological methods of research into agriculture should be supplemented with new techniques and methods of the natural sciences: aerial photography (for discovering the field systems, field paths and any underground structures), pollen analysis (for the chronology of the changes in vegetation in an agrarian landscape) and the phosphate method (analysis of the phosphate levels in the soil to determine the location of abandoned settlements; Blaznik et al. 1970, 5-6, 564, 616).14 Unfortunately, historians did not go beyond these fundamental proposals, but even archaeology did not respond appropriately. There were most likely no real possibilities for work. The Slovenian archaeological community has always been small in number. In the 1970s, when the number of employed (that is, active) archaeologists began to grow, this was primarily due to the increase in staff active in the field of heritage protection. Archaeology as a whole was lacking in the institutional framework, the financial resources and staff needed to perform comprehensive systematic research of this kind. Yet the crucial problems remained, without a doubt, the theoretical premisses and the conceptual framework of Slovenian archaeology.
13	Cf. the quotes from Le Goff's La civilisation de l'occident medieval, 1965, translated in Nabergoj 1995, 84.
14	P. Blaznik wrote on the phosphate method in 1940 without specifically mentioning archaeology (Blaznik 1940, 39).
THE PERIOD OF PRAGMATISM
There were relatively few systematic archaeological studies undertaken on late medieval and later sites until the transformation of the heritage protection service in the 1970s, when a network of eight institutes for the protection of monuments was established (Jogan 2008, 84-89). With this network of regional institutions, and the direct and active cooperation from museums (Slabe 1981-1982, 98-99), it was possible to intensify and improve the documentation of monuments and the monitoring of the cultural heritage risk level within the entire Slovenian territory. Thus the profession was stren"lgthened in terms of staff, which was quickly reflected in the amount of rescue excavations performed.
Even though the archaeology of the Late Middle Ages and later periods was not an established notion in Slovenia at the time, and the knowledge about the material culture of these periods was extremely limited, the high risk levels and the number of required rescue interventions on monuments, eventually prompted a pragmatic response from the profession. It could be said that theory was overtaken by practice. The preliminary reports on archaeological research into monuments and sites with medieval and post-medieval remains, published in Varstvo spomenikov (Journal for the Protection of Monuments) and elsewhere, clearly document this process: in the 1950-59 decade, 13 sites were researched, between 1960 and 1969 the number rose to 15, then in the 1970-1979 period as many as 48 were researched, with 55 researched in the 1980-89 decade (cf. Nabergoj 1995; fig. 8).
The rise in the number of research excavations carried out in the 1970s and the 1980s is linked to wider social changes. In the wake of the post-war reconstruction, coupled with considerable economic growth and industrialisation of the 1960s, the world was facing an environmental crisis that set off ecological movements and raised ecological awareness. Even in the then Yugoslavia, and more so in Slovenia, the first efforts were made to protect the environment against the incessant draining of natural resources, the spread of industry and the concentric expansion of cities. This was reflected in the legislation, procedures and regulations on spatial planning in the 1970s and 1980s. The preservation of fertile soil and the protection of farmland against degradation and development for construction were particularly strong concerns. Consequently, the trend of urban centre development was reversed.
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
	
	
	
	
11	
M	
______ ..nil	
1870-79 1890-99 1910-19 1930-39 1950-59 1970-79 1990-99
1880-89 1900-09 1920-29 1940-49 1960-69 1980-89 2000-07
Fig. 8: Number of archaeological interventions on sites with remains from the later periods in Slovenia by decade (completed after Varstvo spomenikov and Nabergoj 1995).
Sl. 8: Število terenskih arheoloških raziskav na najdiščih z ostalinami iz mlajših obdobij v Sloveniji po desetletjih (dopolnjeno po objavah v reviji Varstvo spomenikov in po Nabergoj 1995).
While the decades after the war witnessed the depopulation and decay of urban historical centres, from the mid-1970s onwards, the old settlement nuclei experienced a noticeable rise in construction activity, restoration of historic buildings and infrastructure, and new building projects within already urbanised areas. ^e monument protection service thus faced an increasing volume of work, supervising the numerous development projects in the old settlement areas and often performing the necessary rescue archaeological research.
The "softening" of ideological views and a more liberal social climate in the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in a more positive evaluation of the past, even of the monuments from the feudal period. The castles and mansions, deliberately neglected and hardly ever the subject of systematic and quality restoration and revitalisation efforts in the postwar period, now once again acquired a cultural value. A more appropriate attitude towards these monuments started to develop slowly, along with investments in their restoration, maintenance and revitalization. The attitude towards ecclesiastical buildings as cultural monuments developed in a similar way. Archaeology was given a place in the preventive interventions on such historic buildings, but only as a specialised (excavation) method for obtaining data on architectural development, while it generally had no important role to play in the interpretation of these monuments.
The archaeologists themselves consented to such a role. They were forced to do so for practical reasons, not due to some deeper insight arising from the realisation of the necessity and possibilities of solving general historical issues. They stressed the need for "expert knowledge" and for interdisciplinary treatment. However, due to the "wider social interest", "researching a 'non-archaeological' building with an archaeological method" was only justified "for buildings or parts of buildings where achieving a complex or important conclusion can be expected, but cannot be performed through other research methods." Found objects "that are mass-produced and were once in relatively common use", which are "usually only interesting within the context of excavation", must be "sensibly screened in accordance with the general principles of screening of the excavated finds, especially when dealing with material from later periods uncovered from the ground, more so than with material from ancient times. In this way, only exceptional finds from excavations of non-archaeological buildings are to be kept and taken care of by museums" (Mikl-Curk 1981, 92-93).
Marijan Slabe presented a different position, one that was more in favour of the fully-up-to-standard archaeological treatment of remains from more recent periods, while he was undertaking research in Škofja Loka (Slabe 1974; Slabe 1980a;fig. 9). Rescue excavations at Mestni trg produced the ruins of a
Fig. 9: Marijan Slabe receiving the Slovenian Archeological Society's Life Work Prize in 2003 (Arheološki oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije; photo: T. Lauko). Sl. 9: Marijan Slabe, prejemnik nagrade Slovenskega arheološkega društva za življenjsko delo za leto 2003 (Arheološki oddelek NMS; foto: T. Lauko).
Gothic building of the medieval commune and numerous objects from the Late Middle Ages and the Modern period, among them large quantities of decorated tableware from the second half of the 16th century and the early 17th century. Slabe determined these to be the products from domestic workshops made according to Italian models, and he termed the ware "loška meščanska slikana keramika" (the Loka Painted Burghers' Ware) (Slabe 1977; cf. also Predovnik 2009). At the same time, he realised how unsuitable the prior practice had been, seeing that it primarily dictated the protection of archaeological remains "that had originated from no later than the 11th or the 12th century, simply because the cultural heritage from more recent periods was protected mainly because of its art-historical and partly ethnographic importance." Experience has shown that "for various reasons, it is our duty to protect also the layers of soil in such areas, which are usually rich in material remains, but have so far often been neglected and discarded." In Škofja Loka, using the appropriate archaeological approaches to research has resulted in the discovery of a great number of "small finds ranging from the remains of ceramic
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 explains 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 professional 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 Archaeological Heritag"le of Slovenia) (Slabe 1980b). The achievements presented there led to the conclusion "that the archaeological method of work cannot be avoided in this historical and cultural structure", due to the demands of science as well as those of heritage protection (Slabe 1985, 35).
fje predominant (mis-)understanding of archaeology's role within the framework of heritage protection was primarily caused by seeing archaeology as the Method - that is, excavation - which can be offered as a service to other disciplines and can therefore be separated from the appropriate interpretative tools. Another problem was that the nature and epistemological value of material sources were poorly conceptualised, if at all. fje (conservation) practice separated material sources into two categories: the architectural remains held a primary position and the research was subjected to them, while the unearthed objects were generally "just" used to explain and illuminate the past way of life and to complement the historical reconstruction from written sources. More often than not, small finds were subjected to passing through the thick sieve of established art historical and archaeological criteria on what was important and worth preserving, and what was so fragmentary, unimpressive, without meaning, seemingly familiar15 and on the whole so uninteresting that it should just be discarded.
15 The deceptive nature of the notion that it is impossible to learn anything new about the recent past, simply because its traces are present at every step we make, is the subject of the volume The familiar past? Archaeologies of later historical Britain (Tarlow, West 1999).
Context - the spatial relations between individual structures and finds - which is the third essential category that can only be evaluated meaningfully by archaeology and its methods (especially strati-graphic excavations and appropriate documenting), was not defined as such and was thus often neglected. This meant, in practice, that unprofessional (methodologically incorrect) excavating or digging through different structures was often carried out by the art historians themselves, or else by architects without the cooperation of archaeologists. Poor documentation of the archaeological contexts has resulted in the loss of much valuable data and even finds.
We dare to conclude that, up to the second half of the 1990s, the monument protection service in Slovenia did not - in practice and even less in theory - manage to address adequately, in a sound and modern way, any of the three vital elements of research: the source, the method and the problem. Therefore, in contrast to the contemporary development of science in other countries, it could not build the conceptual framework and the theoretical foundations for autonomous, legitimate and scientifically sound archaeological research into the heritage of "non-archaeological" periods. In spite of the great progress that has been made in the last two decades, many problems still persist, especially with regard to adequate interdisciplinary research. As Marko Stokin pointed out years ago, the consequence of this problematic understanding of (medieval) archaeology and the lack of connection between the different disciplines is that we still lack the adequate analytical methods which would enable us to address in an appropriate way complex sites, such as urban settlements, or to interpret the social processes, the development of towns and architecture (Stokin 1995, 53).
THE FIRST SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH PROJECTS AND THE BEGINNINGS OF INSTITUTIONALISATION
In the 1970s, the first major shifts towards establishing the archaeology of later periods occurred also in the field of systematic research. As early as 1967, systematic archaeological investigation of the site of Otok pri Dobravi (Otok near Dobrava) in the Šentjernejsko polje plain began on the initiative of the historian Ferdo Gestrin. Otok is the location of the medieval market town of Gutenwert (also: Gutenwerth) which was deserted in the late 15th
century (fig. 10). The research was conducted by archaeologists of the Centre for Medieval and Early Slavic Studies at the National Museum under the leadership of Vinko Šribar (cf. Nabergoj 1995 with references; Bartosiewicz 1999; Stare 2000). Special attention was "given to the share that the Slovenian early medieval culture had in the formation of cultural and civilising processes in the context of mature feudalism" (Šribar, Stare 1981, 7). This is why, at first, the issues of continuity, especially the supposed continuous, organic development of late medieval urban centres from earlier, Early Slavic settlements, were at the forefront. Still, the archaeological record of the site where, beside the rare remains from the Roman period and the 10th and 11th centuries,16 mostly the architectural remains, infrastructure, burials and, of course, objects from the Late Middle Ages were found, required an "equal" treatment of the structures and artefacts from every period. Furthermore, it eventually caused a widening and shift of research interests. Vinko Šribar and his colleagues believed that separating the Middle Ages into the archaeological early and "non-archaeological" late Middle Ages made no sense, and accordingly changed the name of the Centre for Early Medieval and Early Slavic Studies to the Centre for Medieval Archaeology in 1977. The Centre's activities prompted the National Museum to establish a new post of museum curator for archaeology of the High Middle Ages (Stare 1993a).
Based on the data and finds obtained from Otok, Vinko Šribar and his colleague Vida Stare published a number of papers on the urban and architectural development of this medieval settlement (Šribar 1975b; Šribar, Stare 1978), on the various groups of artefacts (Šribar 1 976; Stare 1983; Stare 1993b; Stare 2002), and the typochronologies of metal and ceramic finds (Šribar 1972-1973; Šribar 1983). Unfortunately, the latter two schemes, which could serve as basic dating tools for further studies of late medieval sites in Slovenia, have proven problematic. The chronological distribution of individual types follows the relative sequence of the six horizons17 at the site, which have been dated absolutely to individual centuries, in descending order from
16	Only a single "residential sunken building" has been published so far. It was supposedly built in the 10th century and was still in use in the 11th century (Stare 1993c).
17	Šribar initially defined eight phases of building 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 15th century (the 1st horizon) to the early 11th or the late 10th century (the 6th horizon). It is unclear whether these "horizons" stand for the phases, that is, periods of settlement or perhaps for the horizontal "cultural" strata, or whether they are simply identical to the "plana", the arbitrary horizontal layers of soil by which the site was excavated in accordance with the then valid methodology (cf. Šribar 1972-1973, 23-29 and Šribar 1979, 48-58). As it turns out, the "pla-num" method of excavation used resulted in the mixing of the cultural content of the individual stratigraphic units, e.g. two or more strata, fill deposits, and other stratigraphic units that were (partly) excavated at the same time. It is also unclear which objects were found within intact, closed contexts and which in mixed ones. For this reason, the typochronological schemes of pottery and metal objects from Otok pri Dobravi place individual early types into the latest horizons,
while some very late types are attributed to older horizons. These schemes and the related dates of the appearance of individual types are therefore useful as dating tools only with certain reservations and a great deal of scepticism.
Despite this, the indisputable fact is that the excavations at Otok pri Dobravi have a special place in the history of Slovenian archaeology, and rightly so. Not only was this the first planned and systematic investigation of a site from the later periods and the first investigation of a deserted medieval settlement, but it was also one of the first open-area excavations carried out in Slovenia. The excavation director, Vinko Šribar, was developing new methods for documentation to meet the requirements of the project (Šribar 1974). However, the actual value of the discoveries from Otok is difficult to assess as we still lack a comprehensive site report. It is as yet impossible 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 remains, of the urban development and of the small finds. The research potential remains, of course, seeing that the complete documentation and the artefacts are kept in the National Museum of Slovenia and the site is suitably protected, allowing for further archaeological research. Vida Stare recently published the results of excavations in the Church of St. Nicholas, the only standing building in the area of the former settlement. Forty-four medieval and post-medieval inhumations were excavated, along with the remains of older building phases of the existing church, the foundations of its predecessor and several foundations from the Roman period that are interpreted as the remains of a Roman river port (Stare 2000). St. Nicholas' is thus the first of the three areas excavated at Otok between 1967 and 1984 to have a full site report published.18
Archaeologists from the Centre for Medieval Archaeology have researched several sites besides
18 Beside the church, the excavations also took place at the so-called Excavation Areas 1 and 2, located on the southern and central parts of the settlement respectively.
Bled Island and Otok pri Dobravi. The Centre ceased to exist with Vinko Sribar's retirement in 1987, but the post of museum curator for archaeology of the High Middle Ages still remained at the National Museum (Stare 1993a, 31).
There is another research project that deserves mentioning - the excavations at Stari grad nad Celjem (the Old Castle above Celje; fig. 11). As with Otok pri Dobravi, the initiative came from outside archaeology. Archaeologists were invited to excavate by Ivan Stopar, an art historian and conservator at the Institute for the Protection of Monuments in Celje. The excavations were carried out by the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana and were directed by Tatjana Bregant in 1972-1983 and 1986 (Bregant 1974; Stopar 1975; Bregant 1977; Bregant 1983). Archaeological excavations covered every accessible area inside the castle core and some smaller sections of the moat and the castle yard. Considering that we still have no comprehensive publication on these excavations which would include the full graphical documentation and a catalogue of small finds, again the conclusion applies that the interpretative potential of the archaeological
research performed was and still is not exploited to its full extent.19
Regarding the interpretation of the structures discovered, especially with regard to the castle's architectural development from the first half of the 13 th century onward, the archaeologist's opinion differed greatly from that of an art historian and an architect (Kramberger, Stopar 1987; cf. Stopar 1982), but due to the lack of published archaeological data it is difficult to judge them critically. Tatjana Bregant's thesis that the Gothic castle hall developed from the original tower is in all likelihood wrong, but this does not justify the conclusion that the "methodological starting point" of archaeological interpretations is "speculative" (Kramberger, Stopar 1987, 85). An erroneous interpretation of individual archaeological data does not deny the epistemological potential of archaeological sources or the epistemological relevance of archaeological methodology as such. This incomprehension stems from the belief that it is sufficient for different disciplines to approach an issue each from their own perspective and using their own methods, and then finally to compare the results. Such multidisciplinarity only serves to increase the disagreements and distrust between the various disciplines, when they should instead be working together in a truly interdisciplinary way to complement and understand one another better (cf. Predovnik 1995, 74-77).
The published interpretations of archaeological data from the Old Castle above Celje have turned out to be problematic in several other points as well. Ten "cultural horizons", that is, eight construction phases of stone buildings and two earlier phases of wooden buildings have been identified. The horizons were dated through small, mostly ceramic finds to the period between the mid-10th century and the 17th century and linked with the information from the written sources (Bregant 1983, 40; Bregant 1984). According to the excavator's interpretation, the rocky promontory overlooking the confluence of the Savinja and Voglajna rivers was occupied even before the construction of the feudal fortification, as the latter was sup-
19 The publications to this date include the (incomplete) reports on excavations (e.g. Bregant 1974; Bregant 1977), a selection of excavated stove tiles (Bregant 1984), a few fragments of "chronologically defined" ceramics (Šribar, Stare, Bregant 1974, 45-49), a selection of ceramic and metal items (Fugger Germadnik 1999a, passim; Guštin 2001f, passim), and the ceramic finds from sectors A and B (Brišnik 1999).
posedly built on the site of an Early Slavic hillfort. A decade ago, a revision was performed of the finds from the so-called sectors A and B where structures and pottery from the first and second "residential horizons" from the period between the 10th and 12th centuries were supposedly found. The revision showed that the preserved collection of pottery contains no fragments older than the 12th century, and the reviewer pointed out the problems encountered in establishing a pottery sequence for the site, due to the planum excavation and documentation methods used (Brišnik 1999, 269-270). This calls for further critical assessment of the finds and field documentation.
Despite these attempts at systematic research, when discussing the legacy of more recent periods, archaeology still accepted the status of a mere method and critique of sources while relinquishing the interpretation of these same sources to history or art history. In 1987, Božidar Slapšak critically summed up the state of archaeology in the period of pragmatism as we have termed it in the title of the previous chapter: "It needs to be emphasised that, regarding the interpretation of material sources from the later historical periods (after 1000 AD), archaeology still acts merely as the interpreter of vertical relationships - the sequence of construction phases or the phases of use in architectural remains: it is the only historical discipline with suitable stratigraphic and typological methods for evaluation of the stratified finds. Archaeology figures only as a supporting technical discipline, uncovering through excavations the horizontal relationships on the micro-level, the explanation of which is then relinquished to disciplines mastering the dominating sources for the period: written documents and art. This state of affairs is characteristic of a 'phase of unconceptualised practice': the archaeology of later historical periods in Slovenia as yet has no institutional backing. The attempt within the framework of the Gutenwerth project is, in our circumstances, nothing short of extraordinary" (Slapšak 1987, 145, note 3).
NEW CONCEPTS AND THE BIRTH OF A DISCIPLINE
In the 1980s, Slovenian archaeology began to open up intellectually towards the Anglo-Saxon world, from which it adopted certain initiatives for theoretical reflection and conceptual and methodological 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 journal that featured original theoretical contributions and translated articles from other publications, thus introducing to Slovenian archaeologists the new (and the not so new) views of their American and British colleagues. New concepts, new interpretative approaches and, last but not least, new methodologies were presented by foreign visiting lecturers at the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana,20 and the teachers of the department were testing them in practice in their own research work at home and in international projects.
The development of the archaeology of later periods is inseparably linked to the introduction of a crucial methodological innovation that also entered Slovenian archaeology from the West: the stratigraphic excavation method. Consistent application of this method demands an equal treatment of all units of stratification regardless of their cultural content or age. The method was tried out successfully even before the original manual was translated into Slovenian (Harris 1989) in the rescue excavations at the Kapucinski vrt (Capuchin Garden) in Koper in 1986-1987 (Cunja 1989; Cunja 1996; fig. 12). It was also applied in the lengthy excavations at Ljubljana Castle which started in 1988 (Šinkovec 1991; fig. 13), then again in Koper in the excavation inside the Church of St. Clara in 1989 (Grosman 1991, 32-36) and elsewhere.21 Being protective in nature, all of these excavations were rescue interventions performed on complex multi-period sites with a significant or even predominant share of remains from periods after the Early Middle Ages.
The quantity of data gathered, the number of field projects conducted and artifacts acquired have gradually demanded a more appropriate treatment of the medieval and post-medieval archaeological heritage. This incited the interest of only a small number of individuals at first, but the circumstances matured in the early 1990s, when the archaeology of periods following the Early Middle Ages became established also at the academic level. In 1990/91, at the incentive of professor Mitja Guštin, the ar-
chaeological curriculum at Ljubljana's Faculty of Arts was complemented with a new course called the Archaeology of Later Historical Periods (fig. 14; Novakovic et al. 2004, 97-100).22 Adhering to the general structure of the study programme, whose core consists of courses devoted to the various archaeological periods, this course was designed so as to include all periods after the end of the Early Middle Ages, or rather, everything from the traditional upper chronological limit of archaeology - the 11th century - onwards until modernity. The course was actually introduced in the academic year 1993/94, when the first seminars were held, complemented with occasional lectures by Slovene and foreign visiting lecturers (Guštin 1994).23 From 1992 to 1995, professor Guštin and his students were excavating the medieval fortress at Stari grad nad Podbočjem (the Old Castle above Podbočje; Predovnik 2003; fig. 15), discussing various topics related to the archaeology of later periods in the seminar on prehistoric archaeology of the Bronze and Iron Ages.24 The full implementation of the course in all four years of the undergraduate programme followed gradually and only became fully established at the onset of the new millennium.
20	The first one was Lewis Binford, who visited the Department of Archaeology in the academic year of 1985/86 (Novakovic et al. 2004, 82).
21	The fact that none of these excavations have been published completely does not deny their significance for the archaeology of later periods or their historical place within the methodological development of Slovenian archaeology.
22	In Slovenia, this term was first used by Božidar Slapšak in 1982 in his article O zgodovini in arheologiji (On History and Archaeology) published in the journal Arheo (Slapšak 1981). Slapšak pointed out that "expanding the subject of archaeology to the latest historical periods" is only possible if the differentiation between archaeology and history as scientific disciplines is based on the different nature of their sources. In the opposite case, archaeology as a "synthesising and integrative science" can be defined only through the demarcation of its field of interest in relation to history, that is, chronologically (Slapšak 1981, 52-53). This latter premise has been determining the relationship between the two disciplines ever since the discussion between Korošec and Grafenauer in the 1950s, preventing the establishment of the archaeology of later periods as an independent and legitimate scientific (sub) discipline. Due to the same consideration the academic course was renamed in 1995, when the adjective "historical" was dropped from the course title because it implicitly supported the traditional separation into archaeological 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 arheologijo visokega in poznega srednjega veka (An Introduction to the Archaeology of the High and Late Middle Ages) at the Department of Archaeology on 10 May 1988, some years before the official introduction of the course.
24	This also resulted in the publication of older excavations carried out at Stari grad nad Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993).
Fig. 14: Professor Mitja Guštin, instigator of systematic development of the archaeology of later periods as an independent 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).
