The article is devoted to the linguistic analysis of the polemics conducted in the press by Józef Kostrzewski and Bolko von Richthofen in the interwar period. The scientific subject – the ethnogenesis of the Slavs – turned into a sharp political polemic. The set of analysed texts is an example of a discourse – a tangle of texts, thematically related, standing with each other and with the discourse in a complex relationship. The texts refer to each other through numerous quotations, paraphrases, references in the text and footnotes. Their analysis provided information about the image of us – Poles (Slavs) vs. they – Germans (Germani), we – Polish scientists vs. they – German researchers existing then, as well as information on language strategies used to create a specific image of oneself and the opponent. Since the controversy was conducted in public, it also affected the public perception of the discussed issue, while the socio-historical reality of the time also had an impact on the course of the debate. The closer the Second World War approached, the more heated the dispute became, and the more scientists moved away from the scientific problem and entered into sharp political polemics.

The article was based on the monograph published in 2022 entitled Wissenschaft und Ideologie. Linguistische Analyze des Diskurses zur Ethnogenese der Slawen. 42 publications, both in Polish and German, written by Józef Kostrzewski and Bolko von Richthofen have been analysed. The research corpus consists of texts that are clearly related to each other and form a network of texts – discourse. The articles belonging to the corpus were subjected to a linguistic analysis, thanks to which an insight into the linguistic image of a certain fragment of reality was gained providing the view of that time on the origin of the Slavs. The analysis of the texts also provided information about the image of us – Poles (Slavs) vs. they –Germans (Germani), we – Polish scientists vs. they – German researchers existing then (including the way of practicing science here vs. the way of practicing science there). Although the subject of the dispute is a scientific issue that was discussed in numerous presentations by both archaeologists in scientific publications, nevertheless this particular debate was largely held in the press (daily newspapers, popular science magazines, propaganda brochures) and its actors were known for their highly polemical style. Both accused each other of mistakes they made themselves, such as unscientific and polemical arguments or performing working methods briefly, and also that they practiced archaeology in the service of politics. Both Richthofen and Kostrzewski let themselves be carried away by the prevailing mood at the time. The archaeologists were also aware that their dispute was not only about scientific matters, and their views were certainly influenced not only by the results of scientific research, but also by the reality of interwar Europe that surrounded them. On the other hand, the fact that the debate was conducted through the media means that to some extent it also created the extra-linguistic (socio-political) reality in the context of the discussed topic and influenced the shape of the non-scientific discussion on this topic. This generally scientific problem became public and thus it lost the scientific dimension, and regarding the time in which it took place, it gained a political dimension. Due to the fact that the dispute between Kostrzewski and Richthofen was played out in the media also resulted in another consequence. The average reader, who might have been more or less interested in the topic, had only read part of the discussion (in his own language) owing to the language barrier, therefore he was not able to assess objectively the whole thing. The image of the opposing side and knowledge on a given topic came mainly from texts (statements) available to the reader of one of the sides of the conflict. This certainly influenced the one-sided view of the entire dispute. This fact was used by discourse actors who could skilfully manipulate public opinion in this way, creating in their statements for instance a negative image of the opponent and his activities. Since the texts were also replicas of controversies, references to earlier texts also played the role of a commentary (often critical) to the position of the adversary. They allowed to distance oneself from a statement, deny, undermine someone’s judgment, and the assessment of the opposing party’s actions was not only rarely positive, but it was usually critical and negative, and applied not only to the content, but also to the person of the author. Often the point was only to discredit the opponent and his supporters in the eyes of the readers and ridicule their (obviously in the author’s opinion) unscientific methods of the research. Numerous and often mutual accusations served this purpose, e.g. against Richthofen: unscientific approach, instrumental treatment of science in the service of politics, (comic) errors in the translations of Kostrzewski’s texts into German, falsification of history, absurd (irrational) behaviour. Richthofen, on the other hand, accused Kostrzewski of, e.g. unscientific approach, absurd behaviour and hypocrisy. At the same time, the scientific question about the ethnicity of the Lusatian culture is completely relegated to the background, and the main goal of the actors is to gain a mental advantage over the opponent. Scientists did not avoid using, e.g. irony to show the ridiculousness of the opponent’s actions and thus discredit or even slander him. Archaeologists resorted to hurtful words and often did not just attack the views of the opposing party, but they were engaged in interpersonal conflicts. The analysed texts provide information on language strategies used to create a specific image of oneself and the opponent, which the media transported then to a wider audience, thus it could significantly affect, e.g. social attitudes to a given phenomenon, people or concepts. The linguistic material from the texts shows how the polemic participants try to create a certain part of reality and at the same time influence its social perception. Texts/statements as communication units by means of which their authors want to achieve certain intended effects are a product of social interactions and activities and should always be studied in connection with the social, cultural and political context, as well as in relation to other texts that form intertextual networks. The discourse analysed here constitutes such a group of texts that should be treated not only as a collection of individual textual realizations, but also in the context of their mutual relations, as well as the conditions of their creation and, above all, against the background of a broader socio-political and cultural perspective.