Sergii Paliienko - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Sergii Paliienko

History of science and technology

The article is dedicated to an exploration of archaeological theory issues at the Institute of ar... more The article is dedicated to an exploration of archaeological theory issues at the Institute of archaeology AS UkrSSR in the 1960s. This period is one of the worst studied in the history of Soviet archaeology. But it was the time when in the USSR archaeological researches reached the summit, quantitative methods and methods of natural sciences were applied and interest in theoretical issues had grown in archaeology. Now there are a lot of publications dedicated to theoretical discussions between archaeologists from Leningrad but the same researches about Kyiv scholars are still unknown. The archaeological theory includes both generalizations made on the basis of archaeological sources and archaeological methodology. The article emphasizes the history of methodology studies at the IA AS UkrSSR during the mentioned period. The research is based on evidence from the annual reports on a work of the Institute from the Scientific archive of the Institute of Archaeology NASU. According to t...

Shìdnoêvropejsʹkij ìstoričnij vìsnik, 2021

The purpose of the article is to highlight the process of establishing of the laboratory of natur... more The purpose of the article is to highlight the process of establishing of the laboratory of natural science methods at the Institute of archaeology AS of the UkrSSR in the 1960s basing on archival sources from the Scientific archive of the Institute of archaeology NAS of Ukraine. The Research Methodology. Both general research methods and special methods of humanitarian and historical researches as the historiographic analysis, source critique and problem chronological method were applied by the author. The scientific novelty of the article consists in the fact that there are no publications on this topic and an initial period of the laboratory activity of natural science methods of the IA AS of the UkrSSR is unexplored. The Conclusions. In contrast to central archaeological research establishments of the USSR where forming of research infrastructure for applying methods of natural science in archaeology started in the 1950s, in Kyiv at the IA AS of UkrSSR this process began only in the middle of the 1960s despite an announce of the plans in 1956. Although the administrations of AS of the UkrSSR and the Institute supported the work in this field, but the laboratory of spectral analysis could not get things going for more than five years. The main technical equipment was bought by the IA AS of the UkrSSR as far back as in 1964 but because of the lack of free rooms, the need for qualified staff and bureaucratic delays of that period, which did not make it possible to solve problems rapidly, which appeared during the installation of new devices, researches did not start until the end of the decade. This situation changed only in the middle of the 1970s when the Institute of archaeology AS of the UkrSSR moved to a new building. But it was much better with applying geophysical methods in the survey of archaeological sites. Owing to V. P. Dudkin's activity, who tested new equipment in the second half of the 1960s, a magnetic survey of the Trypillian settlement Maidanetske was completed in the first half of the next decade. In some period of time, despite the initial delay, the IA AS of the UkrSSR made progress in the use of research methods of natural science in archaeology.

Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. History, 2020

The article is dedicated to the main aim of the Soviet archaeology, which was also its feature – ... more The article is dedicated to the main aim of the Soviet archaeology, which was also its feature – to study social development of ancient societies basing on archaeological sources. It was stated at the beginning of 1930s and after the WW2 a list of actual tasks was specified. In the late 1940’s – the early 1970’s they included studying of regularities and features of ancient (from primitive to feudal) societies development, reconstruction of concrete history of folks from the USSR territory, which had no written language, researches on handicrafts, swap and trade, studies of the mediaeval village history, examination of primitive society ideology, improvement of the typological method and archaeological theory, preparation of fundamental publications. All these tasks were practically realized in work of archaeological research institutions during above mentioned period, in particular, research fellows of central and republican archaeological research establishments worked on topics r...

V. F. Gening and Development of the Kiev Center for Theoretical Archaeology

This paper provides analysis of V. F. Gening’s work in the Institute of Archaeology at the Academ... more This paper provides analysis of V. F. Gening’s work in the Institute of Archaeology at the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic where he held the position of Deputy Director of Science in 1974–1986. In 1979 he created a research unit that specialized in theoretical archaeology, i. e. the Department of Theory and Methodology of Archaeological Research, the first of this kind in the Soviet Union. The paper also reviews the activities undertaken by its staff in the aforesaid period.