T 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 later periods, students discussed the stove tiles unearthed at Ljubljana Castle, in cooperation with the City Museum of Ljubljana. The professor and
students attending the seminar presented their work to the general public with a small exhibition at the Jakopičevo Razstavišče gallery and in a published volume. The book entitled Ljubljanski grad. Pečnice
(Ljubljana Castle. Stove Tiles) was published as the first volume in a new series of monographs named Archaeologia historica Slovenica, which the Department of Archaeology started publishing with the ambition to stimulate research into the more recent periods and to create a platform for the publication of finds and research projects, thus expanding knowledge and connecting the interested researchers (Guštin, Horvat 1994).25
As early as 1995, the first two graduation theses dealing with the archaeology of later periods were defended. Both of them were general surveys aiming to strengthen the emerging discipline and link it to the domestic and international research traditions. An exhaustive overview and analysis of archaeological research into the High and Late Middle Ages in Slovenia was prepared by Tomaž Nabergoj, who published his thesis in the National Museum's exhibition catalogue Gotika na Slovenskem. - svet predmetov (Gothic in Slovenia - the World of Objects; Nabergoj 1995). The conceptual development of historical archaeology throughout Europe and the USA was presented by Katarina Predovnik in her thesis (Predovnik 1995; cf. Pre-dovnik 2000). Both authors typically assumed a somewhat apologetic stance, seeing that the rigid traditional understanding of archaeology as the antipode rather than as another facet of history called for a clear definition of the significance of 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 published 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 history) still have insufficient knowledge and understanding of this segment of archaeological research, which is why they often reject it. The archaeology of later periods has yet to open a debate on the subject with the related disciplines. For now, their perception of archaeology remains within the limits set by Bogo Grafenauer in the mid-20th century (Grafenauer 1951; Grafenauer 1960).
the centuries following the Early Middle Ages in Slovenia. Katarina Predovnik, on the other hand, tried theoretically to define the epistemological possibilities of historical archaeology in accordance with the concepts of material culture, literacy and social theory current in the so-called post-processual archaeology.
Other seminar papers and graduation theses soon followed. In the period between 1995 and 2008, eighteen archaeology students completed their undergraduate studies at Ljubljana's Faculty of Arts, obtaining bachelor's degree with a thesis on the archaeology of later periods. Furthermore, two students obtained a master's degree and one a PhD with theses on the same subject (fig. 16).
In 1995, again at the initiative of Mitja Guštin, the Centre for Medieval and Post-Medieval Studies was established at the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts (Novakovic et al. 2004, 99-100). In 1996 it opened a branch office in Celje, which operated until 2001 in cooperation with the Celje Regional Museum. Led by professor Guštin, the Centre was "established with the intention of speeding up the development of medieval and post-medieval archaeology in Slovenia and encouraging the analysis and publication of the finds lying forgotten in museum storage rooms" (Guštin 2001e, 7). One of the key initiatives for establishing the Centre - and its Celje office in particular - was the
□ diploma / BA
■	magisterij / MA
■	doktorat/PhD
3 -
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Fig. 16: Number of bachelor's degree, master's degrees, and PhD theses defended at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana from 1995 until 2008 (source: archive of the Department of Archaeology). Sl. 16: Število diplomskih, magistrskih in doktorskih del s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij, obranjenih na Oddelku za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani v obdobju 1995-2008 (vir: interni arhiv Oddelka za arheologijo).
desire for a comprehensive analysis and publication of the finds and data from excavations in Celje, especially the excavations at Stari grad nad Celjem carried out by the Department of Archaeology and those conducted by the Institute for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage in Knežji dvor (the Princely Court) in Celje. The initial idea was not realised in full though, since only small assemblages of artefacts from these two large excavation projects were actually evaluated and published (e.g. Brišnik 1999a; contributions in Guštin 2001f). Still, the Centre documented and often also took care of the publication of archaeological finds from several other medieval and post-medieval sites, e.g. the castles at Slovenska Bistrica, Slovenske Konjice, Šalek, Podsreda, Žebnik, Stari grad nad Podbočjem, Zgornji stolp at Krancelj, along with the finds from the monasteries of Olimje, Žiče, and Ptuj, from the town centres of Slovenj Gradec, Ljubljana and Celje, and the objects recovered from the underwater sites of the Ljubljanica river, Piran and Sv. Ivan near Umag (Croatia). The Centre also carried out the Celjski knezi (the Princes of Celje) project, prepared a touring exhibition presenting an overview of the archaeological research into the Middle Ages in the Štajerska and Prekmurje regions and, in 1998, collaborated with the Celje Regional Museum in the organisation of the resounding international symposium Celjski grofje - stara tema, nova spoznanja (The Counts of Celje - New Findings on an Old Subject; Fugger Germadnik 1999b). The Centre's activity has died down since the doors of the Celje branch office finally closed in 2003.
The institutional infrastructure of the archaeology of later periods is complemented by the posts of curators for the archaeology of (High and) Late Middle Ages at the National Museum of Slovenia and the City Museum of Ljubljana. These are in charge of the archaeological movable heritage of the periods following the Early Middle Ages, researching and presenting it to the public at permanent and temporary exhibitions. Then there is the main Slovenian archaeological research institution, the Institute of Archaeology at the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (IzA ZRC SAZU). For a long time, its research activities were limited to researching the "traditional" archaeological periods - in line with the orientations and tasks set out by Josip Korošec in 1948, on the founding of the Archaeological Section at the Historical Institute: "the archaeological scientific research of the Slovenian territory ranging from the Neolithic period to the settlement
by the Slavs and the Early Middle Ages, including the 11th century". Even though there were plans to expand the Institute's scope of activity beyond this chronological limit as early as in 1989 (Pleterski 1997, 88), this did not happen until the beginning of the new millennium, when they finally acquired a new member of staff - a researcher for the archaeology of the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period.27 Finally, in the last decade the journal Arheološki vestnik, the principal Slovenian archaeological journal published by the Institute, began publishing papers on the archaeology of later periods. We could say that this was an important symbolic break from tradition and the final affirmation of the new discipline as a legitimate and meaningful segment of archaeology.
Another institute active in the fields of medieval and post-medieval archaeology was founded in 2003. Headed by Mitja Guštin, the Institute for Mediterranean Heritage was established at the Science and Research Centre of Koper, engaging in multi-period and interdisciplinary research (fig. 17). In cooperation with partners from Italy, Croatia and Austria, members of the Institute conducted research into the material heritage of the Venetian Republic on the eastern Adriatic coast in the framework of the European project called Dediščina Serenissime (The Heritage of the Serenissima), which extended over several years (cf. for example Guštin et al. 2006). The Institute is especially active in the field of publishing (Preložnik 2008): regarding the archaeology of later periods, six volumes have already been published in the Annales Mediterranea series (Guštin 2004; Lazar 2004; Mileusnic 2004; Zagarčanin 2004; Guštin et al. 2006; Lazar, Willmott 2006; Guštin et al. 2008), as well as a number of graduation theses and other papers by students of cultural heritage studies at the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Primorska
27 The Early Slavic period is the last period presented in the popular book surveying the archaeology of the Slovenian territory, Zakladi tisočletij (Treasures of the Millennia). The volume was written by the researchers of the Institute and their co-workers and was published in 1999 (Aubelj, Božič, Dular 1999). It is an important and richly illustrated popular scientific book aiming at the popularisation of archaeology among the general public. The book can also be understood as archaeology's contribution towards building a new national identity after Slovenia's attainment of independence, even though this was not the direct motive for its publication. Still, this "national project" is in keeping with the old understanding of the chronological limits of archaeology, which had already 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 Znanstvenoraziskovalnega središča Univerze na Primorskem (Inštituta za dediščino Sredozemlja ZRS UP; foto: A. Ogorelec).
presented in the new periodical Studia universitatis hereditati (Guštin 2008).
The establishment of the archaeology of later periods as an independent academic discipline went hand in hand with changes in practice. Ever more often, the research projects and small finds were presented at special permanent and temporary exhibitions,28 and the number of publications
28 To name but a few: the exhibitions on the excavations at Kapucinski vrt in Koper (Guštin, Cunja 1989; Cunja 1989) and on the pottery and glass vessels from the castles in the northern part of the Primorska region (Žbona-Trkman et al. 1991); the occasional exhibitions in Križanke Cultural-Information Centre on the research conducted by the City Museum of Ljubljana, such as the Mesto pod muzejem (The City under the Museum) exhibition in 2000; the Gotika na Slovenskem - svet predmetov exhibition (Gothic in Slovenia -the World of Objects; Lozar Štamcar 1995); the multi-period exhibition on pottery in the Šentjernejsko polje region (Križ et al. 1996); the exhibition on the archaeological research conducted on sites from the later periods in the Štajerska region (Guštin, Predovnik 1997); the permanent exhibition
increased significantly (fig. 18). In the last twenty years, several comprehensive site reports including the catalogues and evaluation of small finds have been published,29 as well as numerous theme
of Pomurje Museum (Balažic, Kerman 1997); the exhibition on the Šaleška valley "between the Romanesque and the Baroque" (Ravnikar 1998); the exhibitions on the Counts of Celje (Fugger Germadnik 1999b), on the medieval and post-medieval ceramics from the underwater rubbish dumps at Sv. Ivan near Umag and in Piran (Guštin 2004), on research in Škofja Loka (Štukl 2004); and finally, two recent examples - the exhibitions Zakladi Narodnega muzeja Slovenije (The Treasures of the National Museum of Slovenia; Nabergoj 2006) and Ljubljanica - kulturna dediščina reke (The Ljubljanica - A River and its Past; Turk et al. 2009) at the National Museum of Slovenia.
29 E.g. reports on the following sites: Stari grad nad
Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993; Predovnik 2003), the Ša-lek Castle (Brišnik, Ravnikar 1999), the manor in Polhov Gradec (Železnikar 2002), the shepherd's hut on the Velika planina mountain (Železnikar 2006), the Church of St. Bartholomew in Šentjernej (Predovnik et al. 2008), Mali grad in Kamnik (Štular 2009) and others.
40 35 30 25 20 15 10
□	terenske raziskave / site reports	_
■	artefakti / artefact studies
□	arhitektura in urbanizem / architecture and urbanism
■	naravoslovne analize / scientific reports -
□	problemske objave / problem-oriented studies
□
3H
1870-79 1880-89 1890-99 1900-09 1910-19 1920-29 1930-39 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09
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 addressing the issues of urban archaeology (Stokin 1995; Cunja 1998; Guštin 2001a; Guštin 2001c), pottery production in the Slovenian territory (Župančič, Cunja 2000; Mileusnic 2008; Predovnik 2009) and the discipline's research history, concepts and current state (Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Nabergoj 1995; Guštin 1999a).
Theme meetings and conferences, especially the international ones, offered opportunities for the exchange of knowledge and experience. On the occasion of the exhibition Drobci nekega vsakdana (Fragments of an Ordinary Day) presented at Kromberk Castle in January 1995, the Goriški
30 See for example the treatises on stove tiles (Stare 1993; Guštin, Horvat 1994, Guštin 2001d), medieval pottery (Nabergoj 1999; Kos, Nabergoj 2000; Štular 2005; Štular 2007), ceramic goblets and cups (Guštin 1999b; Guštin 2001b), pottery from highland sites in the Kamniško-Sa-vinjske Alps (Horvat 1996; Cevc 2000; Predovnik 2006), decorated tableware (Cunja 2000; Cunja 2001; Guštin 2004; Predovnik 2009), Spanish majolica (Guštin, Gelichi 2001), glass vessels (Kos, Žvanut 1994; Lazar 2001; Petek 2004), metal objects (Stare 2002), weapons (Nabergoj 2001; 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. Modern analytical methods from natural sciences have already been introduced to artefact studies: non-destructive nuclear spectroscopic methods were used in establishing the chemical composition of medieval glass vessels (Šmit, Kos 2004) and medieval coins (Šmit, Šemrov 2006).
muzej Kromberk museum and the Department of Archaeology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, jointly organised a discussion meeting on medieval and post-medieval archaeological heritage. In cooperation with the Archaeological Museum of Udine, Italy and the Archaeological Society of Friuli, they also organised a special section with contributions by Slovenian researchers at the conference on late medieval and renaissance ceramics in North-eastern Italy and the neighbouring regions which took place in Udine, Italy in March 1996 (Buora et al. 1999). In December 1997, it was followed by a conference on research into the high and late medieval and early modern ceramics in Slovenia organised by the National Museum of Slovenia.31 The symposium on the Counts of Celje, organised by the Celje Regional Museum in cooperation with the Centre for Medieval and Post-Medieval Studies in May 1998, was marked by its international and interdisciplinary character (Fugger Germadnik 1999a). Slovenian researchers began working more closely with their foreign colleagues, especially those from the neighbouring states of Italy, Austria and Croatia.32
31	Cf. Nabergoj 1999, 41 and the series of five articles on the study of medieval and post-medieval ceramics in Slovenia published in Argo 43/1 (Ljubljana 2000, pp. 29-74).
32	Especially the international projects and theme conferences organised since 2003 by the Institute for Mediterranean Heritage (cf. for example Guštin et al. 2006).
On the whole, the approaches and research objectives of the archaeology of later periods so far do not reach beyond the traditionally established limits set by the cultural-historical and typochronological paradigms that still visibly define the greater part of Slovenian archaeological output. The attractive ambition to place the archaeology of later periods on a different footing at its very beginning, to make it more introspective and link it with modern theoretic approaches (Predovnik 1995 and 2000), unfortunately still remains almost completely unrealised. In a way, it is understandable that the protagonists of this young discipline directed most of their research efforts towards establishing the fundamental database (with the publication of site reports and artefact assemblages) and dating tools (typochronologies). Still, there have been some attempts to introduce new concepts into the medieval and post-medieval studies. They are typically in the field of spatial studies. In her analysis of the evolution of settlement in the territory of the former Carthusian monastery of Žiče/Seitz, Katarina Predovnik used the concept of landscape - and architecture - as materialisation of mental models, grounding her explanations on (implicitly) phenomenological premises (Predovnik 1997; Predovnik 1998). The concept of landscape as a field of direct sensory perception and experience-based comprehension of space was introduced in some detail by Dimitrij Mlekuž. In his case study on modelling the soundscape of the surroundings of Polhov gradec in the pre-industrial era he practically examined the possibilities of applying the GIS tools to spatial studies, where space is conceptualised not as abstract and objective, but instead as centred on the subject - the person perceiving, experiencing and interacting with this space (Mlekuž 2002a and 2002b). The GIS analytical tools were used in an
The Department of Archaeology of the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana also collaborated with their Austrian colleagues in the organisation of the conference on motte-and-bailey castles in Hollenegg near Deutschlandsberg in Austrian Styria in October 2006 (Felgenhauer-Schmiedt et al. 2007). The archaeologists from Goriški muzej Kromberk have had a long tradition of professional cooperation and joint projects with their Italian colleagues from the Archaeological Museum of Udine. The successful international cooperation between the Municipality of Maribor and the Maribor Regional Museum, Slovenia, and the Varaždin City Museum from Croatia on the so-called Bastion project in the framework of the European Interreg IIIA initiative in 2004-2006 should also be mentioned here.
innovative way by Matjaž Bizjak in his graduation thesis on the system of defence against the Turks in the area of the Pivka and Reka river valleys (Bizjak 2 0 0 6).33 GIS tools were also applied by Benjamin Štular in his interpretation of the dynamics of human "conquest" and use of the Alpine environment based on the case of the mountains around Bled (Štular 2006) and in his analysis of the logic of the spatial placement and architectural development of Mali grad (Small Castle) in Kamnik (Štular 2009). Endeavouring to extend and transcend the discipline's limits in every aspect, Blaž Podpečan used the current approaches of the so-called archaeology of emotion in his study on post-medieval tombstones in the Spodnja Savinjska Valley. He treated the tombstones as complex sources with material, artistic and verbal (written) elements forming a total system of communication. He offered a convincing explanation of the social integration and cultural determination of distinctly personal emotions and the seemingly individualised private experience manifested through the material practices of mourning and commemoration (Podpečan 2006).
In the last two decades, and especially since the second half of the 1990s, the number of archaeological field investigations documented in professional publications has been rising sharply (fig. 8). There were 55 reported in 1980-1989, 93 in 1990-1999, and as many as 126 in the eight-year period between 2000 and 2007. Of course, this general assertion of the legitimacy and necessity of field work carried out on sites containing the remains from the periods following the Early Middle Ages is partly the result of systematic education and research efforts in the academic sphere, but there are also other reasons for this high trend of growth.
As mentioned previously, since the late 1980s new fieldwork methods were being introduced into Slovenian archaeology. The role of the stratigraphi-cal excavation method for the equal treatment of all periods has already been referred to. Similarly "chronologically" neutral are the various prospecting methods for reconnaissance and non-destructive documentation of the (sub)surface archaeological
33 This study nearly consistently realised the call for "analysing spatial relationships on a regional level" expressed by Božidar Slapšak already in 1987 in his contribution on fortified churches and other fortifications (slov. tabor) established as part of the system for defence against the 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 settlement patterns and dynamics of the uses of space (cf. Novakovic 2003): field surveys, geophysical methods, specialised reconnaissance from the air and the interpretation of aerial photographs 34 etc. (fig. 19). ^ese approaches and methods became fully established in Slovenian archaeology owing to the project for the protection of archaeological heritage in the context of the construction of the Slovenian national motorway network. In 1994, a methodology was designed in this context for preliminary and rescue interventions in the field, the evaluation of archaeological potential and incorporation
34 Substantial use of aerial photography, and especially specialised archaeological aerial prospections and recording from the air, was made possible only after the attainment of independence by Slovenia, when its airspace was opened up for civil use. For the first discoveries of previously unknown late medieval sites, see Grosman 1996, 70-73; cf. also Kerman 1999.
of archaeology into the spatial planning processes and activities that affect the physical environment (Djuric 2004b). All Slovenian archaeological institutions and almost all archaeologists working in Slovenia took part in this project, with varying degrees of intensity. ^e prescribed methodology soon became an established norm, not just in the motorway project but in general. ^e development of the so-called preventive archaeology was followed by legislation, with the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act applied in 2008.
^is new way of understanding archaeology's role in spatial planning resulted in a sharp increase in the overall archaeological work performed, and with it, a rise in the number of documented and investigated sites and other remains from the more recent periods. In the framework of the motorway project, the following sites with late medieval and early modern settlement remains must be mentioned: 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 et al. 2006). Further, the remains of the manor of Forsthof were excavated in Medlog (Tomažič 2004), and in Valmarin at Spodnje Škofije the outhouse of a former grange of the Koper bishopric (Cunja 2004; fig. 20). At the site of Gošča in the Dolenjska region a post-medieval brickworks was discovered (Žižek 2004), while the excavations at Mrzlo polje near Ivančna Gorica (Nabergoj 2007), Šušec near Razdrto (Svoljšak 2000-2004) and some other sites produced old infrastructure - roads and field paths, waste pits, field boundaries and similar. More often than not, the medieval and post-medieval finds recorded in the course of preliminary archaeological investigations are "merely" the scattered traces of husbandry-related activities, such as various farming practices resulting in the "littering" of the landscape.
The number of new discoveries is boosted also by the increasingly intense archaeological research of underwater sites, especially since the establishment of the Underwater Archaeology Group by the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia (cf. for example Podvodna arh. Slov. 1, 1982; Podvodna arh. Slov. 2, 1984; Bitenc, Knific 1997; Gaspari, Erič 2008). Among the finds that
have - one way or another - "ended up" in seas, rivers or lakes, there are many objects from the later periods preserved in excellent condition that
-	despite originating from very particular contexts
-	significantly complement our knowledge of the past through material sources.35
AT THE END OF A BEGINNING
The described development of archaeological research into periods following the Early Middle Ages can be evaluated in various ways. It might seem late and inappropriate when judged by the
35 For example, valuable data on the consumption and even production of decorated tablewares on the eastern Adriatic coast were gathered from the finds collected from underwater rubbish dumps at Piran and near Umag (Guštin 2004). The riverbed of the Ljubljanica river is an almost inexhaustible source of information that has yet to be fully evaluated (Turk et al. 2009). Certain groups of items, e.g. swords (cf. Nabergoj 2001), other larger pieces of armament and tools, eating knives with decorated handles etc. are only rarely represented in the usual archaeological contexts, if at all.
criteria of the leading research environments, such as those of the British and North American archaeologies. However, when placed within the context of the central European archaeological traditions, and taking into account the proverbial small size of Slovenian archaeology (in terms of geography, staff and financing), the results of the efforts made so far, especially over the last two decades, seem much more satisfactory.
We do not wish to present an agenda for further development here, but it is necessary to point out a few weaknesses. The lack of thorough publications on the primary data is a key obstacle that the discipline will have to overcome as soon as possible, since further progress will be difficult to achieve without a suitable empirical base. With such desiderata as Otok pri Dobravi and Stari grad nad Celjem, the already unfavourable ratio between the number of researched and the number of published sites and artefact collections is growing even worse because of the increasing intensity of field research.
The current extremely limited application of the analytical tools of natural sciences in the study of artefacts, taphonomic processes, demographic36 and environmental data is another pronounced weakness.37 Artefact studies are based exclusively
on typological and comparative approaches, and the rare exceptions which do encompass such analyses lack the reflection needed for a full appreciation of the interpretative potential of the data obtained.
Overall, we can conclude that, in dealing with later periods, Slovenian archaeology has not yet managed to liberate itself from the "tyranny of the historical record" and is only rarely attempting to build independent and thoughtful interpretations based principally on material sources. Such a stance is undoubtedly a sign of "beginner's problems", but also of the common lack of theoretical reflection within Slovenian archaeology.
It is probably still too early for a realistic evaluation of the range and depth of the effects that the "moving of boundaries", by establishing a new discipline, will have on the broader understanding of the nature and subject of archaeology. We do believe, however, that this development is required and can only benefit archaeology as a whole, seeing that it forces the discipline to reflect on the fundamental premises of archaeological work, its epistemological possibilities and limitations, directing archaeology towards a more complete and complex understanding of the past through direct contact and intertwining with similar disciplines.
36	So far, the anthropological analyses of skeletal remains 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).
Translation: Alkemist, prevajalske storitve, d. o. o.
ANSl = Arheološka najdišča Slovenije [Archaeological Sites
of Slovenia], Ljubljana 1975. Podvodna arh. Slov. 1 = P. Petru (ed.), Najdbe v Ljubljanici. Pridobitve leta 1981 (Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji
1)	Ljubljana 1982.
Podvodna arh. Slov. 2 = B. Gombač (ed.), Podvodne raziskave v Sloveniji. Posvet in javna razgrnitev dosežkov, Ljubljana, 24. 11. 1982 (Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji
2)	Ljubljana 1984.
ANDREN, A. 1998, Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical
Archaeology in Global Perspective. - New York. AUBELJ, B., D. BOŽIČ and J. DULAR (eds.) 1999, Zakladi tisočletij. Zgodovina Slovenije od neandertalcev do Slovanov. - Ljubljana.
AVGUŠTIN, C. 1954, "Zgornji stolp" na Kranclju in nekdanja župna cerkev v Stari Loki. Poročilo o izkopavanjih v l. 1954. - Loški razgledi 1, 107-120.
AVGUŠTIN, C. 1955, Zaključek izkopavanj na Kranclju. - Loški razgledi 2, 100-104.
BALAŽIC, J. and B. KERMAN (eds.) 1997, Pokrajinski muzej Murska Sobota. Katalog stalne razstave. - Murska Sobota.
BARTOSIEWICZ, L. 2006, Animal bones from the medieval settlement Otok (Gutenwerth) near Dobrava pri Škocjanu, Slovenia. - Arheološki vestnik 57, 457-478.
BEAUDRY, M. C. (ed.) 1993, Documentary Archaeology in the New World. - Cambridge.
BERČIČ, B. 2001, Castrum Bosisen: kje in kaj je bil? Prispevek za razmislek. - Loški razgledi 48, 21-26.
BITENC, P. and T. KNIFIC 1997, Arheološko najdišče Ljubljanica (The Ljubljanica as an archaeological site). - Argo 40/2, 19-32.
BIZJAK, M. 2006, Sistem protiturške obrambe na območju Pivškega podolja in doline Reke: uporaba GIS. - Unpublished graduation thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo.
BLAZNIK, P. 1940, O metodah proučevanja kolonizacij-ske zgodovine. - Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 35/1-2, 33-40.
BLAZNIK, P., B. GRAFENAUER, S. VILFAN and F. ZWITTER (eds.) 1970, Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev. Zgodovina agrarnih panog 1. Agrarno gospodarstvo. - Ljubljana.
