To separate a centaur: on the relationship of archaeology and history in Soviet tradition.

To separate a centaur: on the relationship of archaeology and history in Soviet tradition. 'A combination, my lady, often cancels the best of itselements.'... 'That would be true, brother, if your head and shoulderswere those of a horse, and the rest human.'JOHN UPDIKE The Centaur centaur(sĕn`tôr), in Greek mythology, creature, half man and half horse. The centaurs were fathered by Ixion or by Centaurus, who was Ixion's son. chapter 1The argument on the subject matter of archaeologyIt is already some decades since serious argument began in Sovietscholarship about the subject matter of archaeology, or, more simply, ofthe field of archaeology: what does archaeology study? (Grigoryev 1973;Predmet 1975; Gening 1975; 1976; 1983; Borjaz 1976; Zakharuk 1978;Rogacev 1978). There is nothing like that in any other country (only informerly socialist Poland does something similar seem to be occurring).Outside the former Soviet Union archaeologists naturally are busy withthe question of the subject matter of their discipline -- theyironically point out its seeming simplicity in definitions like'Archaeology is what archaeologists do' (Koepp 1939: 11);'There is no archaeology, there are only archaeologists'(Braidwood 1960: 1). They compare this problem with the difficulty ofdefining some other well-known and generally recognized disciplines --such as mathematics, geography, history, sociology, philosophy -- andthen they stop. In reality nobody cares much: people know what thesedisciplines, including archaeology, mean in practice -- what they study.And that will do.It is quite the reverse in my country. The sharpness of the issuehere may evidently be explained by the specific relations of archaeologyto history in the Marxist system of knowledge, though some aspects ofthese relations appear in the West as well, and in non-Marxistscholarship.One side of the debate insists that archaeology is a servant ofhistory, and that the two disciplines have different subject matters,different fields. So the subject matter of archaeology is the materialrecord of the past, of course, as the source of information on extinctcultures and on historical events and processes, i.e. on the subjectmatter of history.The other side says that archaeology and history have one and thesame subject matter, one field -- past events, past social processes. Soarchaeology (according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. this point of view) is parallel with history,it has the same rights, is able to solve the same problems: in brief, itis simply 'history armed with the spade', as Arcikhovskij oncesaid (1941: 3). So we have two parallel histories -- one with the spade,the other without it, or armed instead with a pen (or more specifically,with written sources).In a series of articles and a book I have criticized the second view,analysing its dangers (Klejn 1977; 1978; 1986; 1991). In no case was(and is) this a scholastic debate. The consequences of these bothformulas ('servant of history' and 'history armed withthe spade') are multiple, tangible and very important. In ourcountry the second conception conquered long ago. Archaeology as afull-rights history (or rather as a slice of history) appearsnevertheless not to be genuine history -- it lacks many kinds ofinformation and necessary operations, it draws a one-sided picture. Morethan that, from the premise that archaeology is nothing other thananother kind of history, people conclude that in its interpretation itcan only manage with the set of methods which are used in history. Bythat in our country they mean methods of sociological interpretationbased in historical materialism historical materialism:see dialectical materialism. : that is, methods of imposingsociological philosophy on archaeological material. And it had aconsequence that the publishing houses wanted to publish only theready-made historical conclusions -- the reconstructed history of tribesand peoples, not the boring descriptions and typologies and chronologiesof artefacts and assemblages.It is not that I am in the middle between the arguing sides (franklyI take one of the sides, and the other is fighting with ardour ar��dour?n. Chiefly BritishVariant of ardor.ardouror US ardorNoun1. emotional warmth; passion2. disputingmy views: Zakharuk 1983; 1989; Gening 1989); but this time, here, I amtrying to find a balanced position in order to avoid unnecessary aspectsof the debate.So I may state that one of the two disciplines, namely history,many-sidedly studies the historical process itself, in full: it studiesthe events of the past themselves -- whereas the other discipline,archaeology, is aimed at achieving such knowledge only in distantprospect, while indirectly it studies something else. Some otherdisciplines (palaeography palaeographyor US paleographyNounthe study of ancient handwriting [Greek palaeo- ancient + -graphy]paleography, palaeography1. , epigraphy epigraphy:see inscription. , textology or diplomatic) all studysomething else -- one kind of record each. Archaeology studies thearchaeological record The archaeological record is a term used in archaeology to denote all archaeological evidence, including the physical remains of past human activities which archaeologists seek out and record in an attempt to analyze and reconstruct the past. . Like the other disciplines mentioned, archaeologystudies its own kind of source. It studies them in order to extract fromthem information on the past and to translate it into the language ofhistory, adding on that account some information from other kinds ofsources. But all this will be done at a later stage. Should it still bedone within the bounds of archaeology?History and source studiesA banal truth is that history studies the past on the basis of arecord, or, as we usually say in Russia, on the basis of'sources'. However the sources are not dinner-plates and theinformation does not lie sprawled on them like fried chicken Fried chicken is chicken which is dipped in a breading mixture and then deep fried, pan fried or pressure fried. The breading seals in the juices but also absorbs the fat of the fryer, which is sometimes seen as unhealthy. ('chicken-tabaka') -- please cut any piece you like and enjoyit. The record is rather similar to a closed basket where the meat,unknown to us, is hidden. It is to be identified, washed, drawn, cut upand cooked with spices. What menu must be composed, how to feed peoplewith this dish -- let the dietician dieticianNutritionist A health professional with specialized training in diet and nutrition and the waiter think about it. Butto prepare the dish you need a cook.In our age of developed specialization and differentiation ofknowledge it is impossible to manage without specialization in searchingand processing the record -- without the textologist, palaeographer Pa`lae`og´ra`phern. 