Can we learn from history?

Rudolphina: We discussed with you about ten years ago: Can we learn from history? What is your answer to this question today, multiple crises later?

Walter Pohl: In 2015, I mentioned Germany as a good example of how we can actually learn from history. Back then, Germany was one of the few countries in Europe whose parliament did not have members from right-wing populist parties. In addition, people were simply not allowed to say certain things in public. The wind has turned: Apparently, we can not only learn from history, we can also unlearn.

What we should know very well from history is that in complex situations, people prefer simple recipes. This leads to an anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific attitude, a defensive stance towards the supposed Other. Although we should know better, we are currently confronted with these trends (again).

Rudolphina: Your research focuses on the Middle Ages, and you are particularly interested in migration phenomena. What are you currently working on?

Pohl: Peoples and nations are often perceived as subjects of history that are somehow unchangeable. They pursue a specific mission or have claims to territories. However, the composition of a people can change through migration, division or unification. A people that sets off somewhere is not the same people when it arrives somewhere else. In an international large-scale research project, we are currently pooling knowledge from history, archaeology, anthropology and archaeogenetics. We analyse over 6,000 samples that we have collected from graves from the 4th to 9th century AD in East Central Europe. We investigate where the people came from, what genetic differences they had and how this influenced their perception as a 'people'.

Rudolphina: Do you have any initial results from the project to share?

Pohl:A recent publication in Nature focuses on two cemeteries south of Vienna, in Leobersdorf and Mödling, dating from the eighth century AD. The culture and burial rituals were very similar in both places. However, in Mödling we find almost exclusively remains of people of European descent, while in Leobersdorf people of East Asian descent predominate.  Sources show that a group of Avars had arrived in Europe from East Asia around 200 years earlier. Our interpretation: successful cultural integration has not necessarily led to biological integration. Even then, genetic affiliation did not necessarily determine cultural identity.

Rudolphina: The topic of migration is often used in election campaigns these days. What advice would a person from the Middle Ages, whose life was characterised by mobility, give us?

Pohl: The question virtually reverses our historical view: In historical studies, we often have the feeling that we are entering into a dialogue with our sources, but of course the authors whose texts we read cannot comment on them. I suspect that a noble inhabitant of the city of Rome during the era of the Roman Empire would not understand why many people have an issue with migration. After all, the success of the Roman Empire was based on migration. It pursued a deliberate migration policy to bring labour into the Empire. 200 years later, in 6th century Rome, Pope Gregory the Great would already be more sceptical, maybe. In his letters, which have been preserved until today, he would have liked to get rid of the Lombards, who had recently invaded Italy by force of arms from the Danube. However, armed conquerors are also very different from the people who come to Europe today as labourers and people seeking protection.

Rudolphina: Today, we are fed news that confirm our own assumptions, especially on social media, i.e. the filter bubble. Has this perhaps made it more difficult to learn from history?

Pohl: Yes, I think so. Our society is complex, but its history is also complex. Let us take the Middle Ages as an example again, a time that seems somehow familiar to us through the buildings around us or films that we watch. As a result, we are tempted to simply project our ideas into these times, but this is usually the wrong approach. If you study history intensively, you learn to understand the different ways of thinking. How do you put yourself in a different mindset, in a different mental map? You develop a heightened sense for detecting statements that seem plausible or that are simply assertions that arise from a certain attitude or certain interests. In my opinion, this kind of sense is also important for finding your way in the current, medialised world. 

Rudolphina: Do you have a tip for non-historians to train their senses?

Pohl: What I like to recommend, of course, is the blog of our Cluster of Excellence EurAsian Transformations (in German), which boasts exciting stories from 3,000 years of Eurasia. More than 60 researchers from the University of Vienna, the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the Central European University and the University of Innsbruck contribute to it. The contributions deal with the reappraisal of historical sources, power, rule and empires, as well as ecological changes and social effects, which are topics that are also relevant today.

Rudolphina: Thank you very much for the interview. (hm)