BREGANT, T. 1974, Raziskovanja na Starem gradu nad Celjem 1972. leta (Forschungsarbeiten auf Stari Grad in Celje im Jahre 1972). - In: Celjski zbornik 1973-1974, 269-307, Celje.
BREGANT, T. 1977, Stari grad nad Celjem. Raziskovanja v letih 1973 in 1974. Poizkus rekonstrukcije rasti grajskega jedra. - Ljubljana.
BREGANT, T. 1983, Prispevek arheoloških raziskav k proučevanju stavbnega razvoja Starega gradu Celje (The contribution of archaeological researches for the study of the development of the building of the Old Castle of Celje). - Varstvo spomenikov 25, 1983, 39-52.
BREGANT, T. 1984, Pečnice s Starega gradu Celje. - Ljubljana.
BRIŠNIK, D. 1999, Stari grad nad Celjem: keramično gradivo iz sektorjev A in B (Die alte Burg Ober-Cilli. Keramische Funde aus Sektor A und B). - In: Fugger Germadnik 1999a, 261-307.
BRIŠNIK, D. and T. RAVNIKAR 1999, Grad Šalek. - Velenje.
BRIŠNIK, D., T. ŽIŽEK, G. TICA and M. BRICELJ 2006, Ljubečna, Leskovec. - Varstvo spomenikov 43. Poročila, 111.
BUORA M., B. ŽBONA TRKMAN and M. GUŠTIN (eds.) 1999, Ceramica dal Bassomedioevo al Rinascimento in Italia nordorientale e nelle aree transalpine: atti della giornata di studio (Udine, 16 marzo 1996). - Archeologia di frontiera 2, Udine.
CEVC, T. 2000, Lončene posode pastirjev: sklede in latvice iz poznega srednjega in novega veka iz planin v Kamniških Alpah. - Ljubljana.
CEVC, T. (ed.) 2006, Človek v Alpah: desetletje (1996-2006) raziskav o navzočnosti človeka v slovenskih Alpah. -Ljubljana.
CHAMPION, T. 1990, Medieval archaeology and the tyranny of the historical record. - In: D. Austin, L. Alcock (eds.), From the Baltic to the Black Sea, 79-95, London.
CUNJA, R. 1989, Koper med Rimom in Benetkami. Izkopavanje na vrtu kapucinskega samostana. - Ljubljana.
CUNJA, R. 1996, Poznorimski in zgodnjesrednjeveški Koper: arheološko izkopavanje na bivšem Kapucinskem vrtu v letih 1986-1987 v luči drobnih najdb 5. do 9. stoletja / Capodistria tardoromana e altomedievale: lo scavo arche-ologico nell'ex orto dei Cappuccini negli anni 1986-1987 alla luce dei reperti dal V al IX secolo d. C. - Koper.
CUNJA, R. 1998, Archeologia urbana in Slovenia: alcuni risultati e considerazioni dagli scavi di Capodistria. -Archeologia Medievale 25, 199-212.
CUNJA, R. 2000, Poznosrednjeveška in renesančna keramika v slovenski Istri (La ceramica tardomedievale e
rinascimentale nell' Istria slovena). - Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia 10/1 (=20), 63-76.
CUNJA, R. 2001, Italijanska majolika iz Celja / Maioliche italiane dagli scavi di Celje. - In: Guštin 2001f, 97-123.
CUNJA, R. 2003, Valmarin pri Sp. Škofijah. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 269-270.
CUNJA, R. 2004, Valmarin near Spodnje Škofije. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 277-278.
DJURIC, B. (ed.) 2003a, Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije. Vodnik po najdiščih. - Ljubljana.
DJURIC, B. 2003b, Terra gentis humanae memoria: varovanje arheološke dediščine in projekt izgradnje avtocest. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 7-24.
DJURIC, B. (ed.) 2004a, The Earth Beneath Your Feet. Archaeology on the Motorways in Slovenia. Guide to Sites. - Ljubljana.
DJURIC, B. 2004b, Terra gentis humanae memoria: Archaeological heritage protection and the Motorway Construction Project. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 9-28.
DYMOND, D. P. 1974, Archaeology and history: a plea for reconciliation. - London.
EGYHÄZY-JUROVSKÄ, B. 1999, Village Settlement in Slovakia in the Romanesque period from the Aspect of Archaeology. - In: Romanesque Monuments in Slovakia, Pamiatky muzea. Cultural Heritage Magazine 2, 24, Bratislava.
FELGENHAUER-SCHMIEDT, S., P. CSENDES and A. EIBNER (eds.) 2007, Motte, Turmhügelburg, Hausberg. Zum europäischen Forschungsstand eines mittelalterlichen Burgentypus. - Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 23.
FROMMER, S. 2007, Historische Archäologie. Ein Versuch der methodologischen Grundlegung der Archäologie als Geschichtswissenschaft. - Tübinger Forschungen zur historischen Archäologie 2.
FUGGER GERMADNIK, R. (ed.) 1999a, Zbornik mednarodnega simpozija Celjski grofje, stara tema - nova spoznanja, Celje, 27. - 29. maj 1998 / Sammelband des internationalen Symposiums Die Grafen von Cilli, altes Thema - neue Erkenntnisse, Celje, 27. - 29. Mai 1998. - Celje.
FUGGER GERMADNIK, R. (ed.) 1999b, Grofje Celjski / Die Grafen von Cilli. Exhibition catalogue. - Celje.
GABROVEC, S. 1975, Žlan. - In: ANSl, 165.
GASPARI, A. 2008, Perspektiva arheologije bojišč in raziskav ostankov iz zadnjih dveh stoletij na Slovenskem (Battlefield archaeology and research of military remnants from the last two centuries in the territory of modern day Slovenia). - Arheo 25, 101-106.
GASPARI, A. and M. ERIČ 2008, Arheološke raziskave struge Ljubljanice med Verdom in Vrhniko (Archaeological research of the Ljubljanica riverbed between Verd and Vrhnika). - Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia 18/2, 407-430.
GRAFENAUER, B. 1951, O arheologiji in zgodovini (On archaeology and history). - Zgodovinski časopis 5, 163-174.
GRAFENAUER, B. 1960, Struktura in tehnika zgodovinske vede (uvod v študij zgodovine). - Ljubljana.
GROSMAN, D. 1991, Kocka, kocka, kockica ... Od arheološkega zapisa v zemlji do arheološkega zapisa na papirju. - Arheo 12, 25-36.
GROSMAN, D. 1996, Antično Posavje: uporaba nede-struktivnih arheoloških metod (Roman Posavje). - In: M. Guštin et al. (ed.), Rimsko podeželje (Roman Countryside), 43-82, Ljubljana.
GUŠTIN, M. 1994, Predgovor / Foreword. - In: Guštin, Horvat 1994, 7-10.
GUŠTIN, M. 1999a, Le ricerche archeologiche sul Medio-evo e sull'eta moderna in Slovenia. - In: Ceramica dal Bassomedioevo al Rinascimento in Italia nordorientale e nelle aree transalpine. Atti della giornata di studio (Udine, 16 Marzo 1996), Archeologia di frontiera 2, 121-126, Udine.
GUŠTIN, M. 1999b, Srednjeveške keramične čaše iz izkopavanj v mestu Celje (Mittelalterliche Tonbecher aus den Ausgrabungen in der Stadt Celje). - In: Fugger Germadnik 1999a, 249-260.
GUŠTIN, M. 2001a, Archeologia urbana in Slovenia. - In: S. Gelichi (ed.), Dalla carta di rischio archeologico di Cesena alla tutela preventiva urbana in Europa, 53-57 and 105, Firenze.
GUŠTIN, M. 2001b, Celjske čaše / Die Tonbecher vom Typ Celje. - In: Guštin 2001f, 139-193.
GUŠTIN, M. 2001c, Mittelalterliche Städte auf römischen Ruinen in Slowenien. - In: Zwischen Römersiedlung und mittelalterlicher Stadt: Archäologische Aspekte zur Kontinuitätsfrage, Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 17, 241-249, Wien.
GUŠTIN, M. 2001d, Pečnice z grbom grofov celjskih / Stove tiles with the Celje family coat of arms. - In: Guštin 2001f, 63-68.
GUŠTIN, M. 2001e, Srednjeveške študije v Celju / Medieval studies in Celje. - In: Guštin 2001f, 7-8.
GUŠTIN, M. (ed.) 2001f, Srednjeveško Celje / Medieval Celje. - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 3, Ljubljana.
GUŠTIN, M. (ed.) 2004, Srednjeveška in novoveška keramika iz Pirana in Svetega Ivana / Ceramiche medievali e postmedievali da Pirano e San Giovanni / Srednjov-jekovna i novovjekovna keramika iz Pirana i Svetog Ivana. - Koper, Piran, Umag.
GUŠTIN, M. (ed.) 2008, Miscellanea aetatis mediae. - Studia universitatis hereditati 1, Koper.
GUŠTIN, M. and R. CUNJA 1989, Koper med Rimom in Benetkami. Izkopavanje na vrtu kapucinskega samostana. Exhibition catalogue. - Ljubljana. (German / Italian edition: Koper zwischen Rom und Venedig/ Capodistria tra Roma e Venezia. - Koper, 1991.)
GUŠTIN, M., R. CUNJA and K. K. PREDOVNIK 1993, Podbočje - Stari grad. - Posavski muzej Brežice 9.
GUŠTIN, M. and S. GELICHI 2001, Keramika španske proizvodnje v Sloveniji / Ceramiche di produzione spagnola dalla Slovenia. - In: Guštin 2001f, 125-138.
GUŠTIN, M. and Ma. HORVAT (ed.) 1994, Ljubljanski grad. Pečnice / Ljubljana Castle. Stove Tiles. - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 1, Ljubljana.
GUŠTIN, M. and K. PREDOVNIK 1994, Zu den mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen archäologischen Forschungen in Slowenien. - Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 10, 41-49.
GUŠTIN, M. and K. PREDOVNIK (ed.) 1997, Drobci nekega vsakdana / Bruchstücke eines Alltags. - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 2, Ljubljana.
GUŠTIN, M., S. GELICHI and K. SPINDLER 2006, The Heritage of the Serenissima: the presentation of the architectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian Republic, proceedings of the international conference, Izola - Venezia, 4.-9. 11. 2005. - Koper.
GUŠTIN, M., V. BIKIC and Z. MILEUSNIC 2008, Ottoman times: the story of Stari Bar / Osmanska vremena: priča o Starom Baru. - Koper.
HABJAN, V. 1999, Družbeno-razvojni pomen knezov iz Celja v slovenskem poldrugem tisočletju (Die gesellschaftlich-entwicklungsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der Fürsten von Cilli in Slowenien des 15. Jahrhunderts).
-	In: Fugger Germadnik 1999a, 51-70.
HARRIS, E. C. 1989, Načela arheološke stratigrafije. -Ljubljana. (Slov. translation of the book: E. C. Harris, Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, London 1979.)
HINZ, H. 1981, Motte und Donjon. Zur Frühgeschichte der mittelalterlichen Adelsburg. - Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, Beiheft 1.
HORVAT, M. 1996, Obdelava lončenine z Velike planine (Pottery from Velika Planina). - Traditiones 25, 81-89.
JANKUHN, H. 1973, Umrisse einer Archäologie des Mittelalters. - Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 1, 9-19.
JOGAN, S. 2008, Pravno varstvo dediščine: ogrožanje in uničevanje kulturne in naravne dediščine ter pravni vidiki njunega varstva. - Koper.
JOHNSON, M. 1996, An Archaeology of Capitalism. - Oxford.
KASTELIC, J. 1964-1965, Nekaj problemov zgodnjesre-dnjeveške arheologije v Sloveniji (Quelques problemes concernant l'archeologie du Haut moyen age en Slovenie).
-	Arheološki vestnik 15-16, 109-124.
KERMAN, B. 1999, Settlement Structures in Prekmurje from the Air / Poselitvene strukture v Prekmurju iz zraka. - Arheološki vestnik 50, 333-347.
KERMAN, B. 2008, Srednjeveško obdobje. - In: Gornje njive pri Dolgi vasi, Zbirka Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 6, 31-36, Ljubljana.
KOROŠEC, J. 1950a, Arheologija in nekatere njene naloge (Archaeology and some of its tasks). - Zgodovinski časopis 4, 5-22.
KOROŠEC, J. 1950b, Prvo posvetovanje jugoslovanskih arheologov. - Zgodovinski časopis 4, 212-215.
KOROŠEC, P. 1951, Slovanske ostaline na dvorišču SA-ZU v Ljubljani (Slav remains in the courtyard of the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts). - Arheološki vestnik 2/2, 156-183.
KOS, D. 1996, Celjska knjiga listin I. Listine svobodnih gospodov Žovneških do 1341. - Celje.
KOS, Ma. and T. NABERGOJ 2000, Preučevanje srednjeveške in novoveške keramike na Slovenskem. - Argo 43/1, 29-30.
KOS, Ma. and M. ŽVANUT 1994, Ljubljanske steklarne v 16. stoletju in njihovi izdelki / Glass factories in Ljubljana in the 16th century and their products. - Viri. Gradivo za materialno kulturo Slovencev 1, Ljubljana.
KOS, Mi. 1940, Stanje in naloge slovenske kolonizacij-ske zgodovine. - Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 35/1-2, 26-32.
KOS, Mi. 1948-1949, O nekaterih nalogah slovenskega zgodovinopisja (Some tasks of the Slovene historiography). - Zgodovinski časopis 2-3, 135-143.
KOS, P. 1996, Der Friesacher Pfennig und seine Nachprägungen im slowenischen Gebiet. - In: R. Härtel, M. J. Wenninger (eds.), Die Friesacher Münze im AlpenAdria-Raum, Akten der Friesacher Sommerakademie Friesach (Kärnten), 14. bis 18. September 1992 / La moneta frisacense nell'Alpe Adria, atti del convegno internazionale Friesach (Carinzia), 14-18 settembre 1992, 157-190, Graz. KRAMBERGER, D. and I. STOPAR, 1987, Program sanacije in prezentacije gradu Celje. - In: Celjski zbornik 1987, 85-94, Celje.
KRIŽ, I. et al. 1996, Od antičnega vrča do majolke / Vom antiken Krug bis Majolka. Exhibition catalogue. - Novo mesto.
LAZAR, I. 2001, Srednjeveško steklo iz Celja / Medieval
glass from Celje. - In: Guštin 2001f, 69-96. LAZAR, I. (ed.) 2004, Drobci antičnega stekla / Fragments
of ancient glass. - Koper. LAZAR, I. and H. WILLMOTT 2006, The glass from the
Gnalic wreck. - Koper. LEBEN-SELJAK, P. 1996, Paleodemografska analiza ne-kropole pri farni cerkvi v Kranju / Paleodemographic analysis of the necropolis at the parish church in Kranj.
-	Antropološki zvezki 4, 95-107. LEBEN-SELJAK, P. 1999, Antropološke raziskave v Šentjerneju (Anthropologische Untersuchungen in Šentjernej).
-	In: M. Dražumerič, S. Granda (eds.), Zbornik žžupnije Šentjernej, 61-68, Ljubljana.
LOZAR ŠTAMCAR, M. (ed.) 1995, Gotika v Sloveniji - svet predmetov / Gothic in Slovenia - the world of objects. Exhibition catalogue. - Ljubljana. LOŽAR, R. 1939, Staroslovansko in srednjeveško lončarstvo v Sloveniji (Altslawische und mittelalterliche Keramik Sloweniens). - Glasnik Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 20, 180-225.
LUBŠINA-TUŠEK, M. 2007, Zavrč. - Varstvo spomenikov.
Poročila 44, 309-311. MASON, P. 2003, Obrežje MMP. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 202-203.
MASON, P. 2004, Obrežje - International Border Crossing.
-	In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 208-210. MIKL-CURK, I. 1981, Teorija varstva arheoloških spomenikov v naši praksi (Theory of conservation of archaeological monuments in our practice). - Varstvo spomenikov 23, 81-94.
MILEUSNIC, Z. (ed.) 2004, GnaliC. - Koper. MILEUSNIC, Z. 2008, Prispevek k poznavanju lončarskih delavnic v Kopru (Contribution to cognisance of potter's workshops in Koper). - Annales, Series Historia et So-ciologia 18/2, 463-470. MLEKUŽ, D. 2002a, Modeliranje preteklih zvočnih krajin.
-	In: T. Podobnikar, D. Perko, M. Krevs, Z. Stančič, D. Hladnik (eds.), Geografski informacijski sistemi v Sloveniji 2001-2002, 55-63, Ljubljana.
MLEKUŽ, D. 2002b, Prisluhnimo krajinam: modeliranje
preteklih zvočnih krajin. - Arheo 22, 59-65. MÜLLNER, A. 1878, Archäologische Excurse durch Südsteiermark und Krain I: Die Tumuli nächst Rothwein bei Marburg. - Mitteilungen der k.k. Zentralkomission 4, 83. MÜLLNER, A. 1892a, Die Felsenburg Lueg in Innerkrain.
-	Argo 1/2, 14-16 and T. II.
MÜLLNER, A. 1892b, Mittheilungen aus dem Museum.
-	Argo 1/4, 78-79.
MÜLLNER, A. 1894a, Die Felsenburg Lueg in Innerkrain.
-	Argo 3/3, 57-66; 3/6, 105-114.
MÜLLNER, A. 1894b, Das Gradišče "Attilov Kocian" bei Kapellen. - Argo 3/11, 218-219, T. XVI: 1-3.
MÜLLNER, A. 1894c, Eine heidnische Opferstätte am Bacher in Steiermark. - Argo 3/11, 216-218, T. XV, fig. 1-5.
MÜLLNER, A. 1897, Die Ausgrabungen in der Spitalgasse in Laibach 1896 und 1897. - Argo 5/2, 30-33; 5/3, 51-54; 5/4, 63-66; 5/6, 98-100.
MÜLLNER, A. 1898, Die Ausgrabungen in der Spitalgasse in Laibach 1896 und 1897. - Argo 6/6, 104-109.
MÜLLNER, A. 1899, Das Bürgerspital (Meščanski špital).
-	Argo 7/2, 38-40.
MÜLLNER, A. 1909, Geschichte des Eisens in Krain, Görz und Istrien von der Urzeit bis zum Anfange des XIX. Jahrhunderts. - Wien, Leipzig.
NABERGOJ, T. 1995, Arheologija in gotika / Archaeology and Gothic. - In: Lozar Štamcar 1995, 7-107.
NABERGOJ, T. 1999, Srednjeveška keramika iz Ljubljane in Ljubljanice iz zbirk Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega muzeja Slovenije (Medieval pottery from Ljubljanica and the Ljubljanica from the collections of the Archaeological Department of the National Museum of Slovenia). - Argo 42/1, 39-66.
NABERGOJ, T. 2001, Oboroženi stan srednjeveške družbe na Slovenskem na osnovi materialnih virov. Primer: meči. - Unpublished MA thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo.
NABERGOJ, T. 2005, Muzealec v Narodnem muzeju in začetki arheologije srednjega veka (Ložar as curator at the National Museum and his beginnings in the archaeology of the Middle Ages). - In: I. Slavec Gradišnik (ed.), Pretrgane korenine: sledi življenja in dela Rajka Ložarja, 159-189, Ljubljana.
NABERGOJ, T. (ed.) 2006, Stopinje v preteklost: zakladi iz arheoloških zbirk Narodnega muzeja Slovenije. Exhibition catalogue. - Ljubljana.
NABERGOJ, T. 2008a, Mrzlo polje. Sektor C. - In: Mrzlo polje pri Ivančni gorici, Zbirka Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 5, 46-60, Ljubljana.
NABERGOJ, T. 2008b, Muzeji in arheologija obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku (Museums and archaeology of the periods following the Early Middle Ages). - Arheo 25, 89-96.
NADBATH, B. 2008, Posrednjeveška arheološka dediščina: raziskave, zaščita in varovanje (Post-medieval archaeological heritage: research, protection and management).
-	Arheo 25, 97-100.
NOVAKOVIC, P. 2002a, Archaeology in five states - a peculiarity or just another story at the crossroads of "Mitteleuropa" and the Balkans: a case study of Slovene archaeology. - In: P. F. Biehl et al. (ed.), Archäologien Europas, 323-352, Münster, New York, München, Berlin.
NOVAKOVIC, P. 2002b, Refleksija o treh esejih. - Arheo 22, 83-90.
NOVAKOVIC, P. 2003, Osvajanje prostora: razvoj prostorske in krajinske arheologije. - Ljubljana.
NOVAKOVIC, P., M. LOVENJAK and M. BUDJA 2004, Osemdeset let študija arheologije na Univerzi v Ljubljani. - Ljubljana.
OROŽEN, J. 1971, Zgodovina Celja in okolice, I. del: Od začetka do leta 1848. - Celje.
ORSER, C. E. 1999, Negotiating our "familiar pasts". - In: Tarlow, West 1999, 273-285.
PAHIČ, S. 1962, Arheološka topografija Slovenije. - Argo 1/4, 93-120.
PETEK, B. 2004, Pregled oblik srednjeveškega stekla iz Turjaške palače v Ljubljani (A summary of forms of medieval glass from the Auersperg Palace in Ljubljana).
-	In: Lazar 2004, 115-126.
PLETERSKI, A. 1979, Povezovanje tvarnih in pisanih virov pri proučevanju zgodnjega srednjega veka (alpskih Slovanov) (Links between material and written sources in the study of the Early Middle Ages - Alpine Slavs).
-	Arheološki vestnik 30, 507-519.
PLETERSKI, A. 1997, Inštitut za arheologijo polstoletnik / Fiftieth Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeology. -Ljubljana.
PLETERSKI, A. 2002, Kremplnov hrib nad Hosto. - In: Enciklopedija Slovenije 16, Dodatek A-Ž, Kazalo, 114.
PODPEČAN, B. 2006, Nagrobnik, podoba živih (The Gravestone: An Image of the Living). - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 5, Ljubljana.
PREDOVNIK, K. K. 1995, O stvareh in besedah. Arheologija mlajših obdobij. - Unpublished graduation thesis. Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo.
PREDOVNIK, K. 1997, Svet puščave: materializacije kartuzijanske duhovnosti (The world of desert: materializations of Carthusian spirituality). - Poligrafi 7/8, year 2, 145-174.
PREDOVNIK, K. 1998, Die Kartause Seitz: natürliche und ideologische Momente in der Genese einer Kulturlandschaft. - In: K. Spindler (ed.), Mensch und Natur im mittelalterlichen Europa. Archäologische, historische und naturwissenschaftliche Befunde, Schriftenreihe der Akademie Friesach 4, 261-278, Klagenfurt.
PREDOVNIK, K. 2000, Cur archaeologia medievalis?
-	Časopis za kritiko znanosti, domišljijo in novo antropologijo 28/200-201, 31-51.
PREDOVNIK, K. 2002, Anders Andren: Between artifacts and texts: historical archaeology in global perspective.
-	Arheo 22, 91-97.
PREDOVNIK, K. 2003, Trdnjava Kostanjevica na Starem gradu nad Podbočjem (The Fortress of Kostanjevica (Veste Landestrost) at Stari Grad above the Village of Podbo-čje). - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 4, Ljubljana.
PREDOVNIK, K. 2006, Srednjeveška in novoveška lončenina s planin v Kamniško-Savinjskih Alpah (Mittelalterliche und neuzeitliche Keramik der Almen in den Kamniker Alpen). - In: Cevc 2006, 182-208.
PREDOVNIK, K. 2008a, Kosova gomila v Razvanju in vprašanje obstoja mot na slovenskem ozemlju (Kos' barrow in Razvanje and the question of the existence of mottes in Slovenia). - Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia 18/2, 369-384.
PREDOVNIK, K. 2008b, Nova obzorja: arheologija mlajših obdobij (New horizons: archaeology of the later periods). - Arheo 25, 81-88.