1. See Paleographer, Paleographic, etc. ,seal-specialist, numismatist NumismatistCollector of historical coins and currencies. , archaeologist and so on. In brief --without specialists in source-studies. There is no sense in discussingwhether to isolate source-studying as a separate branch of knowledge ornot. It is an accomplished fact. And whether to call these disciplinesauxiliary or basic, is a matter of taste (and of ambitions).Both complexes of disciplines, history and its source-studies, aredivided into separate disciplines. From long ago different branches ofhistorical source-studies have been specialized: palaeography,epigraphy, textology, diplomatic, heraldry heraldry,system in which inherited symbols, or devices, called charges are displayed on a shield, or escutcheon, for the purpose of identifying individuals or families. , numismatics numismatics(n'mĭzmăt`ĭks, –mĭs–), collection and study of coins, medals, and related objects as works of art and as sources of information. , sphragistics,etc. Just like the training for cooking -- beside cooks there arespecialists for single kinds of food: baker, confectioner, wine-maker,brewer and so on. They work very differently, because different kinds offood-products demand different processing, different methods.Archaeology as a source-studying disciplineArchaeology enters quite naturally into this source-studying group ofdisciplines. Coins are separated from written sources in the realm ofsource-studying; why should artefacts not be, too? What are coins, as amatter of fact? Artefacts with inscriptions on them designating theirmonetary function. Thus, artefacts plus inscriptions. If artefacts withinscriptions are alien to written sources, so alien as to build aseparate discipline, then artefacts without inscriptions must be all themore alien.The questions have been raised as to whether it is reasonable toisolate, say, the study of graves or the study of arrowheads as specialdisciplines (taphonomy ta��phon��o��my?n.1. The study of the conditions and processes by which organisms become fossilized.2. The conditions and processes of fossilization. and velography); in other words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , whetherarchaeology is united into a single whole, an entity. It is permissibleto discuss these questions. But it is evident at first glance that allthese branches are not to be joined to the study of the written record,except within a general framework of semiotics semioticsor semiology,discipline deriving from the American logician C. S. Peirce and the French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. It has come to mean generally the study of any cultural product (e.g., a text) as a formal system of signs. , which would embrace agreat number of disciplines including even biology.Let us return to sources.Thus, each discipline has its own specificity, its own peculiarity,and their methods of processing are cardinally different. The Soviethistorian Pushkarev noted that the specificity of each kind of record,that is of sources, is determined by the coding of information in them,by the mode of the coding (Puskarev 1975: 248). Archaeological recordsare material antiquities, realia, things, and not notions fixed bylanguage. The historian deals with his discipline in the sphere ofthinking and of language. So does archaeology. However written recordsexist in the same sphere of thought while archaeological sources do not;they are in another sphere, and it is precisely the archaeologist whosetask is to transfer them (particularly, their information) from onesphere into the other, into the sphere of thinking and language.When we say that archaeologists must understand the language ofthings (Klejn 1981), the language of artefacts, this is merely ametaphorical expression. Understanding consists precisely in translatingfrom the language of things into the real, usual, natural language --the language of words and notions, of thoughts and connections. Theadditional difficulty of this translation arises out of the fact that,unlike ethnographic eth��nog��ra��phy?n.The branch of anthropology that deals with the scientific description of specific human cultures.eth��nog things (which can be explained to the student byliving aborigines aborigines:see Australian aborigines. ), archaeological artefacts are antiquities, the usersof which died long ago, and the tradition of understanding is cut away.(This topic is considered at greater length in Klejn 1978).Two kinds of synthesis and the borderEach kind of record in isolation is unable to give a full andcomplete notion of the society, of the events of the past. Antiquestatues, for instance, almost never depict slaves. Skeletons and ancientornaments give no hints of the language. In this sense each kind ofsource is defective. It cannot suffice for the building of history. Andin the case of the remote past, there is also damage, loss, gaps andfragmentation in each kind of source. It is possible to fill these gaps,to correct the damage, only with the help of other kinds of sources --they compensate for the incompleteness of each other.However this incompleteness and deficiency are all-embracing andall-penetrating rather than local. Therefore a simple additive processis not sufficient. We need a very complicated synthesis, with thebuilding and testing of models, on the basis of special theories. Sohistory is the branch of knowledge characterized by synthesis. And eachof its parts is built on the basis of a synthesis of different kinds ofsources, on the basis of integration of source-studying disciplines.Any analogy is poor (in Russian we say: is lame): this is well-known.The culinary analogy applied by me is also lame, of course. A historiancould only be equated to a dietician if the latter not merely composedthe menu and regulated the meals but also gathered and mixed all thefood-products and digested them anew with the addition of gastric juice gastric juice,thin, strongly acidic (pH varying from 1 to 3), almost colorless liquid secreted by the glands in the lining of the stomach. Its essential constituents are the