Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:06:06.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Leo S. Klejn
Leo S. Klejn*
Affiliation:
Appartment 27, 27 Zheleznovodskaya Str., St Petersburg 199155, Russia; & Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, 46 Saddler Street, Durham DH1 3NV, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between archaeology and history is not just an abstract theoretical question: it is one which determines the practical organization of archaeological activity and the publication of its results. It is a general problem of archaeology in Europe, where the subject has had to differentiate itself from the historical study of a long series of literate cultures; and it is especially acute in the former Soviet bloc, where a Marxist orthodoxy of historical science formerly prevailed. Leo Klejn is Russaian archaeology's most distinguished theoretician. Here he discusses in his own words both the academic sociology of the historical sciences and the role which he sees for archaeology within them.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 67 , Issue 255 , June 1993 , pp. 339 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alekseev, V.P. 1992. Ob’em arkheologičeskogo znanija, in Alekseev, V.P. (ed.) Ekologičeskie aspekty paleoantropologičeskikh i arkheologičeskikh rekonstrukcij. Moscow: Institut arkheologii AN SSSR: 6–31.Google Scholar
Arcikhovskij, A.V. 1927. Sociologičeskoe značenie evoljucii zemledelčeskikh orudij, Trudy socio1ogičeskoj sekcii RANION 1: 123–35.Google Scholar
Arcikhovskij, A.V. 1929. Novye metody arkheologii, Istorik-marksist 14: 139–40, 151.Google Scholar
Arcikhovskij, A.V. 1940. Vvedenie v arkheologiju. 2nd ed. Moscow: Moscow University Press.Google Scholar
Arcikhovskij, A.V., Kiselev, S.N. & Smirnov, A.P. 1932. Vozniknovenie, razvitie i isčeznovenie ‘marksistskoj arkheologii’. Soobšenija GAIMK ½: 46–8.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1972. An archaeological perspective. New York (NY) & London: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Bockarev, V.S. 1973. K voprosu o strukture arkheologičeskogo issledovanija. Tezisy dokladov Sessii, posvaščennoj itogam polevykh issledovanij 1972 goda v SSSR. Moskva: 35–40.Google Scholar
Borjaz, V.N. 1976. Metodologičeskie predposylki i principy opredelenija ob’ekta arkheologičeskoj nauki. Materialistič eskaja dialektika i častnye nauki. Leningrad: 185–216.Google Scholar
Bulkin, V.A., Klejn, L.S. & Lebedev, G.S. 1982. Attainments and problems of Soviet archaeology. World Archaeology 13: 272–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bykovskij, S.N. 1932a. Opredmete istorii materialnoj kultury. Soobščenija GAIMK ½: 3–6.Google Scholar
Bykovskij, S.N. 1932b. Vozmožna li marksistskaja arkheologija. Tezisy dokladov Vserosijskogo arkheologoetnografiǒeskogo soveščanija Leningrad.Google Scholar
Childe, V.G. 1956. Piecing together the past: the integration of archaeological data. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Formozov, A.A. 1961. O čerki po istorii russkoj arkheologii. Moskva: Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Formozov, A.A. 1977 O kritike istočnikov v arkheologii. Sovetskaja Arkheologija 1: 5–14.Google Scholar
Gening, V.F. 1975. Ob’ekt i predmet arkheologii. Novejšie otkrytija sovetskikh arkheologov. Kiev: Naukova dumka: 14–17.Google Scholar
Gening, V.F. 1976. Specifičeskij predmet i nektorye aktualnye voprosy sovremennoj arkheologii. Voprosy arkheologii Urala 13: 5–16.Google Scholar
Gening, V.F. 1982. O čerki PO istorii sovetskoj arkheologii [U istokov formirovanija niarksistskikhteoretičeskikh osnov sovetskoj arkheologii. 20-e – pervaja polovina 30-kh godov). Kiev: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar
Gening, V.F. 1983. Ob’ekt i predmet nauki v arkheologii. Kiev: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar
Gening, V.F. 1989. Arkheologija – celostnaja nauဝaja sisteina ili ‘diletantskie vylazki’ i ‘polufabrikat znanija’ (Po povodu koncepcii ob’ekta i predmeta arkheologii L.S. Klejne). Sovetskaja Arkheologija. 3: 215–28Google Scholar
Gening, V.F. & Viktorova, V.D. 1977. O predmete arkheologiဝeskoj nauki, in Materialnaja i dukhovnaja kultura finnougrov Priurai’ja: 3- Iževsk.Google Scholar
Grigoryev, G.P. 1973. O predmete arkheologii. Tezisy dokladov Sessii, posvjaščEennoj itogam polevykh arkheologičeskjkh issledovanij 1972 goda v SSSR. Moskva: 41–3.Google Scholar
Grigoryev, G.P. Istorizm. 1976. Istorizm arkheologii: metodologičeskie problemy. Moskva.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1977. Predmet arkheologii. Arkheologija JužEnoj Sibiri. Kemerovo, izdat: Kemerovskogo universiteta: 4–14.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1978. Arkheologičeskie istočiniki. Leningrad, izdat: Leningradskogo universiteta Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1979. Teorii v arkheologii, in Novoe v arheologii Sibir i Dalnega Vostoka: 36–9. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1980. Struktura arkheologičeskoj teorii. Voprosy filosofil 2: 100–3.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1981. O jazyke veščej, in Metodologiǒeskie aspekty arkheologičeskikh i etnografičeskikh issledovanij v Zapadnoj Sibiri 16–17. Tomsk, izdat: Tornskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1986. O predmete arkheologii. Sovetskaja Arkheologija 3: 209–19.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 199la. Jazyčeskij podkhod k lingvistike. Sovetskoe slavjanonedenie 4: 88–92.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. 1991b. V zaščitu ‘čistoj arkheologii. Sovetskaja Arkheologija 2: 102–10.Google Scholar
Klejn, L.S. et al. 1970. Diskussija ob arkheologičeskoj kulture v Problemnom seminare Leningradskogo universiteta. Sovetskaja Arkheologija 2: 300–1.Google Scholar
Kuz'mina, E.E. 1986. Drevnejšie skotovody of Urala do Tjan’-Sanja. Frunze: Ilim.Google Scholar
Marx, K. & Engels, F. 1955. Nemeckaja ideologija. Marx K. i Engels F. SoEinenija, Pofitizdat 3.Google Scholar
Masson, V.M. 1976. Ekonomika i socialnyj stroj drevnikh obščestv. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Paaver, K.L. 1958. K metodike opredelenija otnositelnogo značenija vidov i grupp mlekopitajuččikh v osteologič eskom materiale arkheologičeskikh pamjatnikov. Izvestija AN Estonskoj SSR, ser. biol. 4: 277–90.Google Scholar
Predmet. 1975.Predmet i ob’jekt arkheologii i voprosy metodiki arkheo1ogičeskikh issledovanij. Muterialy simpoziuma. Leningrad (papers abstracts of Anikovič, M.V. Boraz, V.N. Zakharuk, Yu. N. & Rogačev, A.N.).Google Scholar
Puškarev, L.N. 1975. Klassifikacija russkikh pis’mennykh istočnikov PO otečestvennoj istorii. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ravdonikas, V.I. 1930. Za marksistskuju istoriju materialnoj kultury. (Izvestija GAIMK, t. 7, vyp.3-4). Leningrad.Google Scholar
Rogačev, A.N. 1978. O predmete i metode pervobytnoj arkheologii. Kratkie soobččenija Instituta arkheologii. 152: 17–23.Google Scholar
Rybakov, B.A. 1978. Istorizm arkheologii. Kratkie soobščenija Instituta arkheologii AN SSSR, Moskva. 152: 5–7.Google Scholar
Smirnov, Ju.A. & Tendrjakova, M.V. 1990. O roli obydennogo soznanija v arkheologičeskoj rekonstrukcii: pogrebalnyj obrjad. Kratkie soobšǒenija Instituta arkheologii AN SSSR, Moskva. 201: 68–73.Google Scholar
Trudy. 1928. Trudy sekcii teorii i metodologii RANION. 2: 9–90. (articles: BRJUSOV, A.Ja. Vosstanovienie obščestvenno-economičeskikh forniacij v kulturakh neolitič eskogo tipa; KISELEV, S.N. Poselenie. Sociologič eskij očerk; SMIRNOV, A.P. Socialno-ekonniičeskij stroj vostočnykh finnov IX-XIII vekov našej ery).Google Scholar
Zakharuk, Ju.N. 1978. Spornye voprosy ob’ekta i predmeta arkheologii. Kratkie soobščenija Instituta arkheologii AN SSSR. 152: 7–17.Google Scholar
Zakharuk, Ju.N. 1989. Arkheologija – nauka istoričeskaja ili istočnikovedč eskaja?. Sovetskaja Arkheologija 3: 207–14.Google Scholar