PREDOVNIK, K. 2009, Prunk bei Tisch. Vom Beginn der Neuzeit in den slowenischen Ländern. - In: B. Scholk-mann et al. (eds.), Zwischen Tradition und Wandel. Archäologie des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, Tübinger Forschungen zur historischen Archäologie 3, 281-290.
PREDOVNIK, K. and D. GROSMAN 2007, Turmhügelburgen im Gebiet des heutigen Sloweniens - eine Forschungslücke. - In: Felgenhauer-Schmiedt et al. 2007, 209-224.
PREDOVNIK, K., M. DACAR and M. LAVRINC 2008, Cerkev sv. Jerneja v Šentjerneju: arheološka izkopavanja v letih 1985 in 1986 (St. Bartholomew Church in Šentjernej: Archaeological Excavations in 1985 and 1986). - Archaeologia historica Slovenica 6, Ljubljana.
PRELOŽNIK, A. 2008, Izdajateljska dejavnost Inštituta za dediščino Sredozemlja UP ZRS - serija Annales Mediterranea. - Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia 18/2, 491-493.
RAVNIKAR, T. (ed.) 1998, Šaleška dolina med romaniko in barokom. Exhibition catalogue. - Velenje.
ROZMAN, L. 2008, Srednjeveško hladno strelno orožje
-	arheološke najdbe puščic, lokov in samostrelov. -Unpublished graduation thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo.
SCHLESINGER, W. 1974, Archäologie des Mittelalters in der Sicht des Historikers. - Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 2, 7-31.
SCHMID, W. 1915, Die Ringwälle des Bacherngebietes. -Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 2/3, 229-305.
SCHMID, W. 1922, Beiträge zur Geschichte der frühmittelalterlichen Besiedelung der Steiermark. - Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 18, 27-45.
SCHMID, W. 1925, Südsteiermark im Altertum. - In: F. Hausmann (ed.), Südsteiermark: ein Gedenkbuch, 1-27, Graz.
SLABE, M. 1974, Varovanje zemeljskih slojev s kulturnimi ostanki na področju Škofje Loke (La protection des couches de terre contenant les restes des cultures anciennes sur le territoire de Škofja Loka). - Loški razgledi 21, 73-78.
SLABE, M. 1977, Loška slikana meščanska keramika (La ceramique peinte de la bougeoisie de Škofja Loka). -Loški razgledi 24, 55-57.
SLABE, M. 1980a, Ob otvoritvi razstave meščanske keramike. - Loški razgledi 27, 311-313.
SLABE, M. 1980b, Raziskovanje kulturnih ostalin mlajših dob. - In: Rešena arheološka dediščina Slovenije 1945-1980, 35-36, Ljubljana.
SLABE, M. 1981-1982, Spomeniško varstvo in muzejstvo -skupne naloge pri celoviti skrbi za kulturno dediščino.
-	Argo 20-21, 92-99.
SLABE, M. 1982, Raziskave z arheološko metodo na brestaniškem gradu. - In: Brestanica. Zbornik člankov in razprav, 23-44, Brestanica.
SLAPŠAK, B. 1981, O zgodovini in arheologiji. - Arheo 2, 51-54.
SLAPŠAK, B. 1987, Tabori v sistemu protiturške obrambe.
-	Kronika 35/3, 143-146.
SMOLEJ, S. 1953, Najstarejša livarna železa na Slovenskem.
-	Kronika 1/1, 54-57.
STARE, V. 1983, Werkzeuge zum Gerben von Häuten aus Otok bei Dobrava - Gutenwerth in Südslowenien vom 10. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert. - Balcanoslavica 10, 93-105.
STARE, V. 1993a, Center za arheologijo srednjega veka Narodnega muzeja 1960-1987. - Argo 35, 27-33.
STARE, V. 1993b, Pečnice z Otoka pri Dobravi, freisinškega trga Gutenwerth. - Kronika 41/2, 38-44.
STARE, V. 1993c, Stanovanjska jama z Otoka pri Dobravi (Erdwohngrube aus Otok (Gutenwerth) bei Dobrava).
-	Zgodovinski časopis 47/2, 225-249.
STARE, V. 2000, Pokopališče v cerkvi sv. Miklavža na Otoku pri Dobravi (Gutenwert). - Argo 43/2, 32-47.
STARE, V. 2002, Kovinski predmeti z jugovzhodnega dela naselja na Otoku pri Dobravi (Gutenwert). - Argo 45/1-2, 18-43.
STOKIN, M. 1995, Vloga srednjeveške arheologije pri raziskavah urbane stavbne dediščine (Ruolo dell'archeologia medievale nello studio degli antichi centri urbani). -Annales 6, 49-54.
STOPAR, I. 1975, Grad Celje. Stavbnozgodovinske raziskave (The old castle of Celje). - Varstvo spomenikov 17-19/2, 33-45.
STOPAR, I. 1982, K problemu cisterne na gradu Celje (About the problem of the cistern at the castle of Celje). - Varstvo spomenikov 24, 5-15.
SVOLJŠAK, D. 2000-2004, Razdrto, Šušec - Šušet. - Varstvo spomenikov 39-41. Poročila, 164-167.
ŠEMROV, A. 2001, Novci grofov (knezov) Celjskih, Friderika II. in Ulrika II. / Die Münzen der Grafen (Fürsten) von Cilli, Friedrichs II. und Ulrichs II. - In: Guštin 2001f, 45-62.
ŠINKOVEC, I. 1991, Kako smo prehiteli gradbene stroje.
-	Arheo 12, 50-57.
ŠMIT, Ž. and Ma. KOS 2004, Analize stekla z jedrskimi spektroskopskimi metodami (Glass analyses by means of nuclear spectroscopic methods). - In: Lazar 2004, 141-144.
ŠMIT, Ž. and A. ŠEMROV 2006, Early medieval coinage in the territory of Slovenia. - Nuclear instruments & methods in physics research. Section B, Beam interactions with materials and atoms 252, 290-298.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1968-1969, O raziskovalnih in konservatorskih problemih pri odkrivanju freisinškega trga Gutenwerth (Otok pri Dobravi na Dolenjskem) (Des problemes des recherches et de la conservation dans la decouverte du bourgade freisingien Gutenwerth). - Varstvo spomenikov 13-14, 29-38.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1972-1973, Razvoj srednjeveške keramike na Otoku pri Dobravi - freizinški trg Gutenwerth (Die Entwicklung der mittelalterlichen Keramik in Otok bei Dobrava - dem Freisinger Marktflecken Gutenwerth).
-	Slovenski etnograf 25-26, 9-37.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1974, Ob dokumentaciji arheološkega odkrivanja freisinškega trga Otok pri Dobravi - Gutenwerth (On the documentation of the archaeological unearthing of the Freising market place Otok near Dobrava - Gutenwerth). - Varstvo spomenikov 17-19/1, 7-18.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1975a, Die Entwicklung der mittelalterlichen Keramik in Otok bei Dobrava - dem Freisinger Marktflecken Gutenwerth. - Balcanoslavica 3, 37-47.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1975b, K problemu urbanistične zasnove Otoka pri Dobravi - freisinškega trga Gutenwerth (Otok bei Dobrava - der Freisinger Marktflecken Gutenwerth).
-	Loški razgledi 22, 24-46.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1976, K poznavanju železarske dejavnosti na freisinški posesti v Sloveniji (Zur Kenntnis der Eisenverarbeitung auf dem Freisinger Besitztum in Slowenien).
-	Loški razgledi 23, 47-50.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1979, Arheološko odkrivanje Otoka pri Dobravi - freisinškega trga Gutenwerth. Katalog kovinskega gradiva iz Izkopnega polja 1 iz leta 1968-1971 (unpublished catalogue of the National Museum of Slovenia). - Ljubljana.
ŠRIBAR, V. 1983, Chronologie der Eisenfunde des 10.-15. Jh. aus Otok bei Dobrava - Gutenwerth. - Balcanosla-vica 10, 79-92.
ŠRIBAR, V. and V. STARE 1978, Zur Entwicklung der Wohnarchitektur vom 10. bis zum 15. Jh. auf Otok bei Dobrava. - Balcanoslavica 7, 49-70.
ŠRIBAR, V. and V. STARE 1981, Srednjeveško naselje Otok pri Dobravi. Arheološka pričevanja o nastajanju slovenskih mest. Exhibition catalogue. - Ljubljana.
ŠTIH, P. 1996, Kranjska (Carniola) v zgodnjem srednjem veku (Krain (Carniola) im Frühmittelalter). - In: J. Kos et al. (eds.), Zbornik Brižinski spomeniki, Dela 2. razreda SAZU 45, 13-26.
ŠTIH, P. 1999, Celjski grofje - še vedno raziskovalni problem? (Die Grafen von Cilli - noch immer ein Forschungsproblem?) - In: Fugger Germadnik 1999b, 11-22.
ŠTUKL, J. 2004, Arheološke raziskave srednjeveške Škofje Loke, katalog razstave, 24. 6. 2004-1. 6. 2005 (Loški muzej). - Škofja Loka.
ŠTUKL, J. 2007, O puščičnih osteh za lok in samostrel z območja srednjeveške Škofje Loke (About the arrow and boltheads from the area of medieval Škofja Loka).
-	Arheološki vestnik 58, 367-374.
ŠTULAR, B. 2005, Lončenina s kamniškega Malega gradu: izkopavanja leta 1992 (The pottery from Mali grad in Kamnik. Excavations 1992). - Arheološki vestnik 56, 435-452.
ŠTULAR, B. 2006, Prostor blejskih planin v srednjem veku (Raum der Bleder Almen im Mittelalter). - In: Cevc 2006, 230-241.
ŠTULAR, B. 2007, Lonci v opremi visokosrednjeveške kuhinje s kamniškega Malega gradu (High medieval kitchen pottery. The Kamnik Mali grad case study). -Arheološki vestnik 58, 375-404.
ŠTULAR, B. 2008, Kje so meje slovenske arheologije? O posrednjeveških arheologijah v Sloveniji (The limits of Slovenian archaeology? Post-medieval archaeologies in Slovenia). - Arheo 25, 79-80.
ŠTULAR, B. 2009, Mali grad. Visokosrednjeveški grad v Kamniku / High Medieval Castle in Kamnik. - Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 15, Ljubljana.
ŠUMI, N. 1983, Mesto gradov in dvorcev v zgodovinskih 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? Archaeologies of later historical Britain. - London, New York.
TECCO HVALA, S. 1993, Kataster arheoloških najdišč Slovenije ali zgodba o nastanku neke računalniške baze podatkov (prvi del). - Arheo 15/1992, 62-64.
TOMAŽIČ, S. 2003, Medlog. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 185-187.
TOMAŽIČ, S. 2004, Medlog. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 191-193.
TURK, P., J. ISTENIČ, T. KNIFIC and T. NABERGOJ (eds.) 2009, Ljubljanica - kulturna dediščina reke. - Ljubljana (English edition: P. Turk et al. (eds.) 2009, The Ljubljanica - a River and its Past. - Ljubljana.)
VALIČ, A. 1975, Nomenj. - In: ANSl, 165.
WEST, S. 1999, Introduction. - In: Tarlow, West 1999, 1-15.
ZADNIKAR, M. 1965, Žičko kartuzijo rešujemo (La chartreuse de Žiče). - Varstvo spomenikov 9, 12-22.
ZADNIKAR, M. 1967, Žička kartuzija (La chartreuse de Žiče - Seitz). - Varstvo spomenikov 11, 30-33.
ZAGARČANIN, M. 2004, Stari Bar. Keramika venecijanskog doba / Pottery from Venetian Period. - Koper.
ŽBONA-TRKMAN, B. et al. 1991, Grajska zapuščina. Katalog ob razstavi keramike in stekla, 14. - 17. stol. Exhibition catalogue. - Grad Dobrovo.
ŽELEZNIKAR, J. 2002, Graščina v Polhovem gradcu (The manor house at Polhov Gradec). - Arheološki vestnik 53, 301-371.
ŽELEZNIKAR, J. 2006, Arheološko odkritje ovalne pastirske bajte na Veliki planini (Archäologische Entdeckung einer ovalen Sennhütte auf der Velika Planina). - In: Cevc 2006, 209-229.
ŽIŽEK, I. 2003, Gošča. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2003a, 137-138, Ljubljana.
ŽIŽEK, I. 2004, Gošča. - In: Djuric (ed.) 2004a, 141-142, Ljubljana.
ŽUPANČIČ, M. and R. CUNJA 2000, K lončarski delavnici v Kopru (About the potter's workshop in Koper). - Annales, Series historia et sociologia 10/1 (= 20), 77-82.
ŽVANUT, K. 1999, Umetnostna produkcija med antiko in visokim srednjim vekom in problem njenega vrednotenja (Art between Antiquity and the High Middle Ages, and the Problem of its Evaluation). - Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino 35, 33-47.
Arheološke raziskave obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku v Sloveniji
UVOD
Arheološko preučevanje obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku, ki se je kot samostojna veja arheologije v polni meri uveljavilo šele v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja, se lahko na Slovenskem pohvali z več kot stodesetletno zgodovino (Nabergoj 1995, 73) in živahnim razvojem v zadnjih dveh desetletjih. Prav je torej, da v osrednji slovenski arheološki reviji podrobneje predstavimo in ovrednotimo dosedanji razvoj in dosežke, pa tudi probleme in perspektive arheologije mlajših obdobij. To besedilo se pridružuje preglednim člankom, ki so bili v Arheološkem vestniku objavljeni v jubilejni petdeseti številki pred desetimi leti, in na simboličen način potrjuje, da ima v slovenski arheološki stroki poleg prazgodovinske, klasične, rimske provincialne in zgodnjesrednjeveške arheologije svoj domicil tudi arheološko preučevanje mlajših obdobij.
Uvodoma velja - ponovno - opozoriti na terminološke zagate pri poimenovanju veje arheologije, ki jo predstavljamo (prim. Nabergoj 1995, 99-103; Štular 2008, 79-80; Predovnik 2008b, 81-82). Arheološka obravnava obdobij po koncu zgodnjega srednjega veka logično nadaljuje ustaljeno sistematizacijo vede. Ta sledi periodizacijski shemi, kot jo je vzpostavilo zgodovinopisje. Arheologiji zgodnjega srednjega veka bi potemtakem morala slediti arheologija visokega in poznega srednjega veka pa arheologija novega veka, arheologija moderne dobe in končno celo arheologija sodobnosti. Vse te izraze dejansko uporabljamo tako v slovenskem kakor tudi v drugih evropskih arheoloških okoljih, kadar govorimo o specifičnih časovno opredeljenih raziskovalnih področjih.
Kar zadeva srednjeveško obdobje, običajno ločimo le med zgodnjesrednjeveško in poznosrednjeveško arheologijo,
visoki srednji vek pa iz poimenovanj izpuščamo. Takšna dvojna členitev celo bolje ustreza razvoju materialne kulture kot pa zgodovinarska tridelna shema. Opredelimo jo lahko z velikimi spremembami družbenih in gospodarskih struktur ob vzpostavitvi fevdalnega reda, vsesplošni uveljavitvi krščanstva in Cerkve kot ključne družbene in politične sile. Ti procesi so se namreč jasno odrazili tudi v materialni kulturi, predvsem kot sprememba pogrebnih običajev na eni in pojav fevdalne arhitekture na drugi strani. Tako bi lahko upravičeno govorili tudi o arheologiji fevdalne dobe, ki bi v ožjem smislu obsegala visoki in pozni srednji vek, v širšem pa tudi čas do razkroja fevdalnih institucij konec 18. in v začetku 19. stoletja. Med že uveljavljenimi vsebinskimi pojmi velja omeniti vsaj še arheologijo kapitalizma, ki zajema tudi korenine tega pojava v 16. in 17. stoletju (Johnson 1996).
V nemško govorečih deželah in v okoljih, ki izhajajo iz nemške arheološke tradicije, namesto o zgodnje-, visoko-in poznosrednjeveški govorijo preprosto o srednjeveški arheologiji, tudi v primeru, ko ločeno uporabljajo pojem arheologija zgodnjega srednjega veka. Sledi ji arheologija zgodnjega novega veka (16. do 18. stoletje), medtem ko arheološko preučevanje kasnejšega časa ni sistematizirano in tudi ni izrecno konceptualizirano.1 V britanskem in z njim povezanih arheoloških okoljih pa ločijo med srednjeveško, ta lahko obsega tudi zgodnji srednji vek, in posrednjeveško arheologijo. A tudi slednji izraz je problematičen, saj je kljub svoji semantični širini uporabljan kot časovno zame-
1 Drugačne poglede v zadnjem času ponujajo nekateri mlajši raziskovalci. Sören Frommer je nedavno objavil svojo doktorsko disertacijo, s katero je v nemški prostor prvič eksplicitno vpeljal pojem historična arheologija in ga tudi epistemološko in metodološko utemeljil (Frommer 2007).
jen in ne vključuje moderne dobe in sodobnosti (prim. West 1999, 8-9).
Zapleti so še večji, ko poskusimo oblikovati nekakšen krovni izraz, skupno poimenovanje za arheologije obdobij, ki sledijo zgodnjemu srednjemu veku. Naj bo to arheologija po letu 1000, arheologija po zgodnjem srednjem veku ali morda zgodovinska (historična) arheologija? Prav slednji izraz se je ustalil v nekaterih evropskih in še posebej v zu-najevropskih deželah, kjer historično arheologijo razumejo kot preučevanje kolonialnega obdobja (Orser 1999). Njena specifika je obenem metodološke narave, saj arheologovo delo obsega tudi uporabo pisnih in ne le materialnih virov. Nekateri zato govorijo celo o dokumentarni arheologiji (Beaudry 1993).
Noben izraz ni neproblematičen in tudi historična arheologija ni enoznačen pojem. V starem svetu je raba pisav razširjena že več tisočletij in zato lahko za "historično" označimo tudi arheologijo antičnih civilizacij, evropsko srednjeveško arheologijo in še mnoge druge (prim. Andren 1998). In zakaj ne bi nenazadnje historičnosti arheologije razumeli še drugače, kot posebne teoretske naravnanosti arheologije, ki se zaveda zgodovinske dinamike in kontek-stualne specifičnosti pojavov, ki jih preučuje? V tem smislu bi historično arheologijo lahko videli kot protipol procesni arheologiji (Predovnik 2002, 96; Predovnik 2008b, 82).
V začetku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja je Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani v študij arheologije vpeljal predmet z nazivom arheologija mlajših (zgodovinskih) obdobij. Ime je bilo izbrano kot krovno poimenovanje za arheologijo obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku (Predovnik 1995, 10). Izraz je dovolj splošen, da vanj lahko umestimo vse različne kronološke in vsebinske poddiscipline, dovolj praktičen z vidika slovenske jezikovne rabe in ga v tej obliki pozna tudi angleška, nemška in še katera terminologija, četudi je v teh jezikovnih okoljih uporabljan le poredko.
Slovenska arheološka stroka se v tem pogledu torej še ni poenotila. Kot kažejo izkušnje tujih kolegov, bo nekaj terminološke nedorečenosti in pestrosti vselej ostalo, saj za imeni stojijo vsebinski koncepti, te pa narekuje sam predmet raziskave in se spreminjajo v skladu s pristopi raziskovalcev. Kakorkoli jo že poimenujemo, arheološka obravnava materialnih ostalin iz časa po letu 1000 se je tudi na Slovenskem v zadnjih dveh desetletjih dodobra uveljavila. Nenazadnje to potrjuje tudi novi, leta 2008 uveljavljeni Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine (Ur. l. RS, št. 16/2008, 3. člen), ki status arheološke kulturne dediščine dodeljuje vsem materialnim sledovom človekovega delovanja, ki so pod površjem zemlje ali pod vodo že vsaj sto let, v primeru ostalin vojaškega značaja pa imajo status arheološke kulturne dediščine vse 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), pa vendar je na ta način arheološka obravnava materialnih ostalin mlajših obdobij postala tudi zakonsko predpisana obveza. Tudi zato je prav, da se ozremo v preteklost in ovrednotimo dosedanje soočanje slovenske arheologije z obdobji po zgodnjem srednjem veku.2
PRVI KORAKI
Prve objave poznosrednjeveških najdb in najdišč z območja Slovenije je konec 19. stoletja prispeval Alfons Müllner (sl. 1). Pogosto je šlo za naključna odkritja in nesistematično pridobljeno gradivo, denimo iz kraških jam (Nabergoj 1995, 73) ali iz - domnevno prazgodovinske - Kosove gomile v Razvanju (Müllner 1878; Predovnik 2008a). Nekaterih srednjeveških ostalin, ki jih je dokumentiral, raziskal in objavil, Müllner ni znal pravilno opredeliti ne v časovnem ne v funkcijskem pogledu. Tako je za srednjeveški utrdbi Atilov grad pri Spodnjem Kocjanu (Müllner 1894b) in Rep-nikovo gradišče v bližini zaselka Rep pri Velikem Tinju na Pohorju (Müllner 1894c) domneval, da sta prazgodovinski "kultni lokaciji".
Müllner je zaslužen tudi za prvi sistematični arheološki raziskavi srednjeveških najdišč pri nas. Kot kustos Deželnega muzeja Rudolfinuma je namreč leta 1892 izkopaval v starem gradu v Predjami (sl. 2) in v letih 1897-1898 na območju nekdanjega meščanskega špitala v Špitalski ulici (danes Stritarjevi) v Ljubljani. Z izkopavanji manjšega obsega v Predjami, z natančnim opisom in izrisom grajske arhitekture ter z analizo historiografskih virov o "najznamenitejšem od vseh viteških gradov na Kranjskem" je Müllner želel "kritično osvetliti pravljično zgodbo o Erazmu Luegerju". Sodeč po porušenem zidu in najdeni kamniti krogli v enem od prostorov je predpostavil, kje in kako je bil leta 1484 ubit Erazem Jamski (Müllner 1892a, 1892b in 1894a). V Ljubljani pa je po potresu leta 1895 Müllner vodil arheološka izkopavanja ob gradnji nove stavbe kresije na lokaciji nekdanjega meščanskega špitala, kjer je že v srednjem veku stala tudi cerkev sv. Elizabete. Zaradi najdenih okostij in starih poročil, da je bil tam pokopan junak bojev proti Turkom Herbard VIII. Turjaški (umrl 1575), so "s posebno skrbnostjo gledali na vsak dogodek in skrbno zbrali vsako najdbo" (Müllner 1897, 30). Izkopali so ostanke starejših temeljev iz baročne in gotske faze ter skupno enainpetdeset grobov od 14. do 18. stoletja z redkimi pridatki.3 V špitalskem kompleksu so odkrili tudi ostanke časovno neopredeljive usnjarske delavnice (Müllner 1897, 1898, 1899 in 1900; Stare 1991). Ob popotresnih gradbenih delih so na lokacijah sosednjih hiš v Špitalski ulici našli še več srednjeveških in novoveških najdb (Müllner 1898; Ložar 1939, 188-189; prim. tudi Nabergoj 1999, 42-44).
Za arheologijo srednjega in novega veka so nenazadnje pomembne tudi Müllnerjeve raziskave zgodovine železarstva na Kranjskem, Goriškem in v Istri, in sicer vse od začetkov pa do sodobnosti, torej 19. stoletja (Müllner 1909). Preučeval je tako arheološke (materialne) kakor tudi pisne vire. Njegovo delo je kasneje nadaljeval Walter Schmid, ki
2 Najobširnejši pregled in ovrednotenje slovenske
arheologije srednjega in novega veka je doslej objavil
Tomaž Nabergoj v prispevku Arheologija in gotika leta 1995 (Nabergoj 1995). Prim. tudi Ložar 1939; Slabe 1980; Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Guštin, Horvat 1994, 7-10; Predovnik 1995, 78-84; Guštin 1999a; Nabergoj 2008b. O (ne) ustreznem varovanju posrednjeveške arheološke dediščine in izzivih, ki jih pred konservatorsko stroko postavlja novi zakon, sta nedavno pisala Barbara Nadbath in Andrej Gaspari (Nadbath 2008; Gaspari 2008).