digestive enzymes pepsin and rennin (see rennet), hydrochloric acid, and mucus. .With food, this is done by the consumer, with information, by thehistorian. Synthesis is not an exclusive privilege of history.Archaeology provides synthesis, too -- an interdisciplinary synthesis.It glues together pots out of fragments, combines similar fibulae into atype, forms a culture out of interconnected types or out of similarassemblages. Forming its cultures, it unites different kinds of culturalobjects -- ceramics, flint implements (Archæol.) tools, etc., employed by men before the use of metals, such as axes, arrows, spears, knives, wedges, etc., which were commonly made of flint, but also of granite, jade, jasper, and other hard stones.See also: Flint , graves, dwellings, motifs, etc.In brief, its business is 'piecing together the past', asChilde coined the phrase (1956). That is synthesis.Nevertheless it cannot piece all the past together. Its synthesis haslimits, beyond which it must hand its results to the other disciplines-- to history or to sociology. This moment does not come earlier thanthe completion of its main source-studying function: that is, when ittransfers the information of the archaeological record from the'thing' form into the 'sign' form, into the form ofusual language (spoken or written) in which historical thinking isrealized and historical research is carried out.But having determined the limit 'not earlier', is itreasonable to show the opposite limit -- 'not later'? Can theright to invade history (or sociology) be granted to an archaeologisthimself -- to invade as deep as he likes? No, it cannot. There is alsoan upper limit to the involvement of the archaeologist, which must alsobe respected. It precludes a whole part of the research route, wherefurther work is impossible without adducing ad��duce?tr.v. ad��duced, ad��duc��ing, ad��duc��esTo cite as an example or means of proof in an argument.[Latin add records of some other kind,essentially alien to the archaeological ones, but in any case, otherkinds of sources. Where, consequently, integration of disciplines shouldcome into full force. The synthesis which takes place in history is aninterdisciplinary one.True, information from the neighbouring source-studying disciplinesis still needed in the initial stages of archaeological research: at thestage of classification and typology typology/ty��pol��o��gy/ (ti-pol��ah-je) the study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. typologythe study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. -- from ethnography ethnography:see anthropology; ethnology. ethnographyDescriptive study of a particular human society. Contemporary ethnography is based almost entirely on fieldwork. (on functionsof artefacts for their division by 'categories'), at the stageof dating -- from geology and palaeontology, etc. These are, however,particular interactions. Those questions raised by history and sociologyare all-embracing. These disciplines discover cause-effect connectionsand laws of socio-historic process. These demand that all the sides ofsocial life should be included, and consequently all the informationfrom the source-studying disciplines together. A historian, and to acertain extent a sociologist, should possess a knowledge of the resultsof all the source-studying disciplines, and should master the methods ofinterdisciplinary synthesis.And what about the archaeologist? He must possess abilities ofanother kind. Does this mean that he need not and must not raisehistorical questions, that he must not solve them? Yes, it does. If thearchaeologist was trained only in the limits of his profession (andthank God if this is achieved well), he should not go out of theseborders. One should submit to the rules of professional specialization.One should not get into the neighbouring source-studying disciplines,however tempting it is, but should rely on the achievements ofneighbouring specialists. One should not undertake the solution of theproblems of history and sociology. Instead of this, one should waituntil a specialist in historical synthesizing comes along. If you cannotstand it any longer, then you are welcome to extend your activity; butwill you be so kind as to master professionally the new (for you)discipline, as your second profession. And let us hope this will bewithin your powers.Of course, an archaeologist takes into account those laws under whichhistory and sociology operate -- the laws of social order and historicprocess: these laws are of use to him in order to build models forreconstruction. But much more he is supported by other laws -- thosewhich allow him to extract information out of the archaeological record.These are the laws under which the archaeological record, the artefact See artifact. and assemblage, is formed. On the whole they are the laws which concern:1 the materialization, the incarnation of ideas and events;2 their dropping out of use and subsequent deposition;3 'archaeologization', (or, as Sir Thomas Browne put it,'antiquitation'): -- that is age damage and destruction ofthings.These principles were considered by David Clarke David Clarke or Dave Clarke may refer to: Dave Clarke, techno DJ from England David Clarke (actor), motion picture and Broadway actor Dave Clarke (football), Scottish football manager David A. , Lewis Binford Lewis Roberts Binford, Ph.D. (born 21 November 1930[1] in Norfolk, Virginia), is an American archaeologist, known as the leader of the "New Archaeology" movement of the 1950s/60s. He is University Distinguished Professor emeritus at Southern Methodist University. andothers.Matching and substitutionIn the development of archaeology and historical studies, not onlywere branches of source-studies separated from each other, but also thehistorical study of different epochs: history of primordial primordial/pri��mor��di��al/ (pri-mor��de-al) primitive. pri��mor��di��aladj.1. Being or happening first in sequence of time; primary; original.2. society(prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to and protohistory pro��to��his��to��ry?n.The study of a culture just before the time of its earliest recorded history.pro ), medieval history, modern history etc. --and in different spheres of social life: civil history, social history,ethnohistory eth��no��his��to��ry?n.The study of especially native or non-Western peoples from a combined historical and anthropological viewpoint, using written documents, oral literature, material culture, and ethnographic data. , history