False Analogy: Transfer of Theories and Methods in Archaeology (The Case of Serbia)

The text discusses the epistemological problems and dilemmas of the attempts to study religious life in prehistory by archaeological means. Among numerous difficulties, theoretical as well as practical, hindering these attempts, a general problem is discussed here: is archaeology of religion possible and on what grounds? This dilemma raised a series of discussions over the last decades of the 20th century, primarily among the English-speaking archaeologists. However, in the tradition of regional archaeology of Yugoslavian and post-Yugoslavian lands this discussion has not been initiated, and the religious life of the prehistoric communities has not been the subject of particular research interest. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to bring attention to the possibilities and limitations of research into religion in prehistory, referring to the recent discussions in wider archaeological community. Two questions are discussed: firstly, how religion is conceptualized and defined in prehistoric contexts, and secondly, how it is possible to make inferences on religion on the grounds of material remains, if religion is understood in general sense, as belief in supernatural, non-material principles. The text concludes by the suggestion that the holistic approach, advocating that the religious phenomena should be regarded in structural relationship to all other aspects of social life, is productive if this proposition is taken to imply the scrutiny of numerous correlations between religion and other social domains. However, it is not acceptable to deny heuristic and analytic value of the very concept of religion. The importance of research into religious rituals is stressed, i.e. religious behaviour and practices, that are accessible through archaeological record, as opposed to religious principles, beliefs and dogmas. The orientation of archaeological research towards the field of ritual practices presupposes the effort to discern the purpose of a ritual and its outcomes, i.e. to consider the structural intertwining of ritual behaviour with all other aspects of social life, in accordance with the holistic approach.

Section: Uvodunclassified

How is Archaeology of Religion Possible?

Kuzmanović

2020

“…Sali Grin veli da je Zora bila model kako "napraviti smisao od svih arheoloških dokaza" (Green 1981, 52). * * * Iako je u srpskoj arheologiji postojala dobra osnova za razvoj kulturno-istorijske arheologije, naročito u delu Jovana Cvijića (Palavestra i Milosavljević 2015, 625-628), Miloje Vasić je odbijao da prihvati i koncept kulture ali i tipološki metod (Palavestra and Babić 2016;Palavestra i Milosavljević 2016). Jedine karte koje Vasić daje u svojim radovima imaju informativni karakter: "Neolitska i do sada poznata nalazišta u severnom delu Srbije" i "Preistorijska nalazišta u severnoj i severoistočnoj Srbiji" (Vasić 1906, sl.…”

Section: Recepcija Mapiranja U Evropskoj Arheologijiunclassified

The Introduction of Mapping Cultures in European Archaeology - Time Meets Space

Bandović

2017

Počeci mapiranja kultura u evropskoj arheologijio susretu vremena i prostoraApstrakt: Praistorijska arheologija ima svoje korene u različitim praksama i naukama: antikvarstvu, prirodnoj istoriji, geologiji, filologiji i tako dalje. Krajem XIX veka u arheologiji se formiraju glavni konceptualni alati, između ostalih i "bazični blok" -arheološka kultura. Identifikovanje prostorne dimenzije arheoloških kultura u velikoj meri je povezano sa inovacijama u bliskim disciplinama kakva je bila antropogeografija, čiji je osnivač Fridrih Racel (Friedrich Ratzel), ali i s generalnim razvojem kartografije koja se pokazuje kao korisno i "objektivno" oruđe u mapiranju evropskih nacionalnih država i različitih etničkih ili lingvističkih zajednica. Fridrih Racel je sopstvene ideje zasnovao na učenjima Morica Vagnera (Moritz Wagner), geografa, putopisca i istraživača i njegovom "Zakonu o migracijama" koji je Vagner zamislio kao dopunu Darvinove teorije evolucije. Inovativna metoda mapiranja kultura ali i migracionizam ostale su trajne oznake Racelove antropogeografije ali i "škole kulturnih krugova". Primeri iz arheologije nemačkog govornog područja nedvosmisleno prikazuju na koji je način vizualizacija arheoloških kultura uticala i na samo tumačenje praistorije u Evropi.Ključne reči: arheološka kultura, istorija arheologije, centralnoevropska arheologija, antropogeografija, kartografija, kulturni krugovi Uvod U sećanju mi je ostalo da je tokom perioda osnovnog obrazovanja jedan od najvažnijih pomoćnih udžbenika bio istorijski atlas. U odnosu na "suvoparni" udžbenik iz istorije, gde su se vladajuće dinastije i ratovi smenjivali na sitno otkucanim stranama propraćeni ponekom crno-belom fotografijom ili reprodukcijom slike, istorijski atlas je izgledao kao pravo osveženje. Na raznobojnim kartama iz različitih perioda mogao sam po prvi put sagledati istoriju, koja je zahvaljujući njima prestala da bude samo niz nepovezanih događaja koji suštinski nemaju veze sa mojim dečačkim životom. Naročito mi je ostala u sećanju karta perioda ranog srednjeg veka, i rasporeda "naroda" posle velikih turbulentnih događaja koji su označili "propast Rimskog carstva". Tako sam po prvi put mogao videti prošlost, mogao sam videti "kretanja naroda", "zakonitost" istorijskih procesa vizualizovanu u prostoru. Nešto kasnije, vrlo slične istorijske mape su se poja-