3 Na podlagi nepravilno opredeljenega novca je Müllner najstarejše grobove sicer datiral v 12. ali 13. stoletje.
je med drugim leta 1938 v Nomenju pri Bohinjski Bistrici izkopaval ruševine topilnice železa, t. i. "plavž sv. Heme" (sl. 3). Topilnico ob potoku Plavževka ob vznožju Jelovice je skupaj z ostanki hiše, prvotno opredeljene kot "gradič sv. Heme", datiral v 12.-14. stoletje.4
Schmid se je poleg tega zanimal tudi za srednjeveške zemljene utrdbe, t. i. hausberge, ki so jih od konca devetnajstega stoletja vse bolj intenzivno preučevali avstrijski raziskovalci. Raziskal ali vsaj dokumentiral je več lokacij, med drugim Stari grad ali Presek pri Črešnjevcu, sv. Rok na 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 ostanke dveh stavb znotraj z nasipi utrjenega prostora. Najdišče je označil za utrjeno kmetijo - hausberg (Gabrovec 1975; Smolej 1938). Kot večina tedanjih raziskovalcev je bil tudi Schmid mnenja, da so hausbergi zemljene utrdbe iz časa madžarskih vpadov, in je zato vsa omenjena najdišča (napačno) datiral v 9. in 10. stoletje (prim. Predovnik, Grosman 2007, 209).
Drugih pomembnejših terenskih raziskav do konca druge svetovne vojne skorajda ni bilo. Omenimo lahko npr. izkopavanja v Predjamskem gradu v medvojnem obdobju in med samo vojno (Nabergoj 1995, 33) ter odkritje srednjeveških in novoveških kurišč in drobnih najdb v vrhnjih plasteh v Ajdovski jami pri Nemški vasi, kjer je leta 1938 izkopaval Srečko Brodar (Brodar, Korošec 1953, 61-62).
Zanimivo je, da se - z izjemo Müllnerjevih razskav gradu Jama - v tem zgodnjem obdobju pri nas ni izrazilo tisto romantično zanimanje za spomenike srednjega veka, predvsem monumentalno arhitekturo (gradovi, samostani, cerkve), ki je mnogokje v Evropi predstavljalo eno od pomembnih korenin poznejšega akademskega razvoja srednjeveške arheologije. Niti politične spremembe po prvi svetovni vojni slovenski srednjeveški arheologiji niso prinesle novih spodbud. Medtem pa so druge države, ki so nastale po razpadu Avstro-Ogr-ske, Poljska, Češkoslovaška in Madžarska, načrtno krepile nacionalno zavest svojih državljanov prav z arheološkimi in drugimi raziskavami narodne zgodovine srednjega veka, predvsem gradov in plemstva. Ravno v srednjem veku so namreč iskale korenine svojih narodov kot etničnih in jezikovnih skupnosti pa tudi korenine svoje državne suverenosti, ki so jo utemeljevale na nasledstvu srednjeveških kraljestev. Položaj kraljevine Srbov, Hrvatov in Slovencev oziroma kasnejše Jugoslavije je bil v tem pogledu bistveno drugačen: nastala je kot nova polietnična tvorba, ki ni imela neposrednih zgodovinskih prednikov. Pri oblikovanju nove nacionalne in državljanske identitete zgodovinski dogodki, osebnosti in spomeniki iz srednjeveškega obdobja zatorej niso mogli odigrati nikakršne vloge.
Slovenska arheologija srednjega (in tudi novega) veka je bila v času do druge svetovne vojne brez lastnih konceptov, teoretskih izhodišč in specifičnih metodologij in je bila le nekakšen odvod prazgodovinske arheologije. Odkritja so bila v veliki meri naključna, sistematične raziskave pa maloštevilne in skromnega obsega. In vendar lahko to
4 Obrat je bil kasneje zaradi tehnoloških značilnosti datiran v 15. ali 16. stoletje (Smolej 1953), A. Valič pa je bil mnenja, da bi utegnil biti celo mlajši, iz 19. stoletja (Valič 1975).
fazo v razvoju arheologije mlajših obdobij na Slovenskem umestimo v širši kontekst tedanje srednjeevropske arheologije, ki je svoje izkopavalne tehnike in analitična orodja komajda razvijala ter na interpretativnem področju lovila korak za razvojem zgodovine, antropologije in socialnih ved v Evropi in severni Ameriki. Tik pred drugo svetovno vojno pa je slovenska srednjeveška arheologija z Rajkom Ložarjem dobila utemeljitelja, čigar teoretski razmisleki sodijo v sam vrh, če že ne kar na čelo sočasne evropske arheologije srednjega veka (Nabergoj 2005).
RAJKO LOŽAR IN ARHEOLOGIJA SREDNJEGA VEKA
Leta 1939 je Rajko Ložar (sl. 4) v Glasniku Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo objavil članek z naslovom Staroslovan-sko in srednjeveško lončarstvo v Sloveniji (Ložar 1939). V njem je analiziral zgodnje- in poznosrednjeveško lončenino z različnih najdišč, ki so jo tedaj hranili slovenski muzeji. Najdbe so bile slabo dokumentirane in večinoma pridobljene nesistematično, zato jih je Ložar lahko obravnaval zgolj tipološko, časovno pa je svoje opredelitve utemeljil s primerjavami iz tujine. Pri določanju tipov in njihovem relativnokronološkem razvrščanju je kot zvest učenec dunajske umetnostnozgodovinske šole uporabil koncepte razvoja forme in stila (Ložar 1939, 180, 223-224; prim. Nabergoj 2005 178; Nabergoj 1999, 39-41). Njegova tipo-kronološka shema je vse do sedemdesetih let, ko je Vinko Šribar objavil analize lončenega posodja z Otoka pri Dobravi (Šribar 1974), ostala edino orodje za opredeljevanje poznosrednjeveške lončenine s slovenskega ozemlja. Sedaj je seveda zastarela in kot referenčno delo ni več uporabna, ni pa odveč pripomniti, da Ložarjeve časovne opredelitve v grobem še vedno veljajo.
Ložar je poleg tega opredelil tudi tehnološke značilnosti ter principe okraševanja staroslovanske in kasnejše srednjeveške lončenine. Opažene razlike je pojasnil v kontekstu širših zgodovinskih procesov in razlik med staroslovansko in fevdalno družbo (Ložar 1939, 203-224). Lončenino je obravnaval problemsko in je v tem videl raziskovalni potencial arheologije, ki naj ne ostaja zgolj pri beleženju in opisovanju materialne kulture, marveč naj jo tudi suvereno interpretira (prim. Nabergoj 2005, 180).
Posebej pomemben je uvodni del članka, v katerem je Ložar teoretsko utemeljil arheološko preučevanje celotnega srednjega veka. Opozoril je na pomen arheološkega prispevka k preučevanju preteklosti tudi v času, ki je dokumentiran s pisnimi viri, še posebej zaradi kontinuitete zgodovinskega razvoja, ki zahteva enakovredno arheološko obravnavo zgodnjega, visokega in poznega srednjega veka pa tudi novega veka. Poudaril je problemsko sorodnost arheologije srednjega in novega veka ter prazgodovinske arheologije in razmišljal tudi o razmerjih med arheologijo srednjega veka ter zgodovino, umetnostno zgodovino in etnologijo (Ložar 1939, 180-183). Omenjeni uvod je pravzaprav krajša različica mnogo obsežnejšega besedila z naslovom "Prispevki k arheologiji našega srednjega veka", ki ga Ložar ni nikoli objavil (sl. 5). Ta spis je bil pred nekaj leti že podrobno predstavljen (Nabergoj 2005, 178-182), zato bomo v nadaljevanju navedli le nekaj ključnih poudarkov.
Ložar je zagovarjal stališče, da je arheologija srednjega veka avtonomna in samostojna veda, katere naloga je raziskovanje materialnih ostalin z namenom dopolniti spoznanja zgodovinopisja. Pisni viri so po njegovem mnenju sicer primernejši za rekonstrukcijo celovite podobe preteklosti, vendar to ne pomeni, da je arheologija podrejena zgodovinski vedi. Vsako obdobje lahko obravnava več znanstvenih strok, vsaka v skladu s svojimi raziskovalnimi cilji, spoznavnimi in teoretskimi usmeritvami. Arheološke raziskave so upravičene vselej, kadar specifična narava primarnih virov zahteva uporabo arheoloških metod in pristopov. Arheologija lahko nastopa kot pomožna veda zgodovine, saj "obče zgodovinopisje ne more pogrešati arheološkega dela, zlasti ne pri očrtu starožitnosti, kulturne, umetniške in obrtne tvornosti naroda, dočim je pri vrisavanju politične itd. zgodovine bolj neodvisno. Na vseh teh poljih bi bilo golo uporabljanje pisanih virov nesmiselno, pa tudi nemogoče, kajti pisani viri v tem času o takih predmetih večinoma molče" (Nabergoj 2005, 180). Hkrati pa je arheologija srednjega veka predvsem arheologija in obravnava arheološke spomenike na enak način in enako suvereno kot prazgodovinska arheologija.
Ložarjeva stališča o naravi in smislu srednjeveške arheologije ter o njenem razmerju do zgodovinopisja lahko primerjamo z razpravami, ki so teoretsko utemeljile arheologijo srednjega veka v drugih evropskih deželah. Presenetljivo je, da je Ložar svoje poglede artikuliral že tako zgodaj, saj so podobne razprave drugod objavljali šele več kot tri desetletja kasneje (npr. Jankuhn 1973; Dymond 1974; Schlesinger 1974). Tudi v tem se Ložar kaže kot izjemen in osamljen mislec, čigar nazori pa so zaradi njegove osebne usode ostali brez odmeva (Nabergoj 2005, 182).
NOVA STVARNOST
Ob koncu druge svetovne vojne se je slovenska arheologija soočila s "popolnim kadrovskim kolapsom" (Novakovic 2002b, 87), ki pa je ni ohromil. Nastanek nove države je namreč pomenil priložnost za organizacijsko in kadrovsko prenovo stroke ter izgradnjo infrastrukturnih centrov in omrežij. Že leta 1945 je bilo zakonsko urejeno področje zaščite kulturnih spomenikov in naravnih znamenitosti in tri leta kasneje je Slovenija dobila lastno ustanovo, pristojno za to področje (Jogan 2008, 54-57). Študij arheologije na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani je bil obnovljen v študijskem letu 1946/47 (Novakovic 2004, 46), leta 1947 pa je bila ustanovljena še Arheološka komisija Akademije znanosti in umetnosti, predhodnica današnjega Inštituta za arheologijo Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti (Pleterski 1997).
Sprememba družbenega sistema je narekovala resen razmislek o naravi vede, njenih nalogah in metodah dela, kakršnega slovenska in jugoslovanska arheologija dotlej skorajda ni poznala. Na prvem posvetovanju jugoslovanskih arheologov leta 1950 v Niški Banji so bili postavljeni novi programski temelji in izhodišča za skladen razvoj arheologije v celotnem jugoslovanskem prostoru. Med drugim so za prednostno nalogo določili "raziskovanje materialne kulture naših narodov, pričenši od dobe najstarejših slovanskih rodovnih združenj do prvega pojava razredne meščanske družbe" (Korošec 1950b, 214).
Čeprav "prvi pojav razredne meščanske družbe" - izrazit marksistični konstrukt - ni bil izrecno določen in s tem tudi kronološki razpon arheoloških raziskav ne,5 je bila časovna zamejitev arheologije v Sloveniji implicitno postavljena v 11. stoletje, predvsem v odnosu do umetnostne zgodovine (prim. Kastelic 1964-1965). Takšna odločitev je bila prej posledica razmerij med strokami oziroma pojmovanj o naravi materialnih virov, kakor pa negiranja obstoja teh virov in njihovega pomena za srednjeveško zgodovino. Zato je ilustrativno, da sta na posvetu v Niški Banji referat o stanju arheološkega dela v Jugoslaviji pripravila "Jože Kastelic za arheologijo do X. stoletja n. e. in France Stele za kasnejšo arheologijo in umetnostno zgodovino" (sic!), torej arheolog in umetnostni zgodovinar - konservator. Debata po referatu "je bila osredotočena okoli razmerja umetnostne zgodovine do arheologije in njenih področij" (Korošec 1950b, 212-213).
Josip Korošec je istega leta objavil programski članek z naslovom Arheologija in nekatere njene naloge (Korošec 1950a). V njem se je med drugim dotaknil razmerja med arheologijo in zgodovinopisjem. Menil je, da se različne družbenozgodovinske vede med seboj ločijo po specifičnih metodah dela, zato so samostojne in enakopravne, se pa med seboj dopolnjujejo in so si lahko v pomoč. Tako je tudi arheologija s svojimi metodami lahko nenadomestljiva pri raziskovanju "kasnejših, recimo srednjeveških" vprašanj (Korošec 1950a, 8). Korošec se je s tem pridružil Ložarjevemu pogledu na arheološke raziskave poznega srednjega veka.
Koroščevo mnenje je zbodlo zgodovinarja Boga Grafe-nauerja, ki je naslednje leto odgovoril s polemično razpravo (Grafenauer 1951). Opozoril je, da so arheološki viri sicer res neposredne priče preteklosti, a so v primerjavi "s kritično preverjenimi pisanimi viri" manj zanesljivi, saj so podvrženi arheologovi interpretaciji. Zato so materialni viri absolutno podrejeni pisnim. Najbolj pa je Grafenau-erja zmotilo to, da je Korošec predpostavil samostojnost arheologije pri obravnavi arheoloških virov tudi v "zgodovinskih" obdobjih. Grafenauer je menil, da arheologija pri interpretiranju materialnih virov v tem primeru ne more biti samostojna, marveč je lahko le v pomoč zgodovini. Poleg tega naj bi bili arheološki viri relevantni predvsem za preučevanje gospodarske zgodovine in deloma etnogeneze, za preučevanje drugih vidikov preteklosti pa le, kadar so edini vir, torej v prazgodovini. Ključno je bilo potemtakem vprašanje raziskovalnih pristojnosti ene in druge vede ter razmejitev njunih delokrogov. Podobne polemike so med arheologi in zgodovinarji potekale tudi drugod po Evropi in v marsičem še danes niso zares presežene (prim. Nabergoj 1995, 81-83; Predovnik 2000, 36-45).
Pri nas je Grafenauerjev pogled, ki bi ga lahko poimenovali kar "tiranija zgodovinskega zapisa" (Champion 1990), vsaj implicitno obveljal. Arheologija se do njega kasneje skorajda ni več opredeljevala,6 je pa v praksi sledila kro-
5	Naj bi segal do uveljavitve mest in meščanstva v poznem srednjem veku ali vse do 18. in 19. stoletja, ko je buržoazija prevzela vodilno vlogo v družbi?
6	Razmerja med arheologijo in zgodovino je poskusil na novo konceptualizirati Andrej Pleterski v razpravi, v kateri je predstavil inovativno metodo retrogradne analize
nološki zamejitvi svojega dela s koncem staroslovanskega obdobja. Sistematičnim raziskavam najdišč iz kasnejšega časa se je odpovedovala, do večine zabeleženih odkritij pa je prišlo naključno, v sklopu zaščitnih ali sistematičnih raziskav multiperiodnih najdišč, katerih primarni cilj je bilo preučevanje starejših ostalin.
Lep primer so izkopavanja Zgornjega stolpa na Kranclju nad Škofjo Loko (sl. 6). Izpostavljena utrdba je bila na hribu nad loškim gradom verjetno postavljena v 12. stoletju, opuščena pa je bila po potresu leta 1511. Ruševine je pred izkopom prekrivala zemlja in tako je leta 1954 Stane Gabrovec izkopavanje pričel z domnevo, da ima pred seboj prazgodovinsko grobno gomilo. Ko se je izkazalo, da gre v resnici za ostanke srednjeveškega objekta, je vodenje izkopavanj prevzel umetnostni zgodovinar Cene Avguštin (Avguštin 1954; Avguštin 1955).
Ostaline iz mlajših obdobij so bile v tem času - če so sploh bile upoštevane in dokumentirane - raziskovane izključno v sklopu raziskav multiperiodnih najdišč. Tako so denimo v začetku petdesetih let na dvorišču SAZU v Ljubljani na območju prazgodovinskega grobišča izkopali pet shrambnih jam z ločenino iz 11. ali 12. stoletja (Korošec 1951, 164-172),7 na Prešernovi ulici v Celju pa so ob zaščitnih izkopavanjih - zastavljena so bila zlasti zaradi ogroženosti antičnih ostalin - odkrili ostanke poznosre-dnjeveške stavbe s kuhinjo in pripadajočim inventarjem (Bolta 1953).
Jugoslovanska in slovenska arheologija je po vojni namenila posebno pozornost raziskovanju staroslovanskega obdobja, da bi tako ovrgla nekatere sporne etnične interpretacije italijanskih in nemških arheologov ter dokazala starodavnost in obseg slovanske poselitve, posebno še na Primorskem (Korošec 1950b, 214; Pleterski 1997, 18). Kaj kmalu so postale predmet zanimanja starejše cerkve, ob katerih so arheologi predvidevali obstoj staroslovanskih grobišč. Izkopavanja so običajno razkrila ne le zgodnjesre-dnjeveške, marveč tudi kasnejše pokope in temelje starejših gradbenih faz cerkvene stavbe. Ena prvih obsežnih raziskav te vrste so bila izkopavanja na blejskem Otoku, znotraj in okoli cerkve Marijinega vnebovzetja v letih 1962-1966 (Nabergoj 1995, 9-11 z literaturo; sl. 7). Izkopavanja je opravil Arheološki znanstveni dokumentacijski center Narodnega muzeja pod vodstvom Vinka Šribarja, odkritih
pisnih virov ter integrirane uporabe materialnih in pisnih virov, ki jo je razvil ob študiju zgodnjesrednjeveške poselitve Blejskega kota. Pleterski je zagovarjal nujnost integralne zgodovinske interpretacije tako pisnih kot materialnih virov in je med drugim zapisal, da je "le v povezavi z drugimi vedami (zlasti zgodovino) arheologija sploh lahko znanost" (Pleterski 1979, 508). Njegova izvajanja je temeljito razčlenil in jih problematiziral Božidar Slapšak, ki je opozoril, da je razumevanje arheologije kot zgolj "tehnike z nekimi mehanskimi pravili za 'objektivno' pridobivanje (in kopičenje) virov" neproduktivno (Slapšak 1981, 53). Prvi temeljiti razmisleki o naravi in vlogi arheologije pri preučevanju t. i. mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij so bili opravljeni šele sredi devetdesetih let (Predovnik 1995; Nabergoj 1995; Predovnik 2000).
7 Kot kaže, je datacija napačna, saj objavljena lončenina najbrž ni starejša od 13. stoletja.
pa je bilo več kot sto dvajset skeletnih pokopov, med njimi trije poznosrednjeveški, ter ostanki predhodnic današnje cerkvene stavbe. Arheološka odkritja so delno predstavljena in situ, celovite objave izkopavanj pa še nimamo.
Arheološki znanstveni dokumentacijski center je bil ustanovljen leta 1961, tri leta zatem pa je bil preimenovan v Center za zgodnjesrednjeveške in staroslovanske študije (Stare 1993a; prim. Nabergoj 2008b, 92). Ta posebna raziskovalna enota Narodnega muzeja je nastala po zamisli tedanjega ravnatelja Jožeta Kastelica (prim. tudi Kastelic 1964-1965) in naj bi se posvečala sistematičnim raziskavam arheoloških in drugih virov iz obdobja zgodnjega srednjega veka na slovenskem etničnem ozemlju. Pri tem naj bi arheologi sodelovali s strokovnjaki s področja zgodovine, (fizične) antropologije, umetnostne zgodovine in jezikoslovja. Center naj bi torej raziskoval predvsem starejšo narodovo zgodovino in s tem pripomogel k vzpostavljanju nacionalne identitete.
KASTELIČEVA ZAMEJITEV (ZGODNJESREDNJEVEŠKE) ARHEOLOGIJE
Prav raziskave na blejskem Otoku so med drugim spodbudile k razmisleku ravnatelja Narodnega muzeja, Jožeta Kas-telica, ki je objavil razpravo o problemih zgodnjesrednjeveške arheologije v Sloveniji in se z njo dotaknil tudi raziskav poznejših obdobij (Kastelic 1964-1965). Kastelic je zgodnji srednji vek - v arheološkem smislu - umestil med pozno antiko in 11. stoletje oziroma visoki srednji vek. Opozoril je na problemske stične točke oziroma "vprašanja zveze umetnostnih spomenikov visokega srednjega veka in staroslovanskih arheoloških terenov" ter na "preostro metodično delitev med arheologijo in zgodovino umetnosti". A pri tem ni bil dosleden: tako bi naj po njegovem mnenju v arheološke raziskave vprašanja kontinuitete med pozno antiko in staroslovansko dobo morali vključiti "kultne objekte in umetno zlatarsko obrt", ki so sicer (tudi) predmet raziskav umetnostne zgodovine. Nasprotno pa naj bi preostanke iz "dobe slovenske romanike in gotike", ki "nam govori predvsem s svojimi monumentalnimi ostanki, z arhitekturo, plastiko in slikarstvom, deloma pa tudi s spomeniki umetne obrti", preučevala umetnostna zgodovina (prim. Žvanut 1999). Kastelic je materialne ostaline iz kasnejšega srednjega veka označil kot "neposredno predmet umetnostne zgodovine in ne arheologije", obe znanosti pa ločil "po metodi in po medsebojni kronološki razmejitvi" (Kastelic 1964-1965, 110-114; prim. Nabergoj 1995, 79-81). Slednji je posvetil precej pozornosti in je poskušal zgornjo časovno mejo arheologije opredeliti s koledarskim datumom iz politične zgodovine, ki bi kar najbolje ustrezal arheološki dataciji prenehanja staroslovanskih pokopov v času okoli leta 1000: kot ustrezen zgodovinski mejnik je tako predlagal leto 1024, ko je v nemškem cesarstvu zavladala salijska dinastija.
Čeprav je Kastelic navedel nekatera vprašanja kontinuitete med zgodnjim in visokim srednjim vekom, predvsem "paralelnost romanske in morebitne predromanske arhitekture s staroslovanskim grobiščem" (na primeru izkopavanj na blejskem Otoku) in nastanek srednjeveških gradov na mestu starejšega utrjenega selišča, pa naj bi bilo zanimanje arheologije omejeno le na retrogradne raziskave: v primeru
cerkva na "iskanje staroslovanskih nekropol in ... morebitnih starejših tlorisov kultnih arhitektur", v primeru gradov pa na odkrivanje "'zgodnjesrednjeveške', to je staroslovanske plasti lokalitete" (Kastelic 1964-1965, 114-116, 118). Preučevanje sakralne in utrdbene arhitekture je bilo tako prepuščeno umetnostnim zgodovinarjem (in arhitektom), seveda predvsem z vidika arhitekturne zgodovine.
Stališča, ki jih je artikuliral Kastelic, so se skladala s tedanjo splošno, bolj ali manj implicitno uveljavljeno podobo arheologije in so pomembno določala tudi njen nadaljnji razvoj. Vzpostavljen je bil oster rez med "arheološkimi" in "zgodovinskimi" obdobji preteklosti, materialnim virom slednjih pa je ta pogled odrekal naravo in spoznavni potencial, kakršnega je hkrati pripisoval materialnim virom starejšega časa. Prvič je bila izrecno zakoličena "magična" zgornja časovna meja arheologije, ki je srednji vek presekala na arheološki zgodnji in (umetnostno)zgodovinski poznejši srednji vek.8
Takšno razumevanje delokroga arheologije se je na Slovenskem trdno zasidralo. Nenazadnje o tem priča dejstvo, da mlajša obdobja niso bila sistematično upoštevana v centralnih podatkovnih bazah - ali so bila iz njih celo izrecno izključena - (ANSl; Tecco Hvala 1993), multi-periodnih projektih, kot je bila Arheološka topografija Slovenije (Pahič 1962, 94-95), in tudi ne v strokovnih in poljudnih pregledih, v katerih se slovenska arheologija in njeni dosežki vztrajno zaključujejo s koncem staroslovanske dobe (Nabergoj 2008b, 90). Ob tem pa se je stroka v praksi že dolgo vedla drugače in se je arheološko raziskovanje najdišč obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku na področju varovanja kulturne dediščine postopno uveljavljalo vsaj od sedemdesetih let dalje, leta 2008 pa je postalo celo z zakonom predpisan standard.