of culture etc. Some of these disciplines wereconsidered very near to archaeology -- in different branches atdifferent times. Long ago it was geography (archaeology then wasperceived as a survey of ancient sites and monuments), then ethnographyetc. In recent times the orientation was changed. From the first seriesof historical disciplines (specialization by epochs) prehistoryespecially came nearer to archaeology; from the second series(specialization by spheres of life) history of material cultureapproached it. They drew so near to each other that in the eyes of manyarchaeologists (and not only of archaeologists) they coincided, matched.One began to confuse them.Dramatic and impressive for Soviet scholarship was the brief episodeof the abolition of Marxist archaeology. Archaeology was replaced by thehistory of material culture (Ravdonikas 1930; Bykovskij 1932a; 1932b;Arcikhovskij et al. 1932). Though the episode was brief, it left along-standing trace -- the title of the Academy (later Institute) forthe History of Material Culture -- as the main archaeologicalinstitution of the country was named. It bore this name from 1918 till1960, and in Poland the analogous institution has borne a similar nameup to now (the name has now seemingly changed). In Russia the traditionhas not died: in 1991 the St Petersburg institute of archaeology The Institute of Archaeology is an academic department of University College London (UCL), in the United Kingdom. The Institute is located in a separate building at the north end of Gordon Square, Bloomsbury. ,separated from Moscow, was called by this name -- this time as a sign ofindependence from Moscow. Nobody in Petersburg, however, is going tocease studying mental culture on the basis of archaeological data -- themeaning of mourning rites, content of petroglyphs and so on. Nor willthey extend their techniques of study to material culture -- such aseveryday household implements -- down to the present day, though such aproposition was made by a Leningrad philosopher officially seconded toarchaeology (Borjaz 1976), and by the recently deceased Director ofInstitute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of USSR USSR:see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. (Alekseev1992). Nevertheless this episode appeared to be local (it does not goout of the borders of the Socialist camp) and transient.Much more serious was the matching of archaeology with that otherbranch of knowledge -- with the history of primordial culture, i.e. withprehistory. If you walk along the corridor of the historical faculty ofSt Petersburg University, you may sink into the past gradually byreading the plates on the doors: 'Department of Modern andContemporary History', 'Department of Medieval History','Department of the History of Ancient World', that isclassical history. The next is expected to be the Department ofPrimordial History, i.e. prehistory; but it is absent. The two doorsopposite to each other and adjacent to the Department of Ancient Worldare: the Departments of Archaeology and Ethnography.Both these departments together substitute for the Department ofPrehistory. In one of these two, prehistory is determined on the basisof archaeological sources; in the other, on the basis of ethnographicones. How to synthesize To create a whole or complete unit from parts or components. See synthesis. prehistory, including all the necessary data --from physical anthropology, linguistics, behavioural primatology pri��ma��tol��o��gy?n.The branch of zoology that deals with the study of primates.prima��to��log etc. --is not taught anywhere. A similar picture can be observed in the otheruniversities of Russia. Prehistory was everywhere replaced byarchaeology and ethnography.Another picture can be seen in Germany, but a substitution is evidentthere as well. However it is quite the opposite one. As everywhere inthe West, archaeology is there sharply split into two: institutes,seminars, chairs, departments -- all being doubled. On the one side,classical archaeology 'Classical archaeology' is a term given to archaeological investigation of the great Mediterranean civilizations of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Nineteenth century archaeologists such as Heinrich Schliemann were drawn to study the societies they had read about in Latin and : on the other, indigenous, 'native'archaeology (Prehistoric and Medieval). Institutions of ClassicalArchaeology retain the term 'archaeology', though thespecification 'classical' is considered necessary. So it isadmitted that other archaeology exists too. But it is absent in thenames of other institutions. Those dealing with the primordial times ofthe native country, and with its medieval antiquities, are calledInstitutes or Seminars of Pre- and Protohistory (Vor- und Fruhgeschichteor Ur- und Fruhgeschichte). Meanwhile purely historical tasks have verylittle place here: there is no civil history, nor general problems ofcultural history -- these are being solved in other branches. And theprofessionals working here are busy mainly with typology, chronology,stratigraphy stratigraphy,branch of geology specifically concerned with the arrangement of layered rocks (see stratification). Stratigraphy is based on the law of superposition, which states that in a normal sequence of rock layers the youngest is on top and the oldest on the , cartography cartography:see map. cartographyor mapmakingArt and science of representing a geographic area graphically, usually by means of a map or chart. Political, cultural, or other nongeographic features may be superimposed. and of course with excavations. These are alsothe things which the students are being taught and trained in.Is it bad? Evidently archaeological sources are necessary for thestudy of primordial times, and one needs to obtain and process them, andto study the techniques used in these procedures. As soon as archaeologywas placed here in the proper position (and bearing in mind that itrequires specialization and demands that the workers should whollysurrender themselves) it practically ousted prehistory, and supplantedit. It did not supplant sup��plant?tr.v. sup��plant��ed, sup��plant��ing, sup��plants1. To usurp the place of, especially through intrigue or underhanded tactics.2. medieval history -- that had its own separateinstitutions, so the tendency of the teams with the tag'Fruhgeschichte' to do only archaeology is not dangerous forthat subject. On the other hand it is a disaster for prehistory: thishas not