Main

Issue 151 (2021)

S. Paliienko, PhD in history, doctoral candidate

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2640.2021.151.5

V BASHILOV’S AND E. LOONE’S CONCEPT OF THE THREE-LEVEL STRUCTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL COGNITION AND ITS CRITIQUE IN THE SOVIET THEORETICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

The Soviet theoretical archaeology formed in the USSR at the beginning of 1970s and had existed till the beginning of 1990s. The discussion on the object and subject-matter of archaeology, which had been taking place from 1972 till 1992, was an important issue for theorists. It might be divided into two periods – (1972–1983) and (1984–1992).

Debating V. Gening’s book was a central topic during the second period but a few alternative concepts were proposed by certain authors that time. Thus, in 1986 the article ‘On the Levels of Knowledge and Cognitive aims of Archaeology’ was published by V Bashilov and E. Loone in the journal Soviet archaeology. Authors offered a hypothesis that a special reconstructive level of knowledge exists in archaeology preceding empiric and theoretical levels.

Before the publication this concept was discussed at the session of the Methodological workshop of LOIA AS USSR on 2nd January 1986 in Leningrad. Then a critical paper was presented by V. Boryaz. Also M. Anikovich participated in the debate criticizing this theory.

This discussion continued on pages of the journal Soviet archaeology where reviews of the article were published by V. Boryaz, M. Anikovich, V. Victorova, G. Grigoryev & V. Bochkarev, A. Pryakhin, and R. Vasilevsky & A. Simanov in the issue №1 in 1988. All these scholars refused the idea of the three-level structure of archaeology. They criticized both V Bashilov’s & E. Loone’s concept and a historiographic part of their work. The critique of the concept might be divided into three levels: general scientific (a difference between humanities and sciences), particular scientific (a ratio of history and archaeology) and internal scientific (the level structure of archaeological cognition and the notion of reconstruction). The article was criticized from different methodological points because a part of reviewers were authors of their own theories of the object and subject-matter of archaeological science representing almost all trends of the Soviet theoretical archaeology.

Key words: history of archeology, Soviet theoretical archeology, discussion on the object and subject-matter of archeology, 1980s, Journal Soviet Archeology.

Submitted: 24.05.21

Download Full Text

References:

1. Anikovich, M.V. (1988). “Three Levels of Archaeological Research” or Three Stages of Historical Cognition? Soviet archaeology. 1. 218–224. [In Russian].

2. Bashilov, V.A., Loone, E.N. (1986). On the Levels of Knowledge and Cognitive Aims of Archaeology. Soviet archaeology. 3. 192–208. [In Russian].

3. Boryaz, V.N. (1988). On the Relevance of Separation of the ‘Reconstructive’ Level of Research in Archaeology. Soviet archaeology. 1. 208–217. [In Russian].

4. Bochkarev, V.S., Grigorev, G.P. (1988). A Review on the Article by V. Bashilov and E. Loone “On the Levels of Knowledge and Cognitive Aims of Archaeology”. Soviet archaeology. 1. 226–228. [In Russian].

5. Vasilevskiy, R.S., Simanov, A.L. (1988). A Review on the Article by V. Bashilov and E. Loone “On the Levels of Knowledge and Cognitive Aims of Archaeology”. Soviet archaeology. 1. 230– 231. [In Russian].

6. Viktorova, V.D. (1988). A Review on the Article by V. Bashilov and E. Loone “On the Levels of Knowledge and Cognitive Aims of Archaeology”. Soviet archaeology. 1. 224–226. [In Russian].

7. Klejn L.S. 2004: An Introduction into Theoretical Archaeology. Book I. Metaarchaeology. St. Petersburg: Belveder. [In Russian].

8. Scientific Archive of the Institute for the History of Material Culture RAS. fund 312, list 1, file 1437 (Minutes № 1–5 of Sessions of the Methodological Workshop of the LBIA. [In Russian].

9. Paliienko, S.V. (2009). The Discussion about the Status of Archaeology in the Soviet Science (the 2nd half of 80s – the early 90s). Journal of Ukrainian history. 11. 90–95. [In Ukrainian].

10. Paliienko, S.V. (2014). The Discussion on V.F. Gening’s Book «Object and Subject Matter of Science in Archaeology» on the Methodological Workshop of LOIA AS USSR: Circumstances and Facts. Hileia: scientific journal: collected scientific articles. 89 (10). 147–152. [In Russian].

11. Paliienko, S.V. (2015). Behind the Scenes of the Discussion on the Subject Matter of Archaeology: V.F. Gening’s Correspondence with the Journal “Soviet Archaeology” Editorial Staff. Works of the center of monument studies: collected scientific articles. 28. 204–212. [In Ukrainian].

12. Paliienko, S.V. (2015). Methodological Workshops in Scientific Establishments of the AS USSR and the AS UkSSR as an Instrument of the Soviet Theoretical Archaeology Development. Materials and studies on archaeology of Sub-Carpathian and Volhynian area. 19. 392–397. [In Ukrainian].

13. Paliienko, S.V. (2016). The Discussion on the Problem of the Object and Subject Matter of Archaeology at the Theoretical Session of the Plenum on Results of Field Research in 1971. In: V.A. Alyokshin, Ye.S. Tkach, A.A. Bessudnov (Ed.), Actual Archaeology 3. New interpretation of archaeological data. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference of Yung Scholars (St-Petersburg, April, 25-28, 2016). St-Peterburg: “Nevskiy book printing house”. 346–349. [In Russian].

14. Pryakhin, A.D. (1988). A Review on the Article by V. Bashilov and E. Loone “On the Levels of Knowledge and Cognitive Aims of Archaeology”. Soviet archaeology. 1. 228–230. [In Russian].

15. Klejn, L.S. (1997). Das Phänomen der sowjetischen Archäologie: Geschichte, Schulen, Protagonisten. Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; New York; Paris; Wien. 411 S.

16. Klejn, L.S. (2012). Soviet archaeology: schools, trends, and history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 411 p.