Archaeological Theory Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

In the 19th century, racist and ethno-centrist ideas inevitably influenced on many social and humanity sciences, including on archeology, especially archeological theory, which were being formed in Europe. Especially, the methodology of “mixed argumentation” (retrospective method, arguing by mythology, anthropometry, linguistic reconstructions, etc.) of the linguistic (ethnic) attribution of archaeological cultures of the period before written history has been widely distributed. Primordialist ideas from Europe were reflected in the academic archeology of the Russian Empire. In addition, racist concepts in the Russian Empire were imposed by state-administrative institutions.
After the creation of the USSR, during the time of Stalinism, ethno-centrist views, including the use of the methodology of mixed argumentation of ethnic attribution, existed parallel to the N. Marr's stadial concept. The pre-war and post-war years there has been a tendency of growth of primordialistic attitudes in the works of Soviet archeologists. The trend had not only emotional, but also the clear political motive. Identification of the linguistic affiliation of archaeological cultures of the period before written history has become the main goal of Soviet academic archeology. Figuratively speaking, Soviet archeology of the ancient period actually turned into the politicized appendage of linguistic science. But, in contrast to Kossinism, Soviet archeology, although not entirely, rejected the method of “anthropometric determinism” to the maximum. “Anthropometric racism” was replaced by “linguistic racism”; carriers of some archaeological cultures of the Eurasian Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze and Early Iron Age (Shomutepe-Shulaveri, Kuro-Arax, Yamnaya, Catacomb, Srubnaya, Andronovo, Pazyryk, BMAK, etc.) in the works of archaeologists of the USSR had to supposed only to be "Indo-Europeans", "Indo-Aryans", "Indo-Iranians" and the archaeological data were adapting to the constructs and hypotheses of linguists. It is noteworthy that after the Second World War, the tendency of primordialist positions in Soviet-Russian archeology went on increasing, while in Western archeological theory had been progress of critical analysis of classical dogmas and the abandonment of primordialism.
In parallel, in the national republics of the USSR, especially in the Turkic republics, there has evolved the alternative trend on opposition to the academic primordialism. It should be noted that some researchers of the Turkic regions of the USSR argued that the carriers of the archaeological cultures of the pre-written era of the West Asian part of Eurasia were “Türkic-speaking”, using exactly the same methods of “mixed argumentation”. This proves once again that Kossinna methods are not universal, on the contrary, they are defective and create an extensive field for speculation.
At the moment, in Russian academic archeology, the positions of supporters of outdated views and the methodology of “mixed argumentation” are still strong. Rational and logical criticism is perceived as "hyperskeptic heresy." It is possible that the basis of such a position is a whole complex of factors (political, ethnopsychological, emotional, etc.).