Leo Klejn’s Correspondents with Yurii Zakharuk and Vladimir Gening as a Source on The History of Soviet Theoretical Archaeology, 2017

The article deals with Leo Klejn’s correspondents with Yuri Zakharuk and Vladimir Gening from Leo... more The article deals with Leo Klejn’s correspondents with Yuri Zakharuk and Vladimir Gening from Leo Klejn’s private archive. All these scholars were the main theorists and organizers of theoretical archaeology in the USSR. I had the owner’s acceptance to make photocopies of letters for further research. There are 31 documents. 24 items are from L. Klejn’s correspondents with Yu. Zakharuk dated predominantly the 1970s and 7 items belongs to L. Klejn’s correspondents with V. Gening written at the beginning of the 1980s and the 1990s. Letters were partly published in L. Klejn’s memoirs.
These documents contain information on the initial period of the Soviet theoretical archaeology history when at the beginning of the 1970s theoretical section sessions on Annual Plenums of IA AS of the USSR dedicated to results of 1971 and 1972 field seasons were organized. In my opinion the work of these sessions was evidence that the Soviet theoretical archaeology had formed as a subdiscipline in the USSR. It was an unique phenomenon as the New archaeology was for the West.
New facts in the history of theoretical archaeology in the USSR could be established by these sources. There are interrelations between theorists at the beginning of the 1970s – the beginning of the 1990s, their contribution and influence to the archaeological theory development, difficulties with Leo Klejn’s theoretical articles publication and a general situation in this field during referred above period. All these topics will be explored in my further research.

From the history of the Soviet theoretical archaeology: the correspondence between Yuri Zakharuk and Leo Kejn in 1973–1980, 2018

The article deals with an interaction between Yuri Zakharuk and Leo Klejn in the field of theoret... more The article deals with an interaction between Yuri Zakharuk and Leo Klejn in the field of theoretical archaeology on the base of their private correspondence. Its main topics in the middle – the 2nd half of the 1970s are the calming of the conflict between these two scholars, the invitation to take part at the congress in the USA, the discussion on Leo Klejn’s ready to publication articles and current events.
Leo Klejn tried to adjust the conflict with Yurii Zakharuk which was provoked by the inapt wording in the letter about the collective paper at the Annual Plenum of IA AS of the USSR dedicated to results of field investigations in 1972 (Samarkand, 1973). But this attempt was unsuccessful. The further correspondence between two scholars was more formal and common ideas were not realized. Although this feature can be explained by an increase of Yurii Zakharuk’s busyness on the position of the deputy director of the IA AS of the USSR.
Leo Klejn imparted the invitation to the Soviet delegation to take part in the conference “Marxist approaches to archaeological research” in the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in 1974. But this proposal was rejected because of the order of participation in scientific events abroad which existed that time.
The scholar from Leningrad unsuccessfully tried to publish two articles, which were dedicated to subject matter of archaeology and the definition of “type”, in the leading archaeological journal “The Soviet Archaeology”. These articles were reviewing for a few years, had been rejected by the editorial board and after were released by other journals. Ideas, which were mentioned in these publications, were widely discussed by scholars and impact on the archaeological thought development including Leo Klejn’s disciples but formally they were published much later. Studying the discussion about the object and the subject matter of science in the Soviet archaeology and reconstructing the process of ideas development and an interaction between concepts of different authors we should take this important aspect into consideration.
Highlighting of these aspects helps to study the development of the theoretical archaeology in the USSR more carefully and to divide its features and regularities.

Yuri Zakharuk’s activity on the organization of theoretical session at the Annual Plenum of IA AS of the USSR in 1973, 2017

The article deals with Yuri Zakharuk’s activity in cooperation with Leo Klejn on the organization... more The article deals with Yuri Zakharuk’s activity in cooperation with Leo Klejn on the organization of theoretical session at the Annual Plenum of IA AS of the USSR dedicated to results of field investigations in 1972 (Samarkand, 1973) This event asserted the Soviet theoretical archaeology status as a subdiscipline.