SILA IN MOC IDEOLOGIJE
V zvezi s preučevanjem gradov, v manjši meri tudi samostanov in cerkva, je treba posebej opozoriti na ideološke prepreke oziroma politično pogojene smernice v razvoju zgodovinskih ved in obravnave ostalin preteklosti po drugi svetovni vojni.9 Zakaj vse do srede devetdesetih let, ko mlajša generacija slovenskih zgodovinarjev prispeva
8	Posledica teh pogledov je, da so se izkopavanja nekaterih spomenikov iz poznega srednjega veka lotevali umetnostni zgodovinarji brez sodelovanja arheologov - npr. Marijan Zadnikar, ki je vodil izkopavanja ob cerkvi cistercijanskega 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).
9	Vpliv marksistične ideologije na razvoj jugoslovanske
arheologije in njenih konceptov je bil sicer zanemarljiv
(Novakovic 2002a), bolj opazen pa je bil v zgodovinopisju. Negativno vrednotenje srednjega veka in materialnih ostalin fevdalne dobe ter cerkvenih umetnostnih spomenikov, ki je zaznamovalo širšo družbeno klimo v povojnem času, je privedlo do neustreznega in neredko odkrito sovražnega ravnanja s stavbnimi spomeniki. To je povzročalo težave predvsem umetnostnim zgodovinarjem, ki so delovali na področju spomeniškega varstva.
nekaj pomembnih študij in spodbudi nadaljnje raziskave, pravzaprav ni bilo sodobnih zgodovinopisnih del, ki bi poglobljeno obravnavala plemstvo nasploh ali vsaj razvoj, vlogo in pomen posameznih fevdalnih rodbin na Slovenskem v srednjem veku. Celo za grofe Celjske smo - z izjemo študije Janka Orožna iz leta 1971 (Orožen 1971) in tematskih člankov Vlada Habjana (nav. v Habjan 1999) - šele z zbornikom mednarodnega simpozija v Celju leta 1998 (Fugger Germadnik 1999a) in s katalogom razstave v Pokrajinskem muzeju Celje v letih 1999-2000 (Fugger Germadnik 1999b; prim. tudi Guštin 2001f) dobili obsežen pregled dosedanjih spoznanj z vidika različnih strok ter primerno izhodišče za poglobljeno in celovito raziskovanje te najbolj znane plemiške rodbine pri nas.10
Del krivde za takšno stanje nedvomno lahko pripišemo programu slovenskega zgodovinopisja iz leta 1947. Po njem je bilo na podlagi historičnega materializma "težišče zgodovinskega razvoja" preneseno na "gospodarski in družbeni ustroj in s tem na široke ljudske množice" (Grafenauer 1947, 22). V takšnem konceptu slovenske zgodovine, "ki se je v starejših obdobjih ukvarjala predvsem z agrarno-socialno, v novejših pa s proletarsko-socialno zgodovino", raziskave plemstva niso imele pravega mesta (Štih 1999, 13). Razumljivo je, da so "v analizi te velike linije slovenske narodne zgodovine, v liniji dosledne borbe majhnega prole-tarskega naroda proti zunanjim in notranjim sovražnikom za gospodarski in družbeni napredek" (Grafenauer 1947, 25 op. 76), ta in nekatera druga področja srednjeveških raziskav ostala skoraj povsem neobdelana. Zaradi uveljavitve narodnostnega oziroma etničnega načela (namesto državnega) v slovenskem zgodovinopisju vse od Levstika naprej je "velik del plemstva, uporabnikov gradov in dvorcev", sodil v "dvakrat tujo, sovražno sfero, zatorej nevredno zgodovinarjevega zanimanja" (Šumi 1983, 10). Nace Šumi je leta 1983 ob posvetu Slovenskega konservatorskega društva o gradovih zapisal: "Bilanca današnje stopnje slovenskega zgodovinopisja je ta, da se nosilci fevdalizma, še zlasti pa njihove postojanke, naši gradovi in kasneje dvorci, upoštevajo kot nujno zlo znotraj slovenske etnije. /.../ V naši najnovejši zgodovini in zgodovinopisni podobi tega časa se med drugim tudi zaradi take usmeritve srečamo s tisto značilno skrajnostjo, ki ni znala več ločevati premaganih zastopnikov fevdalne plasti od stvaritev, ki jih je ta plast priklicala v življenje in ki naj bi jih torej obravnavali kot kulturno dediščino" (Šumi 1983, 10).
Značilno je, da so bila v prvih dveh povojnih desetletjih staroslovanska grobišča iz 10. in 11. stoletja samoumeven predmet arheoloških raziskav na Slovenskem, sočasni najzgodnejši fevdalni gradovi pa ne.11 Ideološki moment
10 Objava zares obsežnega diplomatarija Celjskih je šele na začetku. Prvi zvezek je pripravil Dušan Kos (Kos D. 1996).
" Kot najstarejši grad na današnjem slovenskem ozemlju se pogosto navaja grad Rajhenburg v Brestanici, ki naj bi bil obstajal že leta 895. V darovnici kralja Arnulfa iz tega leta, ki je sicer ohranjena le v prepisu iz 12. stoletja, je namreč omenjena posest Richenburch. Kakor kaže, je ta del besedila kasnejši vrinek, to pa pomeni, da je obstoj Rajhenburga konec 9. stoletja zelo vprašljiv (prim. Štih 1996, 18, 24 op. 103). Na dvorišču brestaniškega gradu so
je bil tu očiten, koncepta nacionalnosti in razrednosti pa preveč politično obremenjena in zato izključujoča: arheologija elit, in še tujih vrh tega, v novi socialistični stvarnosti ni bila mogoča.
Raziskovalna problematika srednjeveških stoječih arhitektur nasploh je bila zato zvedena na umetnostnozgodo-vinske ali arhitekturne vidike preučevanja. Zaman bi torej pričakovali celostne analize, ki bi npr. srednjeveški grad ali samostan videla tako v njunem primarnem, materialnem in družbenem pomenu - arhitektura kot konkretni preostanek bivališča pripadnikov določene družbene skupine ali plasti - kot v drugotnem, simbolnem - arhitektura kot zaščitni znak, kot prepoznavni element določene socialne entitete, npr. fevdalnega gospostva, kot simbol družbene skupine ali razreda, vsekakor "eksploatatorske-ga" po naziranjih dialektičnega materializma in na njem utemeljenega zgodovinopisja. Gradovi in plemstvo po socialistični revoluciji v novih shemah družbenih redov niso mogli dobiti enakopravnega mesta, kar se je pokazalo tudi v požigih in ropanjih številnih gradov na Dolenjskem in delno na Primorskem med drugo svetovno vojno in po njej. "Narodnoosvobodilni boj je radikaliziral protifevdalno razpoloženje našega podeželja, zato je mogel povzročiti ne tako redko izenačitev boja proti ostankom starega družbenega reda z bojem proti vidnim postojankam, simbolom te preteklosti. Delež nekaterih pomembnih gradov kot trdnjav razrednega sovražnika v tem boju je seveda takšen položaj po svoje podpiral" (Šumi 1983, 10-11).
Seveda pa ideološki oziri niso bili vsedoločujoči. Opozorimo lahko na zanimivo nasprotje: čeprav arheologija po definiciji preučuje materialno kulturo in bi se v socialistični stvarnosti morala in smela zanimati vsaj za materialno kulturo "najširših kmečkih množic" kot izkoriščanega razreda srednjeveške družbe, pri nas vse do konca devetdesetih let ni bila raziskana niti ena sama opuščena srednjeveška vas ali vsaj kmetija.12 In to kljub dejstvu, da
bila ob prenovi leta 1978 opravljena manjša testna izkopavanja. Odkriti so bili ostanki starejših zidov, ki pa jih ni bilo mogoče natančneje časovno opredeliti (Slabe 1982). Najstarejši, s pisnimi viri zanesljivo izpričan grad na tleh današnje Slovenije je t. i. castrum Bosisen pri Škofji Loki, omenjen leta 973 in 989, ki še ni zagotovo lokaliziran (Berčič
2001);	morda gre za lokacijo Kremplnov hrib nad Hosto pri Suhi, kjer so pred nekaj leti zanimive najdbe odkrili sodelavci Inštituta za arheologijo ZRC SAZU (Pleterski
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 v okviru projekta arheološke topografije Slovenije uvrstil tudi enega za "zgodnjesrednjeveške gradiče (Hausberge)" in je nekatere pri lastnem topografskem delu dejansko dokumentiral (Pahič 1962, 118). Datiranje teh objektov v zgodnji srednji vek sicer ni pravilno (Hinz 1981; prim. Predovnik, Grosman 2007).
12 V letih 1997 in 1998 je bilo v sklopu arheoloških raziskav ob gradnji avtocestnega omrežja raziskano mul-tiperiodno najdišče Gornje njive pri Dolgi vasi, kjer so med drugim odkrili stavbne idr. ostaline srednjeveškega naselja iz 12. in 13. stoletja (Kerman 2008). Domnevni
je Jože Kastelic v svojem programskem prispevku že leta 1965 opozoril na "metodično zelo važno" skupino za arheološke raziskave opuščenih srednjeveških naselij, predvsem vasi, v Angliji (Kastelic 1964-1965, 122). In vendar je bila agrarna naselbina najbolj razširjena naselbinska oblika v srednjem veku, hkrati pa tista, o kateri srednjeveški pisni viri povedo najmanj, če sploh kaj. O vsakdanjem življenju "molčeče večine" srednjeveškega prebivalstva pri nas, o vrstah, značaju in razvoju njihovih vasi in bivališč, gospodarskih objektov in naprav ter orodij zato ne vemo skoraj ničesar. Ideološke obremenjenosti tu ni moglo biti; vzrok popolnemu zanemarjanju raziskav te kompleksne problematike je bila najbrž že omenjena konceptualna zamejitev v deklarirana "arheološka obdobja", ob tem pa še nerazumljivo nezanimanje za sočasne arheološke raziskave v tujini in nesodelovanje z zgodovinarji (in historičnimi geografi ter etnologi).
Zgodovinarji so npr. že leta 1940 uvrščali arheologijo med poglavitne pomožne vede za slovensko koloni-zacijsko zgodovino, čeprav sta jih tedaj s tega vidika zanimala le obdobje pred prihodom Slovencev (antika) in "staroslovenska doba" (Kos 1940, 30; prim. tudi Kos 1948-1949, 137-138). Ne bi mogli reči, da arheologija v tem niti za raziskave poznejših dob ni dobila nobene vzpodbude s strani zgodovinske stroke. Čeprav zgodovina "materialne kulture" v tistem širokem pomenu, kakor ga je za raziskovanje in vrednotenje srednjeveške civilizacije zahodne Evrope priznaval npr. Jacques Le Goff, in torej "drugačen srednji vek, brez tekstov in napisov",13 slovenskih zgodovinarjev resda nista kaj dosti zanimala, so v monografski obravnavi slovenske agrarne zgodovine leta 1970 vendarle poudarili pomen arheoloških raziskav za pridobivanje novih in specifičnih "virov terenskega značaja". Poleg arheoloških najdb, npr. poljskega orodja, ter organskih preostankov kulturnih rastlin, domačih živali in divjadi z arheoloških najdišč bi namreč stavbni ostanki "utegnili biti pomembni za raziskavo kmečkega doma prav do 17. stol., ko postajajo drugi viri nekoliko izčrpnejši", in izkopavanja bi lahko dala "točnejšo sliko o razvoju kmečkih naselij". Arheološke metode v raziskovanju poljedelstva pa bi dopolnili z novimi tehnikami in naravoslovnimi metodami: fotografijo iz zraka (za odkrivanje oblik poljske razdelitve in poljskih poti ter struktur pod zemljo), pelodno analizo (za kronologijo razvoja rastlinstva v agrarni pokrajini) in fosfatno metodo (analiza vsebnosti fosforne kisline v zemlji za ugotavljanje lokacij propadlih naselbin; Blaznik et al. 1970, 5-6, 564,
poznosrednjeveški naselbinski ostanki so bili prav tako v sklopu avtocestnih izkopavanj odkriti še na Obrežju in v Leskovcu pri Celju (Mason 2003, 202-203; Brišnik et al. 2006). Leta 2007 pa so ob zaščitnih raziskavah zaradi širitve mejnega prehoda v Zavrču izkopali ostanke petnajstih bivalnih in gospodarskih lesenih objektov, datiranih v 13.-15. stoletje (Lubšina-Tušek 2007, 311). Za primerjavo: na Slovaškem je bilo arheološko dokumentiranih več kot 2000 lokalitet naselbinskega značaja iz obdobja od 11. do 16. stoletja (Egyhazy-Jurovska 1999, 24).
13 Prim. citate iz Le Goffovega dela La civilisation de l'occident medieval, 1965, prevedene pri Nabergoj 1995, 83.
616).'4 Dlje od teh načelnih predlogov zgodovinarji žal niso šli, a tudi v arheologiji nanje ni bilo odziva. Prej-kone pa ni bilo niti pravih možnosti za delo. Slovenska arheološka srenja je bila od nekdaj maloštevilna. Ko se je v sedemdesetih letih število zaposlenih oziroma aktivnih arheologov pričelo povečevati, pa je šlo predvsem za kadre, dejavne na področju spomeniškega varstva. Za sistematične obsežne raziskave te vrste stroka ni imela ne institucionalnega okvira ne finančnih in kadrovskih možnosti. A brez dvoma je bila glavna težava prav v teoretskih podmenah in konceptualni zasnovi (takratne) slovenske arheologije.
OBDOBJE PRAGMATIZMA
Načrtnih arheoloških raziskav na poznosrednjeveških in kasnejših najdiščih je bilo vse do preoblikovanja spo-meniškovarstvene službe v sedemdesetih letih, ko se je izoblikovala mreža osmih zavodov za varstvo spomenikov (Jogan 2008, 84-89), razmeroma malo. Ta pokrajinsko zasnovana mreža inštitucij pa je - ob neposrednem in aktivnem sodelovanju muzejev (Slabe 1981-1982, 98-99) - omogočila intenzivnejše dokumentiranje in ustreznejše spremljanje stanja ogroženosti kulturne dediščine na celotnem ozemlju Slovenije. Stroka se je s tem tudi kadrovsko okrepila, kar se je hitro odrazilo v številu opravljenih zaščitnih raziskav na terenu.
Četudi arheologija poznega srednjega veka in kasnejših obdobij tedaj v Sloveniji še ni bila uveljavljen pojem in je bilo poznavanje materialne kulture tega časa izredno skromno, sta stopnja ogroženosti in število potrebnih zaščitnih intervencij na spomenikih sčasoma privedla do pragmatičnega odziva stroke. Lahko bi rekli, da je praksa prehitela teorijo. Objave preliminarnih poročil o arheoloških raziskavah spomenikov in najdišč z ostalinami iz obdobja srednjega in novega veka v reviji Varstvo spomenikov in drugih publikacijah nazorno dokumentirajo ta proces: v desetletju 1950-1959 je bilo raziskanih trinajst, v letih od 1960-1969 petnajst, v razdobju 1970-1979 pa kar osemin-štirideset in v desetletju 1980-1989 petinpetdeset najdišč (prim. Nabergoj 1995; sl. 8).
Razmah zaščitnih raziskav v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih je povezan s širšimi družbenimi spremembami. Svet se je po obdobju povojne obnove, velike gospodarske rasti in industrializacije v šestdesetih letih soočal z okoljsko krizo, ki je privedla do vzpona ekoloških gibanj in dviga ekološke zavesti. Tudi v tedanji Jugoslaviji in posebno še v Sloveniji so se pričeli zavzemati za zaščito okolja pred nezadržnim izčrpavanjem naravnih virov, širjenjem industrije in koncentrično ekspanzijo mest. V sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih se je to odrazilo tudi v zakonodaji, postopkih in predpisih za prostorsko načrtovanje. Posebej je bila izražena skrb za ohranjanje rodovitne zemlje ter zaščito kmetijskih zemljišč pred degradacijo in pozidavo. Posledično se je obrnil trend razvoja urbanih središč. Medtem ko so se v povojnih desetletjih zgodovinska mestna središča praznila in je stavbni fond v njih propadal, je od
14 O fosfatni metodi je že leta 1940 pisal P. Blaznik,
ki pa arheologije posebej ni omenil (Blaznik 1940, 39).
sredine sedemdesetih let dalje opaziti porast gradbene dejavnosti v starih poselitvenih jedrih, obnavljanje stavbne dediščine in infrastrukture ter novogradnje znotraj že urbaniziranih predelov. Spomeniškovarstvena služba je bila tako soočena z vse večjim obsegom dela, saj je bilo v starih naselbinskih območjih potrebno poskrbeti vsaj za nadzor gradbenih izkopov, neredko pa tudi za izvedbo predhodnih arheoloških raziskav.
"Mehčanje" ideoloških nazorov in nekoliko svobodnejša družbena klima ob koncu šestdesetih in v začetku sedemdesetih let sta privedla tudi do drugačnega, bolj pozitivnega vrednotenja preteklosti, celo spomenikov fevdalnega časa. Gradovi in dvorci, po vojni načrtno zanemarjani in le redko predmet sistematičnih in kvalitetnih obnov in revitalizacij, so ponovno postali kulturna vrednota. Počasi se je pričel vzpostavljati ustreznejši odnos do teh spomenikov, z njim pa tudi vlaganja v njihovo obnovo, vzdrževanje in ponovno oživitev. Podobno je bilo tudi z odnosom do cerkvenih objektov kot kulturnih spomenikov. Arheologija je v zaščitnih posegih na tej stavbni dediščini dobila svoje mesto, vendar zgolj kot specializirana (izkopavalna) metoda za pridobivanje podatkov o stavbnem razvoju, medtem ko v postopku interpretacije spomenika največkrat ni igrala pomembne vloge.
Na takšno vlogo so arheologi pristajali sami. Vanjo jih je silila praksa in ne kak globlji uvid, ki bi izhajal iz zavedanja o nuji in možnostih razreševanja splošnih zgodovinskih vprašanj. Pri tem so poudarjali potrebo po "strokovnosti" in interdisciplinarni obravnavi. Vendar naj bi bilo zaradi "širšega družbenega interesa" "raziskovanje 'nearheološkega' objekta z arheološko metodo" upravičeno "le na objektu ali na delu objekta, kjer pričakujemo kompleksno ali pomembno spoznanje, pa do njega z drugimi raziskovalnimi metodami ne moremo." Pri najdenih predmetih "še dokaj pogoste rabe in serijske izdelave", ki so "navadno zanimivi le v kontekstu izkopavanja", se je zato "treba pri obravnavi gradiva iz novejših dob, ki smo ga našli v zemlji, prej kot pri gradivu iz starih dob odločiti za pametno selekcijo v skladu s splošnimi načeli selekcije gradiva z izkopavanja. Muzejske oskrbe je torej z izkopavanj nearheoloških objektov deležno le izjemno gradivo" (Mikl-Curk 1981, 92-93).
Drugačen, polnovredni arheološki obravnavi ostalin mlajših obdobij bolj naklonjen pogled je predstavil Marijan Slabe ob raziskavah v Škofji Loki (Slabe 1974; Slabe 1980a; sl. 9). Zaščitna izkopavanja na Mestnem trgu so namreč razkrila ostanke gotske stavbe srednjeveškega komuna ter številne predmete iz poznega srednjega in novega veka, med drugim velike količine okrašenega namiznega posodja iz druge polovice 16. in začetka 17. stoletja. Slabe jih je opredelil za izdelke domačih delavnic po italijanskih vzorih ter produkcijo poimenoval loška meščanska slikana keramika (Slabe 1977; prim. tudi Predovnik 2009). Ob tem se je zavedel neustreznosti dotedanje prakse, ki je narekovala varovanje predvsem tistih arheoloških ostalin, "ki po svojem poreklu niso presegale 11. oziroma 12. stoletja, in sicer iz preprostega vzroka, ker je bila kulturna dediščina iz mlaj ših obdobij zavarovana predvsem po umetnostnozgodovinski 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 ostanki, a so bili doslej pogosto zanemarjeni in odvrženi."
Uporaba ustreznih arheoloških pristopov pri raziskavah v Škofji Loki je rezultirala v odkritju velikega števila "drobnih najdb od ostankov keramičnih posod vsakdanje uporabe do tako imenovanega žlahtnega, salonskega inventarja, ki odraža na eni strani vpogled v samo materialno življenje in socialni nivo takratnega prebivalstva, na drugi pa tudi razvite trgovske vezi z bližnjimi deželami Italije in Avstrije". Slabe je poudaril spoznavno vrednost tega gradiva, "ki nam v mnogočem pojasnjuje in osvetljuje takratni način življenja in tako ob pisnih virih dopolnjuje historično podobo mesta v določenem obdobju njegovega predvsem poznosrednjeveškega in tudi kasnejšega razvoja" (Slabe 1974, 75-76).
Konservatorske izkušnje in široki strokovni interesi so botrovali tudi nastanku prvega pregleda arheoloških raziskav mlajših obdobij izpod peresa istega avtorja. Prispevek je bil objavljen v publikaciji, ki je izšla ob razstavi Rešena arheološka dediščina Slovenije (Slabe 1980b). Predstavljeni dosežki so naravnost silili k ugotovitvi, "da se v tej zgodovinski-kulturni strukturi ni mogoče izogniti arheološkemu načinu dela", in sicer tako zaradi zahtev znanosti kot spomeniškega varstva (Slabe 1985, 35).
Prevladujoče (ne)razumevanje vloge arheologije v okviru spomeniškega varstva je izhajalo predvsem iz obravnave arheologije kot metode, beri: izkopavanja, ki jo je mogoče preprosto ponuditi kot uslugo drugim strokam in jo ločiti od ustreznih interpretativnih orodij. Druga kleč je bila ta, da sta bili narava in spoznavna vrednost materialnih virov pomanjkljivo - če sploh - konceptualizirani. V (konservatorski) praksi so bili materialni viri ločeni na dve kategoriji: primarni pomen so imeli arhitekturni preostanki in tem so bile podrejene raziskave, predmeti, ki so bili odkriti pri izkopu zemeljskih plasti, pa so načeloma "le" pojasnjevali in osvetljevali takratni način življenja ter dopolnjevali historično podobo, znano iz pisnih virov. Drobno gradivo je nemalokrat šlo skozi gosto sito uveljavljenih umetno-stnozgodovinskih in tudi arheoloških meril o tem, kaj je pomembno in vredno ohranitve, kaj pa tako fragmentarno, neizrazito, nepovedno, navidez poznano15 in nasploh tako nezanimivo, da se zavrže.
Tretja pomembna kategorija, ki jo arheologija s svojimi metodami (posebno stratigrafskimi izkopavanji in ustreznim dokumentiranjem) edina lahko relevantno obravnava, namreč kontekst - prostorski odnosi med posameznimi strukturami in najdbami -, ni bila posebej opredeljena in je bila pogosto zapostavljena. V praksi je to pomenilo, da so bili zaradi nestrokovnega (metodološko nepravilnega) izkopavanja ali prekopavanja različnih struktur, ki so ga neredko opravili kar umetnostni zgodovinarji ali arhitekti brez sodelovanja arheologov, in zaradi pomanjkljivega dokumentiranja najdiščnih kontekstov izgubljeni številni dragoceni podatki in tudi najdbe.