got any other institutions besides those labelled'Vor-' or 'Urgeschichte'.There are many causes for such substitution. Among them there areperhaps influential empirical trends in scholarship, the lack ofadvanced methods of synthesis, the traditional connection of the term'archaeology' with the study of classical times. But most ofall it depends on the fact that the two kinds of sources are differentlydistributed on the scale of time -- at its opposite ends. And thesecorrespond to the most important kinds of sources -- the written and thearchaeological ones. In the recent stages of history, the writtensources are so manifold, full and all-embracing that they overshadow o��ver��shad��ow?tr.v. o��ver��shad��owed, o��ver��shad��ow��ing, o��ver��shad��ows1. To cast a shadow over; darken or obscure.2. To make insignificant by comparison; dominate. allthe others, push them into the background, force them out. There isalmost no need for anything else. It gives a false impression that thisis in the nature of history -- that history can be built in general onthe basis of just one kind of sources.At the opposite end of the time scale, in the early time-periods,material antiquities play the same role. True, they are unablecompletely to overshadow the other sources. Even for the earliestPalaeolithic epoch -- try to study it without ethnography,palaeoanthropology, primatology, palaeontology, geology, etc.! However,the illusion also works here -- that is, the illusion of a singlecomplete and all-embracing kind of sources. This leading, dominating,main record follows the trend to become, in essence, the only one, uponwhich everything is built. Archaeology is equated with'palaeohistory', it stands in a row with the various branchesof history, sliced up by epochs, and appears at the very beginning ofthe sequence.Exemplifying of the substitutionTwo schools, two 'hearths' among archaeologists producedconceptual frameworks within which this coincidence of archaeology andpalaeohistory was worked out in practice, where it was attempted to showthat archaeology was allowed (and even obliged) to take on functions ofhistory, and that archaeology itself should solve with its own means allthe historical problems. One such hearth was formed in the second halfof the '20s in Moscow, the other one in the early '60s in USA.These were very different hearths.Moscow archaeologists of the first Marxist generation believed inunconditioned unconditioned/un��con��di��tion��ed/ (un?kon-dish��und) not a result of conditioning; unlearned; occurring naturally or spontaneously. and absolute determination of all social life by the modeof production, in the first instance by means of production Means Of Production is a compilation of Aim's early 12" and EP releases, recorded between 1995 and 1998. Track listing"Loop Dreams" – 5:30 "Diggin' Dizzy" – 5:33 "Let the Funk Ride" – 5:11 "Original Stuntmaster" – 6:33 , byimplements. When Marx exhibited his learning he referred to the exampleof the types of mill and said that knowing this type you can reconstructthe entire socio-economic structure of the society -- just as on thebasis of a single tooth Cuvier could reconstruct the whole of an extinctorganism of the extinct beast. Having directly and unilineally perceivedMarx, the neophytes of Marxism Arcikhovskij, Bryusov, Kiselev, Smirnov(later well-known archaeologists), concluded that since archaeologicalartefacts are in the main precisely these means of production,archaeologists who possess them and possess the Marxist scheme, do notneed the rest of the record, do not need other kinds of sources and areable to reconstruct the whole historical process without the help ofsuch disciplines as ethnography and linguistics. Archaeology became forthem a kind of history (Arcikhovskij 1927; 1929; Trudy 1929). Beingstrongly criticized, these archaeologists recanted theirultra-deterministic extremes very soon, but the thesis that archaeologyis 'history armed with the spade' remained the main principleof the Arcikhovskij-Rybakov school, dominating Soviet archaeology.Moreover, the old tradition in its unaltered form is also still alive --it is continued by Gening in Kiev (Gening 1982).The American New Archaeology of the early 1960s till the middle ofthe '70s was also sociologically oriented and carried away bypan-determinism. In a heated struggle against indeterminism in��de��ter��min��ism?n.1. Unpredictability.2. Philosophy The doctrine that there are some events, particularly some human actions or decisions, which have no cause. it took theopposite extreme. Indeterminist archaeologists denied the possibility ofreconstructing, without help of ethnography, the ancient meaning ofassemblages and the functions of artefacts. The leader of the NewArchaeology, Lewis Binford, opposed to this the notion that in cultureeach element is connected with each other and dependent on them as theyon it. This is reminiscent of a volleyball net, where you may pull anycell and all the others change their form at once. In culture, accordingto Binford, this proceeds indirectly -- through subcultures.Consequently, stated Binford, from material components of culture onecan infer non-material and therefore not preserved components withoutresorting to the help of ethnography. One need only establish regularcorrespondence between them (Binford 1972: 23, 94-5, 222-9).All this is very logical and would be fully true, if culture werereally like that; if all its elements and their position would be infact equal by values and influence. But this is not the case.The effect of the substitutionThus many archaeologists, both Soviet and Western, did not want to(and at present cannot) admit that prehistoric archaeology History is the study of the past using written records. Archaeology can also be used to study the past alongside history. Prehistoric archaeology is the study of the past before historical records began. andprehistory are two different disciplines. But they really are different.Each one has its own functions and methods. What happens when onediscipline has been invaded by people with the methods and habits ofanother? Nothing good. The discipline is then drawn into dilettantism dil��et��tante?n. pl. dil��et��tantes also dil��et��tan��ti1. A dabbler in an art or a field of knowledge. See Synonyms at amateur.2. A lover of the fine arts; a connoisseur.adj. .An archaeologist begins, with his own means, to build a history of apeople or tribes. The history turns out to be strange, one-sided, as ifa shadow of a real history. No