“…Promišljanje o tome na koji način interpretacije prošlosti nastaju u arheologiji, pored oslanjanja na disciplinarne okvire i prakse proizvodnje znanja, neminovno vodi kritičkom sagledavanju istorije discipline i istorije ideja te načina na koji su one uticale na osnove arheologije (Babić 2009(Babić , 2011(Babić , 2013Palavestra and Babić 2016). Bavljenje istorijom discipline u poslednjih dvadeset godina je zadobilo značajnu popularnost.…”

Section: N ć 750unclassified

“…U okviru tih studija istraživani su različiti koncepti, načini na koji su korišćene ideje o prošlosti, konteksti interesovanja pojedinaca kako u akademskoj zajednici, tako i van nje. Ipak, specifično bavljenje konceptom autoriteta u arheologiji deo je retkih studija koje su se bavile istorijom discipline i istorijom ideja u arheologiji (Palavestra 2013;Palavestra i Milosavljević 2015;Palavestra and Babić 2016). Dosadašnje analize proizvodnje znanja i transfera ideja kroz istoriju discipline pokazale su da autoriteti snažno oblikuju produkciju znanja u arheologiji i određuju načine na koji su artikulisana specifična znanja o prošlosti.…”

Section: N ć 750unclassified

Authority and the production of archaeological knowledge

Ćosić¹

2016

The discipline of archaeology is founded upon the interaction of various practices, in the network of individuals and institutions, jointly shaping and formulating the explanations of the past. The registered sites and material remains represent the places where undefined layers and physical structures are converted from heaps of dirt and discarded material into the knowledge of the past. From the perspective of production of knowledge and construction of facts about the times past, the archaeological excavations are not only a process of research. The production of archaeological knowledge, in the field and beyond, always takes place under specific circumstances, including not only the relations among professionals and institutions, but also the relations between material remains and the individuals “discovering” them and translating them into interpretations. Metaphorically speaking, in the complex relationship between archaeologists and material culture, an individual in the process of creating the knowledge of an object creates his/her own professional identity, while an object creates an archaeologist in the process of identification. The final outcome presents a chosen and formulated explanation about the past, stemming from a specific logic of disciplinary practice. However, the question arises: what or who decides which interpretations are more valid than the others, and who is in the position to declare an authentic interpretation of the excavated material. Thus the discussion enters the field of problematizing the concept of authority and its role in the production of archaeological knowledge. The analyses show that authority should not be understood as a definite source, periodically appearing and disappearing, but rather as an achievement of social and cultural interactions and changes. The theoretical grounds for the research of authority is formulated based upon Foucault’s interpretation of relation between power and knowledge. The axis for identification of authority in disciplinary practices is determined by the chosen categories of executive, epistemic, and intellectual authority, coupled with archaeological ethnography. The suggested development of the theoretical framework is aimed to secure the tools for considering the shapes and sources of authority in archaeology and its role in the production of archaeological knowledge of the past.