Zakharuk’s activity on the organization of theoretical session at the Annual Plenum of Institute of Archeology of the Academy of Science of the USSR in 1972, 2017

The article deals with Yuriy Zakharuk’s activity on the organization of theoretical session at th... more The article deals with Yuriy Zakharuk’s activity on the organization of theoretical session at the Annual Plenum of Institute of Archeology of the Academy of Science of the USSR dedi- cated to results of field investigations in 1971 (Moscow, 1972) This event could be supposed as an evidence that the Soviet theoretical archaeology was formed as a subdiscipline. The research is based on a correspondence between Yuriy Zakharuk and Leo Klein. These letters are stored in Leo Klein’s personal archive and were given to the author of the article for copy and study.

Behind the Scenes of the Discussion on the Subject Matter of Archaeology: V.F. Gening’s Correspondence with the Journal “Soviet Archaeology” Editorial Staff, 2015

V.f. Gening’s correspondence with the journal “Soviet archaeology” editorial staff at the time of... more V.f. Gening’s correspondence with the journal “Soviet archaeology” editorial staff at the time of the discussion on the subject matter of archaeology is analyzed on the base of unpublished documents from his unsorted personal files.

The discussion on the problem of the object and the subject matter of archaeology defi nition at meetings of the Department of theory and methodology of archaeology of the IA AS USSR, 2016

The discussion on the problem of the object and the subject matter of archaeology definition at m... more The discussion on the problem of the object and the subject matter of archaeology definition
at meetings of the Department of theory and methodology of archaeology of the IA AS USSR is
analyzed on the base of unpublished documents from the Archive of the RAS.

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, Nov 2014

The discussion on the definition of object and subject matter of archaeology took place in the US... more The discussion on the definition of object and subject matter of archaeology took place in the USSR since 1972 till 1992. But nothing is known about this problem review by stuff of research institutions because all historiographic works were completed based on published sources. Therefore, it is actually to study the discussion on V.F. Gening’s book “Object and subject matter of science in archaeology” is the Institute of Archaeology (LOIA) AS USSR on the base of archive materials. G.S. Lebedev and Ye.M. Kolpakov made reports at the session on 4 April 1984. There were notes in Gening’s book that “strong archaeology” concept did not correspond to Marxism and was closer to west theories. It could had negative consequences for their tutor Leo Klejn because a situation in the USSR became more acute on the beginning of the 1980s. Therefore they tried to justify their concept and to accuse the opponent. This episode of the discussion illustrates an influence of external environment on a process of science development.

Vìsnik - Kiïvsʹkij nacìonalʹnij unìversitet ìmenì Tarasa Ševčenka. Ìstorìâ, 2021

The Soviet theoretical archaeology formed in the USSR at the beginning of 1970s and had existed t... more 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.

The discussion about the status of archaeology in the soviet science (the 2nd half of the 1980s - the early 1990s), 2009

The article deals with the discussion about the status of archaeology, that took place in the Sov... more The article deals with the discussion about the status of archaeology, that took place in the Soviet
science from the 2nd half of 80s to the early 90s. Author analyzes its causes, reviews course and results,
explains development of the archaeological knowledge in that way.

Methodological workshops in scientific establishments of the AS USSR and the AS Ukrainian SSR as an instrument of the Soviet theoretical archaeology development, 2015

The article deals with the history of methodological workshops in the Institute of archaeology AS... more The article deals with the history of methodological workshops in the Institute of archaeology AS USSR, the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of archaeology of AS USSR, the Institute of archaeology of AS Ukrainian SSR. They were leading centers in the USSR where theoretical archaeology was developed during the 1970–1980s.

The sources on the history of the LOIA AS USSR methodological workshop, 2012

В статье рассматривается проблема источниковедения по истории методологического семинара Ленингра... more В статье рассматривается проблема источниковедения по истории методологического семинара Ленинградского отделения Института археологии АН СССР, функционировавшем в 1970–1980-е гг. в этом городе – одном из центров развития теоретической археологии в СССР. Эти источники можно разделить на три большие группы: архивные источники, опубликованные источники, записи «устной истории». Анализ всех групп источников позволит воссоздать историю функционирования методологического семинара ЛОИА АН СССР и основные направления развития научной мысли в этом учреждении.