reigns, no revolutions, no gloriousnames, no great men of letters. Only detailed descriptions of dugout dugout:see canoe. dwellings, graves, and of course ceramics -- just a lot of pots. As ifpeople in the past were busy only with shaping, burning and breakingpots. The archaeologist as historian investigates how cultures areproduced by cultures, how they interact with each other and how theyforce each other from a given area. At best some guesses are hazardedabout their social structure and its changes. Sometimes thearchaeologist realizes that he cannot do without sources of other kindsand he undertakes raids into the other source-studying disciplines. Inthese cases he usually feels at full liberty and, not being tied andlimited by strong rules, he plunders there as he can, shattersmethodologies and violates facts (see Klejn 1991 - a critique of thestudies of Akademician Rybakov). And after dragging his booty BOOTY, war. The capture of personal property by a public enemy on land, in contradistinction to prize, which is a capture of such property by such an enemy, on the sea. 2. away hedoes not know how to integrate this information with his own. For he isnot taught synthesis.The opposite substitution -- when a historian undertakes archaeologyhimself -- is still worse. Or, what is effectively the same, when anarchaeologist undertakes his business after having been trained only asa historian, i.e. with the thinking and knowledge of a historian,without professional archaeological education -- that occurs quiteoften. Well, if an archaeologist is the same as a historian, but with aspade, he does not need any special methods of interpretation. In hispossession he has sound reasoning as well as common logic, the means ofhistorical combination, etc., doesn't he? And for a generalorientation -- there is historical materialism, the universalmethodology for all social sciences and humanities.As a result of this logic we do not teach in our historical facultiessuch a profession as archaeology -- only additional archaeologicalspecialization for a historian, i.e. a full historical programme ofeducation plus some additional lectures, seminars and field practice. Inthe departments of archaeology, the methodological disciplines of thisprofession are reduced to a minimal amount, mainly to field andlaboratory methods. Theory, typology, the rules of scholarly researchare not systematically taught at all now. Persons without a professionalarchaeological education often get archaeological jobs in researchinstitutes and museums -- general historical education is sufficient. Itis supposed that with this general education they can quite simplyinterpret finds. This leads to the common debasing de��base?tr.v. de��based, de��bas��ing, de��bas��esTo lower in character, quality, or value; degrade. See Synonyms at adulterate, corrupt, degrade.[de- + base2. of the level ofprofessionalism in archaeology, to weakening of the reliability ofconclusions, to a perceptible touch of dilettantism covering allarchaeology. In each discipline there are always weak works, produced bydullards, mediocrities and smatterers. But in archaeology thisfalling-off, this deterioration, can be observed in works even by thebest.Let us take as example osteological statistics (not theirpalaeontological Adj. 1. palaeontological - of or relating to paleontologypaleontological but their social interpretation -- that in which theycompletely coincide with material antiquities as the product of humanaction). How to determine the relative contributions of different kindsof domestic animals in the economy of an excavated settlement? Surely,on the basis of percentage representation of the bones. But how do wecount them in reality?I remember the Volga--Don expedition of my teacher ProfessorArtamonov, the former Director of the Hermitage Hermitage, museum, St. Petersburg, RussiaHermitage(ĕr'mētäzh`), museum in St. Petersburg, Russia, one of the world's foremost houses of art. It was reconstructed in the neoclassical style in the 19th cent. in the 1950s. He was awell-known authority, a very skilled scholar. The expedition was largeand the project lasted for several years. There were palaeontologists inits staff too, so we were able to identify bones while still in thefield. They were identified and carefully registered, and then thrownout -- we were simply unable to bring them with us to Leningrad becausewe had no place to store them. But what was identified and counted inthe field? Fragments. A comparison from such a count gives very littleinformation since one bone may evidently be shattered into verydifferent quantities of fragments. And it is impossible to count themanew: the material is thrown out. Of course one should determine thequantity of individuals in each species by the minimal number ofindividuals, i.e. number at which the most frequent bone of this kind ofanimal in a given population is represented. Many contemporaryexpeditions do just this. But when archaeologists immediately judge fromthis what was the dominant exploited species, they are premature. Thestructure of the dead totality deposited in the site does not coincidewith the structure of the once-living herd at any single moment of itsexistence. The dead totality is collected during a long time period, andthe proportional relations are shifted radically.How to reconstruct them? Even such experienced archaeologists asProfessor Masson and Dr Kuz'mina suppose that one must docorrections taking into account the different fertility of the kinds ofungulates ungulates, ungulataanimals with hooves; cattle, sheep, goat, pig, horse and many wild and other domesticated species. . Masson thinks that because the birth interval of sheep isshorter than that for cattle, we must conclude that in the living herdthey were represented by a higher percentage than they are in the deadtotality. Kuz'mina say that by the same token they must be, quitethe reverse, not so frequent in the living herd as in the dead totality.So one scholar proposes to multiply the number of skeletons by somefactor, the other proposes to divide it (Masson 1976: 34; Kuz'mina1986: 33).Both are mistaken. In reality only the living herd is changed withthe increase of fertility. The changes of the dead totality incomparison with the living herd depend on something else -- on thedifferent average lifespan in different kinds of ungulates: during thelife of one cow, two or three sheep generations would have passed.Correspondingly a 1:1 ratio in the living herd can produce