Discussion results

Attempts to sum up and give an assessment of discussion became repeatedly for last twenty years, however the majority of authors were its participants. For this reason, try again impartially analyze the main results of twenty years' polemic.

The first that is evident is an existence of the general elements in the concept as L.S. of Klein, and V.F.Gening, despite considerable and basic divergences. It was noticed in 1993 by the Kiev researcher S.V. Smirnov. In his opinion, the reason of dispute consists that both authors paid excessive attention to purely formal borders between archeology and other sciences which arose under the influence of the deformed development of science and prevalence in it the source study moment. Therefore if to consider archeology not separately from other disciplines and as the science connected to them by wide border areas, realizing a multilevel of actually archaeological knowledge, the difference between views of both researchers will be not such considerable (Smirnov, 1993. p.8).

As a result of discussion, V.F.Gening in the last joint monograph with the son recognized that also it is impossible to exclude from an archeology subject and regularity of formation of system of archaeological monuments as only learning laws of transition of the subject world from live historical reality to the fossil world, or in the course of an arkheologization of the subject world, it is possible to make a mental reduction to live reality, to reconstruct it and to investigate regularities of social development of ancient societies of the past (Gening, 1992. p.14)

Left unanswered important argument V.F. Gening, the need to consider the material culture only in the context of the social system, as well as not claimed and deductive-inductive process of research - a basis of the fundamental archaeological theory (Gening, 1992, 1994). Thus the potential of the specified concept isn't settled yet. This important point was also noted in the article by S. V. Smirnov. He specified that concerning the statement of L.S. of Klein that the historian on the basis of source study development of archaeologists has to carry out historical reconstruction, practice testifies to the return. After execute historical reconstruction based on archaeological material can only be when the researcher understands the specifics of archaeological sources. The historian is compelled to take everything in all good faith and therefore by the subjective moments allowed by the archaeologist, he adds his own. Thereby increase the distance between reconstruction and the fact that it was in reality.

S. V. Smirnov also noticed that as the success of source study work is defined by the put tasks, the ultimate goal of research is more deeply realized, the processing of sources on the basis of the criteria which have been set by this purpose is more accurately and more purposefully carried out. So if the main targets are formulated within one discipline, and the source study work subordinated to their decision is carried out within other, the necessary interrelation is broken. Thereby difficulties for really objective restoration of the historical past are created (Smirnov, 1993. p.8).

Criticizing the concept of his opponent V.F.Gening in it was right many. So, he fairly considered that views of L.S. of Klein aren't Marxist. Later his opponent admitted it also:

"I began with youthful rejection of Marxism (at school I hammered together the underground organization of liberal sense "Prometheus"), then there was a short period of hobby Marxism, and then on a student's bench, it was replaced by Marxism criticism, more and more deeply coming. My self-identification is farther remained Marxist only externally and was so limited as far as it was admissible to keep opportunity to work at university" (Klein, 2004. p. 33–34).

"Certainly, it was necessary to declare that I am a Marxist, but I considered Marxism as only one of types of tools in my methodological arsenal" (Klein, 2010. p. 301).

In the same way V.F.Gening pointed to similarity of the concept of the opponents to theoretical development of some western archeologists. Though here instead of M. Malmer and D. Clark, it was necessary to mention, first of all I.Rauza. Thus, in the section of his book devoted to the functions of archaeological theory, L.S. Klein writes: "For him [Binford – S.P.] both stages of knowledge - knowledge of the source and the knowledge of the past - is archeology, but Rouse, as for me <...>, they should be separated. Archaeology - the science that studies the ancient material as sources of knowledge of the past, and the study of the past on the prepared sources have paleohistory (prehistory and ancient history). The archeology studies not cultural and historical process, and sources for comprehension of this process, thus only one type of sources – material" (Klein, 2004. p. 306–307).