Drznemo si zaključiti, da spomeniškovarstvena služba vse do druge polovice devetdesetih let pri nas ne v praksi in še manj v teoriji ni primerno, utemeljeno in sodob-
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 avtorji zbornika The familiar past? Archaeologies of later historical Britain (Tarlow, West 1999).
no obravnavala nobenega od treh bistvenih elementov raziskovanja: vira, metode, problema. Zato v nasprotju s sočasnim razvojem znanosti v tujini ni zmogla izoblikovati konceptualnih okvirov in teoretskih podlag za vzpostavljanje avtonomnega, enakopravnega in znanstveno utemeljenega arheološkega preučevanja dediščine iz "nearheoloških" obdobij. Kljub izrazitemu napredku v zadnjih dveh desetletjih mnogi problemi ostajajo, predvsem kar zadeva ustrezno interdisciplinarno obravnavo. Kakor je pred leti opozoril Marko Stokin, je posledica problematičnega razumevanja (srednjeveške) arheologije in nepovezanosti različnih strok ta, da nimamo ustreznih analitičnih metod, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče ustrezno obravnavati kompleksna najdišča, kot so na primer urbana naselja, interpretirati družbene procese, razvoj mest in stavbarstva (Stokin 1995, 53).
PRVE SISTEMATIČNE RAZISKAVE IN ZAMETKI INSTITUCIONALIZACIJE
V sedemdesetih letih so se prvi večji premiki v smeri uveljavitve arheološke obravnave mlajših obdobij zgodili tudi na polju sistematičnega raziskovalnega dela. Že leta 1967 so se na pobudo zgodovinarja Ferda Gestrina raziskav konec 15. stoletja opustelega srednjeveškega trga Gutenwert (tudi: Gutenwerth) na ledini Otok pri Dobravi na Šentjernejskem polju (sl. 10) lotili sodelavci Centra za zgodnjesrednjeveške in staroslovanske študije Narodnega muzeja pod vodstvom Vinka Šribarja (prim. Nabergoj 1995 z literaturo; Bartosiewicz 1999; Stare 2000). Posebno pozornost so sicer "posvetili deležu, ki ga ima slovenska kultura zgodnjega srednjega veka pri formiranju kulturne in civilizatorične tvornosti v času razvitega fevdalizma" (Šribar, Stare 1981, 7), in tako so bila v začetku v ospredju vprašanja kontinuitete, predvsem vprašanje o morebitnem organskem razvoju poznosrednjeveških urbanih središč iz starejših, staroslovanskih naselbin. Toda arheološki zapis na najdišču, kjer so bili poleg skromnih ostalin iz rimskega obdobja ter iz 10. in 11. stoletja16 odkriti predvsem arhitekturni ostanki, infrastruktura, pokopi in seveda predmeti iz poznega srednjega veka, je zahteval ne le "enakopravno" obravnavo struktur in artefaktov iz vseh obdobij, marveč je sčasoma privedel do razširitve in premika težišča raziskovalnih interesov. Svoje prepričanje, da je ločevanje srednjega veka na arheološki zgodnji in "nearheološki" pozni srednji vek nesmiselno, so Vinko Šribar in sodelavci izrazili tudi s preimenovanjem Centra za zgodnjesrednjeveške in staroslovanske študije v Center za arheologijo srednjega veka, kar se je zgodilo leta 1977. V Narodnem muzeju je poleg tega prav zaradi dejavnosti Centra nastal nov arheološki kustodiat za visoki srednji vek (Stare 1993a).
Vinko Šribar in njegova sodelavka Vida Stare sta na podlagi podatkov in gradiva, pridobljenega na Otoku, objavila več razprav o urbanističnem in arhitekturnem razvoju tega srednjeveškega naselja (Šribar 1975b; Šribar, Stare 1978), o posameznih sklopih drobnih predmetov
16 Objavljena je le ena "stanovanjska jama", bivalni objekt, ki naj bi bil nastal v 10. stoletju, uporabljan pa naj bi bil vsaj še v 11. stoletju (Stare 1993c).
(Šribar 1976; Stare 1983; Stare 1993b; Stare 2002) in tudi tipokronologijo kovinskega in keramičnega gradiva (Šribar 1972-1973; Šribar 1983). Prav slednji dve shemi, ki bi lahko predstavljali temeljno datacijsko orodje za nadaljnje raziskave poznosrednjeveških najdišč pri nas, sta se izkazali za problematični. Časovna razvrstitev posameznih oblikovnih tipov namreč sledi relativnemu zaporedju šestih horizontov17 na najdišču, ki so na drugi strani absolutnokronološko datirani v posamezna stoletja, in sicer v padajočem zaporedju od poznega 15. (1. horizont) do začetka 11. ali konca 10. stoletja (6. horizont). Ob tem ni povsem jasno, ali so "horizonti" faze oziroma obdobja poselitve, horizontalne "kulturne" plasti ali pa so morda izenačeni kar s "planumi" oz. režnji, po katerih je bilo najdišče izkopavano - skladno s tedaj veljavno izkopavalno metodologijo (prim. Šribar 1972-1973, 23-29 in Šribar 1979, 48-58). Kot se izkaže, je izkop po poljubnih režnjih privedel do mešanja kulturnega inventarja posameznih stratigrafskih enot, denimo dveh ali več plasti, polnil jam idr. enot stratifikacije, ki so bile (delno) izkopane hkrati. Prav tako ni jasno, kateri predmeti so nastopali v intaktnih, zaprtih kontekstih in kateri v premešanih. Zato so v tipo-kronoloških shemah lončenine in kovinskih predmetov z Otoka pri Dobravi nekateri zgodnji oblikovni tipi uvrščeni v najmlajše horizonte, nekateri zelo pozni pa so pripisani starejšim horizontom. Kot datacijsko orodje sta zatorej ti preglednici, in s tem tudi časovne opredelitve pojavnosti posameznih oblikovnih tipov, uporabni le pogojno in z veliko mero kritičnosti.
Kljub zadnji pripombi ostaja nesporno dejstvo, da gre izkopavanjem na Otoku pri Dobravi v zgodovini slovenske arheologije posebno mesto. Ne samo, da je bila to prva načrtna in sistematična raziskava najdišča iz mlajših obdobij in hkrati prva raziskava opustelega srednjeveškega naselja, marveč je šlo tudi za eno prvih izkopavanj večjih, odprtih površin. Ob tem je vodja izkopavanj Vinko Šribar razvijal tudi nove metode dokumentacije (Šribar 1974). Vendar pa je dejanski pomen odkritij z Otoka težko realno ovrednotiti, kajti celovite objave izkopavanj še vedno nimamo. To onemogoča kritično preverjanje že objavljenih opredelitev in interpretacij posameznih arhitekturnih osta-lin, urbanističnega razvoja naselja in drobne materialne kulture. Potencial ostaja, saj vso dokumentacijo in drobno gradivo hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije, poleg tega je najdišče ustrezno zaščiteno in so še vedno mogoče nadaljnje arheološke raziskave. Nedavno je Vida Stare objavila rezultate izkopavanj v cerkvi sv. Nikolaja (Miklavža), edini še stoječi stavbi na območju nekdanjega naselja. Izkopanih je bilo štiriinštirideset skeletnih pokopov iz srednjega in novega veka ter ostanki starejših stavbnih faz obstoječe cerkve, temelji zidov njene predhodnice in nekaj temeljev iz rimskega obdobja, ki jih interpretirajo kot ostanke stavb nekdanjega rečnega pristanišča (Stare 2000). S tem je zaokroženo objavo dočakalo prvo od treh izkopišč, ki so bila na Otoku raziskana v letih od 1967 do 1984.'8
Sodelavci Centra za arheologijo srednjega veka so poleg blejskega Otoka in Otoka pri Dobravi raziskali še več drugih najdišč. Z delovanjem je Center dokončno prenehal po upokojitvi Vinka Šribarja leta 1987, vendar je Narodni muzej ohranil delovno mesto kustosa arheologa za visoki srednji vek (Stare 1993a, 31).
Druga raziskava, ki jo velja omeniti, so izkopavanja Starega gradu nad Celjem (sl. 11). Pobuda zanje je podobno kot v primeru Otoka pri Dobravi prišla od zunaj. K izkopavanjem je arheologe namreč povabil umetnostni zgodovinar Ivan Stopar, konservator v celjskem Zavodu za spomeniško varstvo. Izkopavanja je prevzel Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani in jih pod vodstvom Tatjane Bregant opravil v letih 1972-1983 in 1986 (Bregant 1974; Stopar 1975; Bregant 1977; Bregant 1983). Arheološko izkopavanje je zajelo vse dostopne površine v grajskem jedru ter manjše predele v grajskem jarku in predgradju. Spet pa velja ugotovitev, da interpre-tativni potencial opravljenih arheoloških raziskav ni (bil) izkoriščen v polni meri, kajti celovite objave izkopavanj z grafično dokumentacijo in katalogom drobnega gradiva še danes nimamo.19
Pri interpretaciji odkritih struktur in predvsem stavbnega razvoja gradu od prve polovice 13. stoletja dalje je med arheologinjo ter umetnostnim zgodovinarjem in arhitektom prišlo do bistvenih razhajanj (Kramberger, Stopar 1987; prim. Stopar 1982), ki pa jih je zaradi pomanjkljivih objav arheoloških podatkov težko kritično presojati. Teza Tatjane Bregant, da je gotski palacij gradu nastal iz prvotnega stolpa, je najverjetneje zares napačna, toda sklep, da je "metodološko izhodišče" arheoloških interpretacij "spekulativno", ni upravičen (Kramberger, Stopar 1987, 85). Napačna interpretacija konkretnih arheoloških podatkov ne zanika izpovednosti arheoloških virov in tudi ne epistemološke relevantnosti arheološke metodologije kot take. Bistvo tega nerazumevanja je v prepričanju, da je dovolj, če različne stroke posamezen raziskovalni problem obravnavajo vsaka s svojega zornega kota in vsaka z lastnimi metodami, nato pa primerjajo rezultate. Takšna multidisciplinarnost samo še povečuje razhajanja in nezaupanje med vedami, namesto da bi se ob resničnem interdisciplinarnem delu medsebojno dopolnjevale in zbliževale (prim. Predovnik 1995, 74-77).
Objavljene interpretacije arheoloških podatkov s Starega gradu nad Celjem se sicer tudi na nekaterih drugih točkah kažejo kot problematične. Prepoznanih je bilo deset "kulturnih horizontov" (osem gradbenih faz zidane arhitekture in dve predhodni fazi lesenih stavb), ki so jih s pomočjo drobnih najdb, predvsem keramičnih, datirali od sredine 10. do 17. stoletja in jih povezali s podatki iz pisnih virov (Bregant 1983, 40; Bregant 1984). Pred nastankom fevdalne utrdbe naj bi bil skalni pomol nad sotočjem Savinje in Voglajne že poseljen; na njem naj bi stalo utrjeno staroslovansko gradišče. Pred desetletjem je
17	Šribar je sprva opredelil osem gradbenih faz (Šribar 1968-1969, 34).
18	Poleg cerkve še t. i. izkopno polje 1 na južnem in
izkopno polje 2 na osrednjem delu naselja.
19 Doslej so bila objavljena (delna) poročila o izkopavanjih (npr. Bregant 1974; Bregant 1977), izbor izkopanih pečnic (Bregant 1984), nekaj fragmentov "časovno opredeljene" keramike (Šribar, Stare, Bregant 1974, 45-49), izbor keramičnih in kovinskih predmetov (Fugger Germadnik 1999a, passim; Guštin 2001f, passim) ter keramično gradivo iz sektorjev A in B (Brišnik 1999).
bil opravljen revizijski pregled gradiva iz t. i. sektorjev A in B, kjer naj bi bile odkrite strukture in lončenina iz prvega in drugega "stanovanjskega horizonta", torej iz časa od 10. do 12. stoletja. Revizija je pokazala, da med ohranjenim in pregledanim keramičnim gradivom ni odlomkov, ki bi bili starejši od 12. stoletja, avtorica revizije pa je opozorila tudi na težave, ki jih pri vzpostavljanju relativne kronologije in vrednotenju gradiva povzroča tedanji način izkopavanja in dokumentiranja po poljubnih režnjih (Brišnik 1999, 269-270). Problematika vsekakor zahteva nadaljnje kritično ovrednotenje najdb in dokumentacije.
Kljub navedenim poskusom sistematičnega raziskovalnega dela je arheologija pri obravnavi zapuščine mlajših obdobij še vedno pristajala na status metode in kritike virov, katerih interpretacijo pa je prepuščala zgodovini ali umetnostni zgodovini. Stanje stroke v obdobju, ki smo ga v naslovu prejšnjega razdelka označili za obdobje pragmatizma, je Božidar Slapšak leta 1987 kritično povzel z besedami: "Velja poudariti, da je pri nas k preučevanju materialnih virov za mlajša zgodovinska obdobja (po l. 1000) arheologija inter-pretacijsko pritegnjena še vedno zgolj kot pojasnjevalka vertikalnih razmerij (sosledja gradbenih faz oz. faz uporabe pri stavbnih ostalinah: za to ima pač edina med historičnimi vedami izdelano primerno stratigrafsko pa tipološko za vrednotenje gradiva v plasteh - metodo), sicer nastopa zgolj kot pomožna tehnična disciplina, z izkopavanjem razkriva horizontalna razmerja na mikro ravni, njih razlaga pa je prepuščena vedam, ki obvladujejo dominantni (pisni, umetnostni) vir za ta obdobja. Takšno stanje je značilno za 'fazo nekonceptualizirane prakse': arheologija mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij v Sloveniji še nima institucionalnega zaledja. Za naše razmere izjemen je poskus v okviru projekta Gutenwerth" (Slapšak 1987, 145 op. 3).
NOVI KONCEPTI IN ROJSTVO DISCIPLINE
V osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja se je slovenska arheologija pričela intelektualno odpirati proti anglosaškemu svetu, od koder je prevzela nekatere pobude za teoretsko refleksijo, konceptni in metodološki razvoj. Leta 1981 ustanovljena revija Slovenskega arheološkega društva, Arheo, je z objavljanjem izvirnih teoretskih prispevkov in prevodov slovenske arheologe seznanjala z novimi (pa tudi ne več povsem novimi) pogledi ameriških in britanskih kolegov. Nove koncepte, nove interpretativne pristope in nenazadnje nove metodologije so predstavljali tuji predavatelji, ki so gostovali na Oddelku za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani,20 v lastnem raziskovalnem delu doma in v mednarodnih projektih pa so jih praktično preizkušali tudi učitelji oddelka sami.
Z razvojem arheologije mlajših obdobij je neločljivo povezana uvedba pomembne metodološke novosti, ki je v slovensko arheologijo prav tako prišla z zahoda: metode stratigrafskega izkopavanja. Dosledna uporaba te metodologije namreč ne dopušča nobenega (vrednostnega) razlikovanja pri obravnavi enot stratifikacije glede na njihovo kulturno
vsebino ali starost. Še preden je bil v slovenščino preveden izvirni priročnik (Harris 1989), so metodo uspešno preizkusili pri zaščitnih izkopavanjih na Kapucinskem vrtu v Kopru leta 1986-1987 (Cunja 1989; Cunja 1996; sl. 12), vpeljali so jo tudi pri dolgoletnih izkopavanjih na Ljubljanskem gradu, ki so se pričela leta 1988 (Šinkovec 1991; sl. 13), nato ponovno v Kopru pri izkopu notranjosti cerkve sv. Klare leta 1989 (Grosman 1991, 32-36) in drugod.21 Vsa ta izkopavanja so bila sicer zaščitne narave, potekala pa so na kompleksnih multiperiodnih najdiščih s pomembnim ali celo prevladujočim deležem ostalin iz obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku.
Količina zbranih podatkov, opravljenih raziskav in pridobljenega drobnega gradiva je sčasoma sama na sebi zahtevala ustreznejšo obravnavo arheološke dediščine srednjega in novega veka. Sprva je vzbudila zanimanje le redkih posameznikov, v začetku devetdesetih let pa so razmere dozorele tudi za uveljavitev arheologije obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku na akademskem nivoju. Na pobudo profesorja Mitje Guština je bil v letu 1990/91 študij arheologije na ljubljanski Filozofski fakulteti dopolnjen z novim predmetom, poimenovanim Arheologija mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij (sl. 14; Novakovic et al. 2004, 97-100).22 Predmet je bil zasnovan tako, da je - sledeč siceršnji strukturi študija, katerega osnovo tvorijo obdobni arheološki predmeti - zajel vsa obdobja po koncu zgodnjega srednjega veka oziroma vse od tradicionalno pojmovane zgornje časovne meje arheologije v 11. stoletju pa do sodobnosti. Predmet je dejansko zaživel šele v študijskem letu 1993/94, ko so bili izvedeni prvi seminarji, dopolnjevala pa so jih občasna predavanja domačih in tujih gostujočih predavateljev (Guštin 19 9 4).23 Že od leta 1992 dalje (do
20 Prvi med njimi je bil Lewis Binford, ki je na Oddelku za arheologijo gostoval v študijskem letu 1985/86 (Novakovic et al. 2004, 82).
21	Dejstvo, da nobeno od omenjenih izkopavanj še ni v celoti objavljeno, ne zanika njihovega pomena za arheologijo mlajših obdobij in tudi ne zgodovinskega mesta, ki ga imajo v metodološkem razvoju slovenske arheologije.
22	Ta pojem je pri nas prvi uporabil Božidar Slapšak leta 1982 v svojem prispevku "O zgodovini in arheologiji" v reviji Arheo (Slapšak 1981), kjer je opozoril, da je "razširitev predmeta arheologije na najmlajša zgodovinska obdobja" mogoča le, če arheologijo in zgodovino kot vedi razločujemo na osnovi različnosti njunih virov. V nasprotnem primeru je mogoče arheologijo kot "sin-tetizirajočo in integrirajočo vedo" opredeliti zgolj na podlagi razmejitve njenega delovnega področja v odnosu do zgodovine, torej v kronološkem smislu (Slapšak 1981, 52-53). Prav slednje izhodišče je vse od diskusije med Korošcem in Grafenauerjem v petdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja določalo razmerja med strokama in onemogočalo vzpostavitev arheologije mlajših obdobij kot samostojne in legitimne znanstvene (pod)discipline. Enak razmislek je botroval preimenovanju študijskega predmeta v letu 1995: iz imena je bil izpuščen pridevnik "zgodovinskih", saj je namreč implicitno potrjeval tradicionalno ločevanje na arheološka in zgodovinska obdobja z vsemi negativnimi posledicami, ki jih je imelo za razvoj vede.
23	Že nekaj let pred uradno uvedbo študijskega predmeta je imel Vinko Šribar na Oddelku za arheologijo predavanje z naslovom "Uvod v arheologijo visokega in poznega srednjega veka" (10. maja 1988).
1995) je profesor Guštin s študenti izkopaval srednjeveško utrdbo na Starem gradu nad Podbočjem (Predovnik 2003; sl. 15) in v okviru seminarja iz arheologije prazgodovinskih kovinskih obdobij obravnaval posamezne teme s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij.24 Polno izvajanje predmeta skozi vse štiri letnike dodiplomskega študija se je sicer razvijalo postopoma in se je v celoti ustalilo šele v začetku novega tisočletja.
V sklopu seminarja iz arheologije mlajših zgodovinskih obdobij so študentje v letu 1993/94 v sodelovanju z Mestnim muzejem Ljubljana obravnavali pečnice, izkopane na Ljubljanskem gradu. Profesor in seminaristi so svoje delo predstavili javnosti z manjšo razstavo v Jakopičevem razstavišču in tudi v knjižni obliki. Monografija z naslovom "Ljubljanski grad. Pečnice" je izšla kot prvi zvezek v novi seriji Archaeologia historica Slovenica, ki jo je Oddelek za arheologijo pričel izdajati z namenom, spodbuditi raziskovanje mlajših obdobij ter oblikovati platformo za objavljanje gradiva in raziskav, širjenje znanja in povezovanje vseh zainteresiranih raziskovalcev (Guštin, Horvat 1994).25
Že v letu 1995 sta sledili prvi dve diplomski deli iz arheologije mlajših obdobij. V obeh primerih gre za pregledni študiji, ki naj bi nastajajočo disciplino utemeljili in jo povezali z domačo in tujo raziskovalno tradicijo. Izčrpen pregled in analizo arheoloških raziskav visokega in poznega srednjega veka na Slovenskem je pripravil Tomaž Naber-goj, ki je svoje diplomsko delo v celoti objavil v katalogu razstave Narodnega muzeja "Gotika na Slovenskem - svet predmetov" (Nabergoj 1995). Konceptni razvoj historične arheologije v Evropi in Združenih državah Amerike je predstavila Katarina Predovnik (Predovnik 1995; prim. Predovnik 2000). Značilno je, da sta oba avtorja zavzela nekakšno apologetsko držo, kajti rigidno tradicionalno pojmovanje arheologije kot antipoda in ne drugega jaza zgodovine je zahtevalo jasno utemeljitev smisla arheoloških raziskav v "zgodovinskih" obdobjih.26 T. Nabergoj je opozoril predvsem na konkretne zagate zaradi premajhnega upoštevanja arheološkega potenciala materialne kulture
24	Rezultat tega dela je med drugim tudi objava starih izkopavanj na Starem gradu nad Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993).
25	Doslej je v tej seriji poleg navedenega izšlo še pet zvezkov (Guštin, Predovnik 1997; Guštin 2001f; Predovnik 2003; Podpečan 2006; Predovnik et al. 2008).
26	Zdi se, da se arheologija mlajših obdobij te drže še
dolgo ne bo otresla, vsemu razvoju in uspehom navkljub. Če se je slovenska arheologija že bolj ali manj sprijaznila z raziskovanjem srednjega in zgodnjega novega veka, pa ostaja ambivalentna do raziskav novejšega časa (prim. blok prispevkov o posrednjeveški arheologiji v 25. številki revije Arheo). Kot normo jih predpisuje novi Zakon o varstvu kulturne dediščine, vendar je tako med arheologi kakor tudi med predstavniki sorodnih disciplin (zgodovine, kulturne antropologije, umetnostne zgodovine) poznavanje in razumevanje tega segmenta arheološkega raziskovanja še premajhno in stališča zato neredko odklonilna. Diskusije s sorodnimi vedami sicer arheologija mlajših obdobij sploh še ni odprla. Percepcija arheologije s stališča teh strok zaenkrat ostaja v okvirih, ki jih je že sredi dvajsetega stoletja začrtal Bogo Grafenauer (Grafenauer 1951; Grafenauer 1960).
stoletij po zgodnjem srednjem veku pri nas, K. Predovnik pa je poskušala teoretsko opredeliti spoznavne možnosti historične arheologije v skladu s sodobnimi koncepti materialne kulture, pismenosti in družbene teorije, značilnimi za t. i. poprocesno arheologijo.
Kmalu so sledila nova seminarska in diplomska dela. Tako je med leti 1995 in 2008 študij na ljubljanski Filozofski fakulteti z univerzitetno diplomo iz arheologije mlajših obdobij zaključilo osemnajst arheologov in arheologinj, magisterij sta pridobila dva arheologa, en arheolog in ena arheologinja pa sta pridobila tudi naziv doktorja oziroma doktorice znanosti (sl. 16).