a 1:2 or 1:3ratio within the dead totality. Thus, not multiply, but divide and by adifferent factor! However, this is not the end of the chain. Thecomparable importance of the kinds of stock for the supply of meat tothe population depends not only upon the quantity of the individualanimals but on their average slaughter weight. One bull can give fivetimes more meat than one pig or sheep (Paaver 1958). Again, there'scounting. Finally one must also take into consideration the otherproduce from these kinds of stock -- milk, leather, wool, bristle bristle1. the thick strong animal fibers collected at commercial abattoirs for use in brushes.2. the sharp serrated awns of grass and some cereal seeds that confer a capacity to penetrate normal skin and mucosa and to cause ulcerative stomatitis, grass seed abscess and the like. -- andmust add also intangible advantages from use of the given kind of cattle(for example as draught animals or in the hunt). For all these tasks oneshould determine (by the slaughter age and other attributes) the type ofstock-breeding in this society -- a meat one, a meat-and-milk one, etc.As a result, the inference of a methodologically skilled professionalarchaeologist, well versed in the theory and methods of archaeology,will be very different both from the hasty conclusions of an empiricalarchaeologist who believes that facts speak for themselves, and from thesuperficial ideas of an interpreter with a wide general historicaleducation and with the belief that it provides the master-key to allriddles of the past.Empiricism empiricism(ĕmpĭr`ĭsĭzəm)[Gr.,=experience], philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience. For most empiricists, experience includes inner experience—reflection upon the mind and its and historicism his��tor��i��cism?n.1. A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and inherent processes beyond the control of humans.2. A theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a criterion of value. It is interesting, how very different methodological biases lead to asimilar decrease in the scope of the discipline.In Germany the positions of empiricism are traditionally strong --from the times of Ranke with his appeal to historians to tell'properly how it all happened' ('wie es eigentlichgewesen'). Therefore it was not difficult for the German scholarsto admit an equation according to which a serious 'fact-based'archaeology is all that is necessary for the existence of prehistory.Two disciplines disappeared by being united, but the amalgamation tookplace on the basis of archaeology. This is why the damage to it was notas great as in my country.We have another tradition. In our country Marxism has canonized can��on��ize?tr.v. can��on��ized, can��on��iz��ing, can��on��iz��es1. To declare (a deceased person) to be a saint and entitled to be fully honored as such.2. To include in the biblical canon.3. thecult of history, moreover, as a very theoreticized and sociologizedform, with the tendency to philosophize phi��los��o��phize?v. phi��los��o��phized, phi��los��o��phiz��ing, phi��los��o��phiz��esv.intr.1. To speculate in a philosophical manner.2. . Workers of all disciplinesconcerned with society and culture had to swear to the principle ofhistoricism. Initially 'historicism' was understood in thesense of a methodological demand to consider all things in terms ofdevelopment and interconnection. But unwittingly its meaning was changedinto something different: bringing up all these disciplines to historyand, as much as possible, including them into it. Everywhere a quotationfrom Marx and Engels was cited: 'there is only one science, thescience of history' (Marx & Engels 1955: 16), although this wasquoted from very early work of Marx and Engels, and even then thispassage was cut out by them from the text (it is cited from a draft).The young Marx and Engels, naive though they seem to be, werenevertheless more clever than their recent epigones.Archaeology, ethnography, art-history were established in historicalfaculties and in the historical branch of the Academy of Sciences.Thehistoricism of archaeology began to be considered as its literalincorporation into history (Istorizm 1976; Rybakov 1978). Reductionoccurred here too.Sobering -- the price of prideSobering began only recently. Gradually we began realizing whatgigantic damage this thoughtless 'historization' had broughtto Soviet archaeology -- source-study has been forgotten, reliablerelative chronology hastily substituted by an unsafe absolute one,interpretive labels have come to replace classificatory concepts etc.(Klejn et al. 1970; Formozov 1977; Bulkin et al. 1982: 286-90; Smirnov& Tendrjakova 1990: 72-3). In archaeology we are behind the leadingcountries of the West. Our archaeology, which was full of missionarypride, now has a deeply provincial look. And not only because of pooreconomy and technical lag. This is the price of pride.History itself received nothing good from its victorious expansion.Primordial history remains practically unformed, the methods ofprehistoric synthesis are not worked out, while in concretemethodological problems (as, for example, interrelations of ethnos andarchaeological culture In addition to its usual meaning in social science, in archaeology, the term is also used in reference to several related concepts unique to the discipline. Archaeological cultureThis article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. ) we are marking time.History and archaeology are different disciplines and their fusion isharmful for both. We stubbornly created a centaur from a horse and arider. Assuming the two disciplines to be one, we confused the demandson them, mixed their results, did not differentiate methods. At eachstep we tried to put horse-shoes on the rider and galoshes on the horse.And we wonder why the centaur does not run faster! And now we are afraidto take the centaur apart -- this operation could destroy it. However,Siamese twins Siamese twins,congenitally united organisms that are complete or nearly complete individuals. They develop from a single fertilized ovum that has divided imperfectly; complete division would produce identical twins, having the same sex and general characteristics. are usually separated despite being born in fusion,whereas our centaur is made artificially. Properly, it is myth. Theunited 'archaeologico-history' is one of many myths of ourideologized society. Since the 1960s this myth has been widelydisseminated in the West, also, under the title of 'archaeology