The oral history as a source for the Soviet theoretical archaeology studying, 2012

The article deals with using the oral history method in studies of Soviet theoretical archaeology... more The article deals with using the oral history method in studies of Soviet theoretical archaeology of the 1970s – beginning of the 1990s. There are exemplified and analyzed concrete results of this method applying in practice in researches of history of scientific institutions departments that studied specified problems in Kiev and Leningrad / St-Petersburg.

Соотношение архивных источников и устной истории (на примере истории методсеминара ЛОИА АН СССР)

Soviet archaeologists and Perestroika: the oral history, Dec 2014

Метод устной истории используется автором при изучении темы «История советской теоретической архе... more Метод устной истории используется автором при изучении темы «История советской теоретической археологии (начало 1970-х – начало 1990-х)». Исследование продолжается и сейчас. Опросы осуществляются преимущественно в трех городах, где функционировали научные центры, которые занимались проблемами теоретической археологии в советские времена: Санкт-Петербурге, Москве и Киеве. Уже собрано около полусотни интервью.
Одним из аспектов исследования является изучение археологии периода Перестройки, ведь эта проблема до сих пор фактически оставалась без внимания исследователей. Поэтому наряду с архивными материалами будет интересным изучение именно устной истории.
Среди исследовательских задач, таких как реконструкция событий из жизни научных учреждений и семинаров, объяснения или уточнения фактов, известных из других источников, есть и весьма специфические, решение которых возможно только с помощью метода устной истории: получить информацию относительно общей атмосферы в тогдашнем обществе, в частности, о наличии цензуры или идеологического давления; пролить свет на межличностные отношения в научной среде, проследить их влияние на ход событий; выяснить особенности субъективного восприятия событий их непосредственными участниками.
Благодаря проведенной научной работе удалось выяснить субъективное отношение ученых к официальной идеологии, личное восприятие ими изменений в обществе, что позволяет проследить влияние общества периода трансформации на личность ученого, а через нее - собственно, и на саму науку. Большое значение имеет и сравнение этих процессов в трех научных центрах бывшего СССР.

Materials and studies on archaeology of Sub-Carpathian and Volhynian area

In Ukraine, the anthropology of science has not been studied for a long period but this field is ... more In Ukraine, the anthropology of science has not been studied for a long period but this field is actual because it gives a possibility to explore a process of scientific production and its influence on different sites of modern society. Since 2016 the survey has been provided by the author interviewing scholars who worked in archaeological establishments of Kiev, St. Petersburg (Leningrad), Moscow and other cities. The self-perception of the profession by archaeologists and the process of production and transfer of knowledge among the archaeological academic community have been studied. The aim of this article is to present the primary results of this research which is based on 8 semi-structured interviews. Respondents suppose that archaeologists need the same features as other scientists or even field researchers as well as some specific characters, e.g., a love to artifacts and a sense of style. All questioned people have agreed that there is a subdivision into field researchers a...

Ethnic History of European Nations

The history of archaeological method and innovation during the post-war and contemporary periods ... more The history of archaeological method and innovation during the post-war and contemporary periods has been studied not enough in the post-Soviet area. But this topic is actual because at that time achievements of the scientific-technical revolution have been implemented into archaeology. The aim of the article is to study the method of primary data processing (information collection at the time of excavation, an office study of artifacts and preparation of a report on the archaeological excavation) and innovation to this process in the Soviet and post-Soviet archaeology. The research is based on 7 interviews with archaeologists from Kyiv, Moscow and St. Petersburg which have been recorded by the author. On the respondents’ opinion for the last 15 years modern digital technique as digital cameras, GPS and laser tacheometers has been used in the post-Soviet area and non-invasive methods of archaeological research have spread at the last time. In the USSR field lists of artifacts were f...