Alakbarov V. 2019. The experiment and the emergence of the prehistoric knowledge in Archaeology. In: Balkanistic Forum, XXVIII, Vol. 2, Blagoevgrad, pp.181-189 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica - Natural Sciences in Archaeology
In 1994, he founded there the University Centre of Experimental Archaeology and the regionally-active Society of Experimental Archaeology that brought together students and academics interested in experimental archaeology. His first long-term experimental project was focused on the construction of a basic settlement unit of first farmers in central Europe. An early Neolithic longhouse was built in 1994 in a typical Neolithic settlement location positioned on a gentle southern slope at the confluence of two streams near Librantice, a few kilometres to the east of Hradec Králové (Figure 1). The house, as a basic structure of a Neolithic settlement unit, was accompanied by reconstructions of structures documented in the archaeological record-hearths, ovens, storage pits, a clay pit, a well-and also by theoretically-assumed components of the economic hinterland. All the structures were constructed using replicas of Neolithic artefacts. The experimental field trips focused on the building of the house and other structures, and subsequently on their use, and the replication of a whole spectrum of production activities as documented in an Early Neolithic context, was organised over several summer and winter campaigns (Tichý, 2000a). The project was terminated in 1998 due to changes in the land ownership. The same year, the experimentally-used area was excavated with the aim to interpret depositional processes on the site. The basic result of the excavation was that most of the lost or discarded artefacts and debris remained laying on the surface and did not enter the sunken features. Neolithic pottery, in particular, has a low potential to enter the deposits in sunken features as it soon disintegrates on the open surface (Tichý, 2001a). 2. Centre of Experimental Archaeology and Archaeopark Všestary In 1996, R. Tichý, together with students of history, started to develop the Centre of Experimental Archaeology Všestary (CEA). The initial aim of the project was to create Volume X • Issue 1/2019 • Pages 97-104
Archaeology at the Crossroads between the Humanities and Natural Sciences
Вестник СПбГУ. История. Т. 66. Вып. 2, 2021
In this study archaeological sites are defined as objects comprised of two major components. One of them is regarded as culturological, and the other one — as natural-historical. The first component is mainly represented by the artefacts, and thus it supplies cultural-historical information, examination and interpretation of which is one of the primary tasks of archaeology as a discipline of the humanities. The second component includes eco-facts, nature-facts and so-called cultural-natural objects. All оf them have natural origin or were shaped under a strong influence of the natural environment, which makes it reasonable to deem this second component the basis for natural-scientific repository of archaeology. It provides materials for geological, palaeobotanical, palaeozoological, chemical and other researches. It must be strongly emphasized that such knowledge without a cultural-historical context has no purpose or focus. This article demonstrates that the natural-historical component is an integral part of any archaeological site. It is inseparable from the culturological component. A vivid material embodiment of the link between the two is provided by the cultural layer. Essentially, it is impossible to meaningfully examine the two components in isolation — independently of each other. As a result, the actual material archeologists work with, its content and character place archaeology at the crossroads between the humanities and natural sciences. It is hoped that in the future it will develop as a multi-disciplinary subject with a prevalence of the humanitarian dimension.
DISCUSSION ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE. A ROMANIAN EXPLORATORY CASE-STUDY
As study of knowledge, epistemology attempts at identifying its necessary and sufficient conditions and defining its sources, structure and limits. From this point of view, until present, there are no applied approaches to the Romanian archaeology. Consequently, my present paper presents an attempt to explore the structural characteristics of the knowledge creation process through the analysis of the results of a series of interviews conducted on Romanian archaeologists. The interviews followed a qualitative approach built upon a semi-structured frame. Apparent data saturation was reached after four interviews within initial target group (senior researchers with institutional authority). Under these conditions a decision was made to continue the interviews within a secondary control group (young doctoral or post-doc researchers guided by members of the initial target group) in order to both verify the observed data saturation and to assess the impact of the attitude of senior researchers towards scientific research on the younger generation. The preliminary results allow to assert that Romanian archaeology is still caught in a highly conservative and intradisciplinarian manner of knowledge production with a negative effect on both new knowledge production and future specialists’ education.
Playing with the time. Experimental archeology and the study of the past, 2017
The new discoveries developed in Prehistory are increasing exponentially. The research on these subjects is becoming more technical by leaps and bounds. The scientific disciplines involved in these researches multiply rapidly. To support a fluid relationship between society and those scientists who work on Prehistory we have to socialize accurately the different knowledge obtained. In this way, population not only will know but will take part in the decisions. On the other hand, they will enjoy cultural benefits of great discoveries. To socialize these advances in Prehistory we must develop attractive methodologies which catch the attention of the society and make easier the understanding of contents. Among the different methodologies that can be applied, experimental Archaeology makes easier the comprehension of the activities developed by human being along Prehistory. Dynamism, visual stimulation and playful factor are all features of experimental Archaeology which makes this methodology perfect to bring prehistorical daily life to general public. On this paper we will address its relationship with the prehistorical Empathy.
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL SEMINAR OF DEPARTMENT OF PREHISTORY: RETROSPECTIVE
This article examines the theoretical and methodological activity Seminar of the Department of prehistory. The seminar was organized by Professor V.I. Matyushchenko in 2002 to discuss the theoretical and methodological issues of archeology. The article provides a chronology of meetings, which attended by students, graduate students and scholars. The main direction of work, the subject of reports: the philosophy and methodology of science, theoretical aspects of the history and historiography of archeology, new methods of research of archaeological sites, the role and place of archaeological knowledge in culture. The importance of the workshop for the development of young archaeologists in Omsk State University was presented.
Muurimäki 1998. On the Nature of Archaeology as Science
Anderson, Anna-Carin, Gillberg, Åsa, Jensen, Ola W., Karlsson Håkan, Rolöf, Magnus (ed). The Kaleidoscopic past. Proceedings of the 5th Nordic TAG Conference Göteborg, 2-5 April 1997. Gotarc Serie C. Arkeologiska Skifter No 16. Göteborg University, Department of Archaeology. Göteborg 1998, 1998
In this paper I delineate the position of archaeology in the field of sciences. Prehistoric archaeology has a very special nature. It is studying in the ontological dimension humans as cultural and social beings. In epistemic dimension it is like natural sciences, because archaeology do not have any pre conceptualized material as starting point. History, ethnography, cultural and social anthropology have texts or spoken language full of meanings as their bases. Prehistoric archaeologists have artefactual and ecofactual remains which are as dump as molecules, stars and minerals. Therefore, the main methodology of archaeology is based in archaeology on model build as in natural sciences.