asa social science' (coined by Childe, adopted and propagated byBinford). Only the working contacts of archaeology with history arerealistic.In this pair archaeology plays the part of the horse, not the rider.If some archaeologists see this as humiliating hu��mil��i��ate?tr.v. hu��mil��i��at��ed, hu��mil��i��at��ing, hu��mil��i��atesTo lower the pride, dignity, or self-respect of. See Synonyms at degrade. and degrading for theirsubject, this may be because they have identified archaeology withthemselves. But remaining a trunk and legs to history's head andshoulders is no way for archaeology to gain it self-respect.ReferencesALEKSEEV, V.P. 1992. Ob'em arkheologiceskogo znanija, in V.P.Alekseev (ed.), Ekologiceskie aspekty paleoantropologiceskikh iarkheologiceskikh rekonstrukcij. Moscow: Institut arkheologii AN SSSR SSSR Society for the Scientific Study of ReligionSSSR Society for the Scientific Study of ReadingSSSR Smallest Set of Smallest Rings (chemistry)SSSR Sojus Sowjetskich Sozialistitscheskich Respublik (USSR; Russian):6-31.ARCIKHOVSKIJ, A.V. 1927. Sociologiceskoe znacenie evoljuciizemledelceskikh orudij. Trudy sociologiceskoj sekcii RANION 1: 123-35.1929. Novye metody arkheologii. Istorik-marksist 14: 139-40, 151.1940. Vvedenie v arkheologiju. 2nd ed. Moscow: Moscow UniversityPress.ARCIKHOVSKIJ, A.V., S.N. KISELEV, & A.P. SMIRNOV. 1932.Vozniknovenie, razvitie i isceznovenie 'marksistskojarkheologii'. Soobsenija GAIMK 1/2: 46-8.BINFORD, L.R. 1972. An archaeological perspective. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY)& London: Seminar Press.BOCKAREV, V.S. 1973. K voprosu o strukture arkheologiceskogoissledovanija. Tezisy dokladov Sessii, posvascennoj itogam polevykhissledovanij 1972 goda v SSSR. Moskva: 35-40.BORJAZ, V.N. 1976. Metodologiceskie predposylki i principyopredelenija ob'ekta arkheologiceskoj nauki. Materialistic eskajadialektika i castnye nauki. Leningrad: 185-216.BULKIN, V.A., L.S. KLEJN & G.S. LEBEDEV. 1982. Attainments andproblems of Soviet archaeology. World Archaeology 13: 272-95.BYKOVSKIJ, S.N. 1932a. Opredmete istorii materialnoj kultury.Soobscenija GAIMK 1/2: 3-6.1932b. Vozmozna li marksistskaja arkheologija. Tezisy dokladovVserosijskogo arkheologo-etnograficeskogo sovescanija. Leningrad.CHILDE, V.G. 1956. Piecing together the past: the integration ofarchaeological data. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.FORMOZOV, A.A. 1961. O cerki po istorii russkoj arkheologii. Moskva:Akademii Nauk SSSR.1977. O kritike istocnikov v arkheologii. Sovetskaja Arkheologija 1:5-14.GENING, V.F. 1975. Ob'ekt i predmet arkheologii. Novejsieotkrytija sovetskikh arkheologov. Kiev: Naukova dumka dum��ka?n.A song, especially a Slavic folksong, that has alternating happy and sad passages.[Slovak, Ukrainian folksong, from Ukrainian, diminutive of duma, : 14-17.1976. Specificeskij predmet i nektorye aktualnye voprosy sovremennojarkheologii. Voprosy arkheologii Urala 13: 5-16.1982. O cerki po istorii sovetskoj arkheologii (U istokovformirovanija marksistskikhteoreticeskikh osnov sovetskoj arkheologii.20-e -- pervaja polovina 30-kh godov). Kiev: Naukova dumka.1983. Ob'ekt i predmet nauki v arkheologii. Kiev: Naukova dumka.1989. Arkheologija -- celostnaja naucaja sistema ili'diletantskie vylazki' i 'polufabrikat znanija' (Popovodu koncepcii ob'ekta i predmeta arkheologii L.S. Klejna).Sovetskaja Arkheologija 3: 215-28.GENING, V.F. & V.D. VIKTOROVA. 1977. O predmete arkheologiceskojnauki, in Materialnaja i dukhovnaja kultura finnougrov Priural'ja:3- Izevsk.GRIGORYEV, G.P. 1973. O predmete arkheologii. Tezisy dokladov Sessii,posvjascennoj itogam polevykh arkheologiceskikh issledovanij 1972 goda vSSSR. Moskva: 41-3.Istorizm. 1976. Istorizm arkheologii: metodologiceskie problemy.Moskva.KLEJN, L.S. 1977. Predmet arkheologii. Arkheologija Juznoj Sibiri.Kemerovo, izdat: Kemerovskogo universiteta: 3-14.1978. Arkheologiceskie istocniki. Leningrad, izdat: Leningradskogouniversiteta1979. Teorii v arkheologii, in Novoe v arheologii Sibir i DalnegaVostoka: 36-9. Novosibirsk: Nauka.1980.Struktura arkheologiceskoj teorii. Voprosy filosofil 2: 100-3.1981. O jazyke vescej, in Metodologiceskie aspekty arkheologiceskikhi etnograficeskikh issledovanij v Zapadnoj Sibiri: 16-17. Tomsk, izdat:Tomskogo universiteta.1986. O predmete arkheologii. Sovetskaja Arkheologija 3: 209-19.1991a. Jazyceskij podkhod k lingvistike. Sovetskoe slavlanonedenie 4:88-92.1991b. V zascitu 'cistoj arkheologii. Sovetskaja Arkheologija 2:102-10.KLEJN, L.S. et al. 1970. Diskussija ob arkheologiceskoj kulture vProblemnom seminare Leningradskogo universiteta. Sovetskaja Arkheologija2: 300-1.KUZ'MINA, E.E. 1986. Drevnejsie skotovody ot Urala doTjan'-Sanja. Frunze: Ilim.MARX, K. & F. ENGELS. 1955. Nemeckaja ideologija. Marx K. iEngels F. Socinenija, Politizdat 3.MASSON, V.M. 1976. Ekonomika i socialnyj stroj drevnikh obscestv.Leningrad: Nauka.PAAVER, K.L. 1958. K metodike opredelenija otnositelnogo znacenijavidov i grupp mlekopitajuccikh v osteologiceskom materialearkheologiceskikh pamjatnikov. Izvestija AN Estonskoj SSR (Scalable Sampling Rate) See AAC. SSR - Scalable Sampling Rate , ser. biol. 4:277-90.Predmet. 1975. Predmet i ob'jekt arkheologii i voprosy metodikiarkheologiceskikh issledovanij. Materialy simpoziuma. Leningrad (papersabstracts of M.V. Anikovic, V.N. Boraz, Yu. N. Zakharuk & A.N.Rogacev).PUSKAREV, L.N. 1975. Klassifikacija russkikh pis'mennykhistocnikov po otecestvennoj istorii. Moskva: Nauka.RAVDONIKAS, V.I. 1930. Za marksistskuju istoriju materialnoj kultury(Izvestija GAIMK, t. 7, vyp. 3-4). Leningrad.ROGACEV, A.N. 1978. O predmete i metode pervobytnoj arkheologii.Kratkie soobccenija Instituta arkheologii 152: 17-23.RYBAKOV, B.A. 1978. Istorizm arkheologii. Kratkie soobscenijaInstituta arkheologii AN SSSR, Moskva 152: 5-7.SMIRNOV, Ju.A. & M.V. TENDRJAKOVA. 1990. O roli obydennogosoznanija v arkheologiceskoj rekonstrukcii: pogrebalnyj obrjad. Kratkiesoobscenija Instituta arkheologii AN SSSR, Moskva 201: 68-73.Trudy. 1928. Trudy sekcii teorii i metodologii RANION 2: 9-90.(articles: BRJUSOV, A.Ja. Vosstanovienie obscestvenno-economiceskikhformacij v kulturakh neoliticeskogo tipa; KISELEV, S.N. Poselenie.Sociologiceskij ocerk; SMIRNOV, A.P. Socialno-ekonmiceskij strojvostocnykh finnov IX-XIII vekov nasej ery).ZAKHARUK, Ju.N. 1978. Spornye voprosy ob'ekta i predmetaarkheologii. Kratkie soobscenija Instituta arkheologii AN SSSR 152:7-17.1989. Arkheologija -- nauka istoriceskaja ili istocnikovedceskaja?Sovetskaja Arkheologija 3: 207-14.