Leta 1995 je bil, spet na pobudo Mitje Guština, ustanovljen Center za srednjeveške in novoveške študije Oddelka za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete (Novakovic et al. 2004, 99-100). Leta 1996 je nastala njegova izpostava v Celju, ki je nato v povezavi s Pokrajinskim muzejem Celje delovala do leta 2001. Center, ki ga je vodil profesor Guštin, je bil "ustanovljen z namenom, da pospeši razvoj arheologije srednjega in novega veka na Slovenskem ter vzpodbudi obdelavo in objavo gradiva, ki je pozabljeno ležalo v muzejskih depojih" (Guštin 2001e, 7). Ena ključnih pobud za ustanovitev Centra in še posebej njegove celjske izpostave je bila želja po celoviti obravnavi in objavi gradiva in podatkov z izkopavanj v Celju, predvsem izkopavanj Oddelka za arheologijo na Starem gradu nad Celjem in izkopavanj Zavoda za varstvo naravne in kulturne dediščine v Knežjem dvoru v Celju. Pobuda je bila uresničena le v manjši meri, saj so bili prav od obeh velikih izkopavanj ovrednoteni in objavljeni le manjši sklopi najdb (npr. Brišnik 1999a; prispevki v Guštin 2001f). Sodelavci Centra so poleg tega dokumentirali ali tudi poskrbeli za objavo arheoloških najdb z nekaterih drugih srednjeveških in novoveških najdišč, npr. gradov Slovenska Bistrica, Slovenske Konjice, Šalek, Podsreda, Žebnik, Stari grad nad Podbočjem, Zgornji stolp na Kranclju, samostanov Olimje, Žiče, Ptuj, mestnih jeder Slovenj Gradca, Ljubljane in Celja in podvodnih najdb iz Ljubljanice, Pirana in Sv. Ivana pri Umagu. Center je izpeljal raziskovalni projekt Celjski knezi, pripravil je potujočo pregledno razstavo arheoloških raziskav srednjega veka na Štajerskem in v Prekmurju, leta 1998 pa je sodeloval s Pokrajinskim muzejem Celje pri organizaciji odmevnega mednarodnega simpozija "Celjski grofje - stara tema, nova spoznanja" (Fugger Germadnik 1999a) in razstave "Grofje Celjski" (Fugger Germadnik 1999b). Od dokončne ukinitve celjske izpostave leta 2003 je dejavnost Centra zamrla.
Institucionalno infrastrukturo arheologije mlajših obdobij dopolnjujeta še kustodiata za (visoki in) pozni srednji vek v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije in v Mestnem muzeju v Ljubljani, ki skrbita za arheološko premično dediščino obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku, jo raziskujeta in javnosti predstavljata v sklopu stalnih in občasnih razstav. Prav tako ne gre pozabiti temeljne slovenske raziskovalne ustanove za področje arheologije, Inštituta za arheologijo ZRC SAZU. Njegova raziskovalna dejavnost je bila dolgo usmerjena le v raziskave "tradicionalnih" arheoloških obdobij, pač v skladu z usmeritvami in nalogami, ki jih je ob ustanovitvi tedanji Arheološki sekciji pri Zgodovinskem inštitutu začrtal Josip Korošec leta 1948: "arheološko znanstveno raziskovanje Slovenije, časovno od mlajše kamnite dobe /neolita/ do naselitve Slovanov in zgodnji
srednji vek do vključno XI stoletja". Četudi so že leta 1989 nameravali svoje delovanje razširiti tudi onkraj te časovne meje (Pleterski 1997, 88), se to ni zgodilo vse do začetka novega tisočletja, ko so končno pridobili novega sodelavca - raziskovalca za področje arheologije poznega srednjega in novega veka.27 Nenazadnje je v minulem desetletju z objavljanjem člankov s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij pričel tudi Arheološki vestnik, osrednja slovenska arheološka revija, ki nastaja na inštitutu. Lahko rečemo, da je bil to na simbolni ravni pomemben prelom, ki je novo disciplino "ustoličil" kot legitimen in polnopraven segment arheologije.
Leta 2003 je nastala še ena ustanova, ki je dejavno posegla na polje arheologije srednjega in novega veka. V okviru Znanstveno-raziskovalnega središča Koper je bil namreč ustanovljen Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja pod vodstvom Mitje Guština, katerega dejavnost je sicer multiperiodna in interdisciplinarna (sl. 17). V okviru večletnega evropskega projekta Dediščina Serenissime so tako sodelavci inštituta z italijanskimi, hrvaškimi in avstrijskimi partnerji preučevali materialno zapuščino iz časa beneške republike na vzhodni jadranski obali (prim. npr. Guštin et al. 2006). Posebno bogata je publicistična dejavnost Inštituta (Preložnik 2008): v zbirki Annales Mediterranea je doslej izšlo že šest knjig s področja arheologije mlajših obdobij (Guštin 2004; Lazar 2004; Mileusnic 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 Univerze na Primorskem - pa izhajajo tudi v novi periodični publikaciji Studia universitatis hereditati (Guštin 2008).
Uveljavitev arheologije mlajših obdobij kot suverene discipline v akademskem okolju je šla z roko v roki s spremembami v praksi. Raziskave in gradivo so bili vse pogosteje predstavljani na posebnih občasnih in stalnih razstavah,28 izrazito se je okrepila tudi publicistična
27	S staroslovanskim obdobjem se tako končuje tudi pregled arheologije slovenskega ozemlja v monografiji "Zakladi tisočletij", ki so jo pripravili raziskovalci inštituta s sodelavci in je izšla leta 1999 (Aubelj, Božič, Dular 1999). Gre za pomembno poljudnoznanstveno delo, ki je bogato ilustrirano in namenjeno čim širši uveljavitvi arheologije med laično publiko. Knjigo lahko razumemo tudi kot prispevek arheologije k oblikovanju nove nacionalne zavesti po osamosvojitvi Slovenije, četudi to ni bil izrecni motiv za njen nastanek. Pri tem pa ta "nacionalni projekt" ne odstopa od starih, tedaj tudi v Sloveniji že preseženih pojmovanj o časovni zamejenosti arheologije.
28	Če omenimo le nekatere: razstava o izkopavanjih na Kapucinskem vrtu v Kopru (Guštin, Cunja 1989; Cunja 1989), o lončenini in steklovini iz severnoprimorskih gradov (Žbona-Trkman et al. 1991), priložnostne razstave o opravljenih raziskavah, ki jih je v Kulturno-informacijskem centru Križanke pripravljal Mestni muzej Ljubljana (npr. Mesto pod muzejem leta 2000), razstava "Gotika na Slovenskem - svet predmetov" (Lozar Štamcar 1995), razstava o lončarstvu na Šentjernejskem polju skozi čas (Križ et al. 1996), o arheoloških raziskavah najdišč mlajših obdobij na Štajerskem (Guštin, Predovnik 1997), stalna razstava Pomurskega muzeja (Balažic, Kerman 1997), razstava o
dejavnost (sl. 18). V zadnjih dvajsetih letih je izšlo več celovitih objav terenskih raziskav, ki vsebujejo katalog in vrednotenje drobnega gradiva,29 številne tematske študije o posameznih skupinah artefaktov30 pa tudi problemske razprave o arheoloških raziskavah urbanih naselij (Stokin 1995; Cunja 1998; Guštin 2001a; Guštin 2001c), produkciji keramike na slovenskem ozemlju (Župančič, Cunja 2000; Mileusnic 2008; Predovnik 2009) ter pregledi zgodovine, konceptov in stanja stroke (Guštin, Predovnik 1994; Na-bergoj 1995; Guštin 1999a).
Priložnost za izmenjavo znanja in izkušenj so prinesla tematska srečanja in posvetovanja, še posebno tista z mednarodno udeležbo. Pogovor o arheološki dediščini srednjega in novega veka sta ob razstavi "Drobci nekega vsakdana" na gradu Kromberk januarja 1995 pripravila Goriški muzej in Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. V sodelovanju z muzejem iz italijanskega Vidma in Furlanskim arheološkim društvom sta Goriški muzej in Oddelek za arheologijo v okviru posveta o poznosrednjeveški in renesančni keramiki v severovzhodni Italiji in sosednjih deželah, ki je potekal v Vidmu marca 1996, organizirala poseben blok predavanj slovenskih raziskovalcev (Buora et al. 1999). Decembra 1997 je sledil posvet o raziskavah visoko- in poznosre-dnjeveške ter zgodnjenovoveške keramike na Slovenskem
Šaleški dolini "med romaniko in barokom" (Ravnikar 1998), o Celjskih grofih (Fugger Germadnik 1999b), o srednjeveški in novoveški keramiki s smetišč na morskem dnu pri Sv. Ivanu blizu Umaga in v Piranu (Guštin 2004), o raziskavah v Škofji Loki (Štukl 2004), nedavno pa denimo tudi razstavi "Zakladi Narodnega muzeja Slovenije" (Nabergoj 2006) in "Ljubljanica - kulturna dediščina reke" (Turk et al. 2009) v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije.
29	Npr. objave izkopavanj na najdiščih Stari grad nad Podbočjem (Guštin et al. 1993; Predovnik 2003), grad Šalek (Brišnik, Ravnikar 1999), graščina v Polhovem Gradcu (Že-leznikar 2002), pastirski stan na Veliki planini (Železnikar
2006),	cerkev sv. Jerneja v Šentjerneju (Predovnik et al. 2008), Mali grad v Kamniku (Štular 2009) idr.
30	Gl. npr. razprave o lončenih pečnicah (Stare 1993; Guštin, Horvat 1994, Guštin 2001d), srednjeveški lončenini (Nabergoj 1999; Kos, Nabergoj 2000; Štular 2005; Štular
2007),	keramičnih čašah in lončkih (Guštin 1999b; Guštin 2001b), lončenini z visokogorskih najdišč v Kamniško-Savinjskih Alpah (Horvat 1996; Cevc 2000; Predovnik 2006), okrašeni namizni lončenini (Cunja 2000; Cunja 2001; Guštin 2004; Predovnik 2009), španski majoliki (Guštin, Gelichi 2001), steklenem posodju (Kos, Žvanut
1994; Lazar 2001; Petek 2004), kovinskih predmetih (Stare 2002), orožju (Nabergoj 2001; Štukl 2007; Rozman 2008) in številne druge tematske prispevke. O srednjeveškem denarništvu, kovnicah in novcih prim. npr. Kos P. 1996 in Šemrov 2001. V artefaktne študije so že bile vpeljane tudi sodobne analitske metode naravoslovnih ved: nedestruk-tivne jedrske spektroskopske metode so bile uporabljene za ugotavljanje kemične sestave srednjeveškega steklenega posodja (Šmit, Kos 2004) in srednjeveških novcev (Šmit, Šemrov 2006).
v organizaciji Narodnega muzeja Slovenije.31 Mednarodna in interdisciplinarna udeležba je zaznamovala simpozij o Celjskih grofih, ki ga je Pokrajinski muzej Celje v sodelovanju s Centrom za srednjeveške in novoveške študije pripravil maja 1998 (Fugger Germadnik 1999a). Slovenski raziskovalci so začeli dejavneje sodelovati s tujimi kolegi, posebno še iz sosednjih dežel Italije, Avstrije in Hrvaške.32 V splošnem lahko rečemo, da dosedanji raziskovalni pristopi in zastavljeni cilji arheologije mlajših obdobij ne sežejo onkraj tradicionalno uveljavljenih okvirov kulturnozgodovinske in tipološko-kronološke paradigme, ki še vedno prepoznavno določata večji del slovenske arheološke produkcije. Privlačna zamisel, da bi arheologijo mlajših obdobij že ob samem nastanku zasnovali na drugačnih izhodiščih, bolj reflektirano in na sodobnejših teoretskih podmenah (Predovnik 1995 in 2000), ostaja skorajda v celoti neuresničena. Seveda je na nek način razumljivo, da je levji delež raziskovalnih naporov protagonistov mlade discipline usmerjen v vzpostavljanje osnovne baze podatkov (beri: objavljanje terenskih raziskav in artefaktnih zbirov) in temeljnih datacijskih orodij (tipokronologij). In vendar beležimo tudi drugačne poskuse, ki v študij srednjega in novega veka vnašajo nove koncepte. Značilno je, da so povečini povezani s prostorskimi študijami. Katarina Predovnik je v svoji študiji o razvoju poselitve na območju nekdanje kartuzije Žiče uporabila koncept krajine - in arhitekture - kot udejanjenja idejnih modelov in je svoje pojasnitve utemeljila na (implicitno) fenomenoloških izhodiščih (Predovnik 1997; Predovnik 1998). Koncept krajine kot polja neposredne čutne zaznave in izkustvenega dojemanja prostora je podrobneje predstavil Dimitrij Mlekuž. Na konkretnem študijskem primeru modeliranja zvočne podobe okolice Polhovega Gradca v predindustrijski dobi je praktično preveril možnost uporabe GIS-orodij za prostorske študije, v katerih prostor ni razumljen kot abstraktna in objektivna danost, marveč je osrediščen okrog subjekta - človeka, ki ta prostor zaznava in je z njim v interakciji (Mlekuž 2002a in 2002b). Analitska orodja GIS sta na inovativen način uporabila: Matjaž Bizjak, ki je v svojem diplomskem delu obravnaval sistem protiturške obrambe na območju Pivškega podolja
31	Prim. Nabergoj 1999, 41 in tematski blok petih člankov o preučevanju srednjeveške in novoveške keramike na Slovenskem v reviji Argo 43/1 (Ljubljana 2000, str. 29-74).
32	Predvsem imamo v mislih mednarodne projekte in tematska posvetovanja, ki jih od leta 2003 izvaja Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja (prim. npr. Guštin et al. 2006). Oddelek za arheologijo ljubljanske Filozofske fakultete je poleg tega sodeloval z avstrijskimi kolegi pri organizaciji in izvedbi posvetovanja o motah in sorodnih utrdbah oktobra 2006 v Holleneggu pri Deutschlandsbergu na avstrijskem Štajerskem (Felgenhauer-Schmiedt et al. 2007). Dolgo tradicijo strokovnih stikov in skupnih projektov imajo sodelavci Goriškega muzeja z italijanskimi kolegi iz Mestnega muzeja v Vidmu. Omeniti velja tudi uspešno čezmejno sodelovanje Mestne občine Maribor, Pokrajinskega muzeja Maribor in Mestnega muzeja Varaždin v projektu Bastion v programu evropske pobude Interreg IIIA v letih 2004-2006.
in doline Reke (Bizjak 2 0 0 6),33 in Benjamin Štular pri interpretaciji dinamike človekovega "osvajanja" in rabe visokogorja na primeru blejskih planin (Štular 2006) ter v analizah logike prostorske umestitve in stavbnega razvoja kamniškega Malega gradu (Štular 2009). Disciplinarne meje vseh vrst pa poskuša premakniti in celo preseči študija Blaža Podpečana o novoveških nagrobnikih na območju Spodnje Savinjske doline, v kateri je uporabil novejše pristope t. i. emotivne arheologije. Nagrobnike je obravnaval kot kompleksne vire z materialnimi, likovnimi in verbalnimi (pisnimi) prvinami, ki sooblikujejo celovit sistem komunikacij. Prepričljivo je pojasnil družbeno vpetost in kulturno določenost izrazito osebnih čustev in dozdevno individualiziranih intimnih izkušenj, ki se manifestirajo v materialnih praksah žalovanja in ohranjanja spomina na pokojnike (Podpečan 2006).
Izredno hitro je v zadnjih dveh desetletjih naraščalo število opravljenih in z objavami v strokovnih publikacijah dokumentiranih terenskih raziskav, posebno še od druge polovice devetdesetih let dalje (sl. 8). Medtem ko smo jih za obdobje 1980-1989 našteli petinpetdeset, jih je bilo v desetletju 1990-1999 triindevetdeset in v dve leti krajšem obdobju 2000-2007 že sto šestindvajset. Seveda je splošna uveljavitev terenskega raziskovanja najdišč z ostalinami iz obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku tudi posledica sistematičnega izobraževalnega in raziskovalnega dela v akademski sferi, vendar obstajajo še drugi razlogi za tako visok trend rasti.
Kot smo že omenili, se je slovenska arheologija od konca osemdesetih let dalje seznanjala z metodološkimi novostmi v terenskem raziskovanju. O vlogi metode strati-grafskih izkopavanj za nediskriminatorno obravnavo vseh obdobij smo že govorili. Podobno "obdobno nevtralne" so različne prospekcijske metode, ki omogočajo prepoznavanje in nedestruktivno dokumentiranje površinskega in podpovršinskega arheološkega zapisa ter njegovo interpretacijo v smislu preteklih poselitvenih vzorcev in dinamike rabe prostora (prim. Novakovic 2003): terenski pregledi, geofizikalne metode, namenska aerosnemanja in interpretacija zračnih posnetkov34 idr. (sl. 19) Dokončno uveljavitev teh pristopov in metod pa slovenska arheologija dolguje projektu varovanja arheološke dediščine ob gradnji avtocestnega omrežja, v okviru katerega je bila leta 1994 izdelana metodologija za izvedbo predhodnih in zaščitnih raziskav, vrednotenje arheološkega potenciala in vključevanje arheologije v postopke načrtovanja in izvedbe posegov v prostor (Djuric 2003b). Pri izvedbi teh raziskav so bolj ali manj intenzivno sodelovale vse slovenske arheološke ustanove in tudi skorajda vsi v Sloveniji dejavni arheologi. Predpisana metodologija je kmalu postala uveljavljen
33	Ta študija je tako rekoč dosledno uresničila zamisli o "analizi prostorskih razmerij na regionalni ravni", ki jih je že leta 1987 artikuliral Božidar Slapšak v svojem prispevku o taborih v sistemu protiturške obrambe (Slapšak 1987, 144-145).
34	Uporabo aerofotografije in še posebej izvajanje namenskih snemanj in prospekcij iz zraka je omogočilo
šele odprtje zračnega prostora po nastanku nove države. Za prva odkritja dotlej neznanih poznosrednjeveških najdišč gl. Grosman 1996, 70-73; prim. tudi Kerman 1999.
standard, ne le ob raziskavah na trasah avtocest, marveč tudi sicer. Razvoju t. i. preventivne arheologije je z novim Zakonom o varstvu kulturne dediščine iz leta 2008 sledila še zakonodaja.
Posledica novega razumevanja vloge arheologije v posegih v prostor je izrazito povečan obseg dela, s tem pa se je seveda povečalo tudi število evidentiranih in raziskanih najdišč in drugih ostalin iz mlajših obdobij. V sklopu avtocestnega projekta velja omeniti odkritja poznosre-dnjeveških in zgodnjenovoveških naselbinskih ostankov na najdiščih Gornje njive pri Dolgi vasi (Kerman 2008), Obrežje (Mason 2003) in Leskovec pri Celju (Brišnik et al. 2006). V Medlogu so bili raziskani ostanki dvorca Forsthof (Tomažič 2003), v Valmarinu pri Spodnjih Škofijah pa gospodarsko poslopje nekdanje pristave koprske škofije (Cunja 2003; sl. 20). Na lokaciji Gošča na Dolenjskem je bila odkrita novoveška opekarna (Žižek 2003), na Mrzlem polju pri Ivančni Gorici (Nabergoj 2007), na Šušcu pri Razdrtem (Svoljšak 2000-2004) in še na nekaterih drugih najdiščih pa stari infrastrukturni objekti - cestišča in poljske poti, odpadne jame, poljske meje ipd. Še najbolj pogosto so srednjeveške in novoveške najdbe, evidentirane ob predhodnih arheoloških raziskavah, "zgolj" razpršena sled gospodarske rabe prostora, denimo kmetijskih dejavnosti in z njimi povezanega "smetenja" krajine.
Število novih odkritij dodatno povečuje vse intenzivnejše arheološko raziskovanje podvodnih najdišč, posebno še po ustanovitvi Skupine za podvodno arheologijo pri Zavodu za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije (prim. npr. Podvodna arh. Slov. 1, 1982; Podvodna arh. Slov. 2, 1984; Bitenc, Knific 1997; Gaspari, Erič 2008). Med najdbami, ki so tako ali drugače "končale" v morju, rekah ali jezerih, je seveda veliko odlično ohranjenih predmetov iz mlajših obdobij, ki - četudi izhajajo iz specifičnih kontekstov - pomembno dopolnjujejo naše poznavanje preteklosti po materialnih virih.35
Na tem mestu ne želimo zapisovati programskih izhodišč za nadaljnji razvoj. Opozorimo le na nekaj šibkih točk. Ena ključnih ovir, ki jih bo stroka morala čimprej premostiti, je pomanjkanje kvalitetnih objav primarnih podatkov, kajti brez ustrezne empirične baze bo težko napredovala. Vse intenzivnejša terenska raziskovalna dejavnost ob starih dezideratih (Otok pri Dobravi, Stari grad nad Celjem) neugodno razmerje med številom raziskanih in številom objavljenih najdišč in artefaktnih zbirov le še poslabšuje.
Druga izrazita pomanjkljivost je zaenkrat zares skrajno omejena uporaba analitskih orodij naravoslovnih ved pri preučevanju artefaktov, tafonomskih procesov, demografskih36 in okoljskih podatkov.37 Artefaktne študije temeljijo izključno na tipološkem in komparativističnem pristopu, redke izjeme, ki vključujejo naravoslovne analize, pa so premalo reflektirane, da bi uspele v polni meri izkoristiti interpretativni potencial pridobljenih podatkov.
Končno lahko ugotovimo, da se slovenska arheologija pri obravnavi mlajših obdobij doslej še ni otresla "gospostva zgodovinskega vira" in se le redko loteva suverenih, premišljenih in prvenstveno na materialnih virih utemeljenih interpretacij. Takšna drža je brez dvoma znak začetniških težav in siceršnjega pomanjkanja teoretskega premisleka v slovenski arheologiji.
Najbrž je še prezgodaj, da bi lahko realno ovrednotili domet in globino učinkov, ki jih za širše razumevanje narave in predmeta arheologije ima in jih bo še imelo "premikanje meja" z vzpostavljanjem nove discipline. Verjamemo pa, da je ta razvoj za arheološko vedo kot celoto lahko samo koristen in celo nujen. Sili jo namreč v razmislek o temeljnih podmenah arheološkega dela, njegovih spoznavnih možnostih in omejitvah ter arheologijo ob neposrednem srečevanju in prepletanju s sorodnimi disciplinami usmerja k bolj integralnemu in hkrati kompleksnemu pojmovanju preteklosti.
OB KONCU NEKEGA ZAČETKA
Opisani razvoj arheoloških raziskav obdobij po zgodnjem srednjem veku lahko seveda ocenjujemo različno. Če ga presojamo z merili vodilnih raziskovalnih okolij, kot sta denimo britanska in severnoameriška arheologija, se morda zdi zapoznel in neustrezen. Če pa ga umestimo v kontekst srednjeevropskih arheoloških tradicij in upoštevamo pregovorno majhnost slovenske arheologije (v geografskem, kadrovskem in finančnem oziru), tedaj se izkupiček dosedanjih prizadevanj, posebno v zadnjih dveh desetletjih, vendarle zdi bolj zadovoljiv.
35 Dragocene podatke o potrošnji in celo proizvodnji dekorativnega namiznega posodja na vzhodni jadranski obali tako na primer prinašajo najdbe s podvodnih smetišč 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 al.2009). Nekatere skupine predmetov, kot so denimo meči (prim. Nabergoj 2001), drugi večji kosi bojne opreme in orodja, jedilni noži z okrašenimi ročaji ipd., so v običajnih arheoloških kontekstih redko, če sploh, zastopane.
36	Doslej so bile objavljene antropološke analize le z dveh grobišč s pokopi iz mlajših obdobij: farne cerkve v Kranju (Leben-Seljak 1996) in cerkve sv. Jerneja v Šentjerneju (Leben-Seljak 1999).
37	Edina objavljena študija te vrste je analiza živalskih kostnih ostankov z najdišča Otok pri Dobravi (Bartosi-ewicz 2006).
Katarina Predovnik Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofska fakulteta Univerza v Ljubljani Aškerčeva 2 1000 Ljubljana katja.predovnik@ff.uni-lj.si
Tomaž Nabergoj Narodni muzej Slovenije Prešernova 20 SI-1000 Ljubljana tomaz.nabergoj@nms.si