In the same way it is more correct to speak not about a неопозитивистсткой basis of the concept to "pure archeology", and about неокантиантской what L.S. Klein admitted also itself:

"From Hegel Marxism borrowed not only the dialectic, but the official spirit of the Prussian state as the ideal. The antidote to such Hegelianism and Marxism to me was the passion neo-Kantianism. I got acquainted at first not with Vindelband and Rikkert's works, and with their Marxist criticism. But already it was enough that the criticized concept made impression on me. Clarification of specific human knowledge, a new (compared with Comte and Friedrich Engels) opinion on the classification of sciences, in relation to the fact that by law they have given me support outside of Marxism "(Klein, 2004. p. 35).

As for categorical discussion stiffness formulations, especially from L.S. Klein, the reason for that was how the overall situation in the Soviet Union - "Reorganization", when such criticism is welcome, and the circumstances in the life of Leo Samuilovich. In V.F.Geningu's letter of May 10, 1991 he wrote the following:

"In SA [Soviet Archeology] still there will be my rather abrupt reply on yours with Yu.N.Zakharuk of article, but it was written more than two years ago. Now I hardly would began to answer so.

In the 80th years I was offended and driven into a corner: only I left the camp, deprived of all titles and opportunity to work (didn't take even the watchman) moreover and new business was begun – on charge of murder, and here and your book appeared in time where it is in black and white written that my views won't be coordinated with Marxism. And what it meant in 1983 and in those circumstances moreover and in the Leningrad? I after all also couldn't answer – didn't print. In a word, I considered that it extremely isn't elegant. But here Shchetenka's case, punched was palmed off on me the road to the press. I answered also to you, and, naturally, answered sharply" (Klein, 2010. p. 501).

Therefore it is very natural that V.F.Gening wrote to edition, then already to "The Russian archeology", with the offer to stop discussion as the dispute subject is lost, however ready to renew it at any time (Gening, 1992)

Speaking about the subsequent estimates of discussion, it is possible to give opinion of one of its participants – M. V. Anikovich in his article of 2005:

"Later, when L.Klein unambiguously proclaimed the source study status of archeology, convincingly reasoning this point of view and not less convincingly objecting the opponents, discussion was resumed. Against the source study version of archeology all forces were mobilized then. However opponents couldn't put forward some convincing arguments in protection of the views, partly got confused in terminology (as it was shown by L.Klein, especially in article which published in 1991) and, finally, preferred to finish dispute by expression of personal offense. Anything essentially new wasn't brought also by other participants of discussion.

Now, seemingly, views of archeology as source study discipline dominate in our science. In any case, they any more don't cause some active objections" (Anikovich, 2005. p. 488).

Probably, many will disagree with so radical estimates proclaiming a clear victory of the concept of "pure archeology". However indisputable there is that fact that the relation to this approach among archaeologists really changed. Here that was written in the book of archeology in 1964:

"At the same time, many bourgeois archaeologists, especially clerical, in the interests of the church and the imperialist bourgeoisie continue to deny the connection to the history and archeology of the possibility of reconstruction of the historical process on the basis of material sources. These scientists consider archaeological monuments only as works of art, a life cult, etc., without any communication with historical development of ancient societies, and archeology, proceeding from it, carry to different unhistorical sciences. So, they carry archeology of a primitive-communal system to a so-called prehistory or anthropology. The most reactionary bourgeois archaeologists quite often go further away, trying to deny in general regularities in development of humanity and its forward character". (Shovkoplyas, 1964. Page 9).

And here that is written about the archeology concept, as source study discipline in the modern Russian textbook:

"And nowadays the concept "archeology" is treated ambiguously. A number of scientists, in particular abroad, applies this term mainly to field and cameral practice – to excavation, to the description and the direct analysis of material sources. In this case the field of history, uses and integrates the result of this work, called prehistory and proto-history. <…> In any case the main information for restoration of a prehistoric and protohistorical situation material sources – i.e. give sources, in the majority received as a result of archaeological excavations". (Kantorovich, Kuzminykh, 2006. Page 10).

Changes more than are obvious. Therefore it is possible to claim, if not about full change of a paradigm in the Russian archeology, at least, about considerable shifts in this direction. According to the author, it is caused by a row both objective, and the subjective reasons.

Changes in the public consciousness, occurred in the USSR in the 1970th – became the 80th years the main objective reason which has entailed change of a paradigm.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16