Abstract
“In the light of archaeology…” means a statement or conclusion based on archaeological sources, its practice and theoretical models used in it. But the range of possibilities and persuasiveness of all such statements is very wide. A typical lack of contemporary historiographic literature is the writer’s failure to define his own research attitude. Researchers also rarely want to confront their own subjectivity and define their views before they start presenting their explanations for the topic under study. This applies to both the research attitude, evaluation and purposefulness of the sources used, the scope of using the achievements and workshop of anthropology, and the issue of the narrative nature of archaeological writing itself. The aim of this article is to discuss the need for a more substantive attention to theoretical assumptions in archaeological writing, especially in the aspect of creating a historiographic narrative in historical archaeology. While attention is put on belonging to a given theoretical trend, the issues of narrative, persuasive procedures and noticing the narrative style that is chosen are less frequently analyzed. These are very significant characteristics of a given text, as they are directly directed to the reader, i.e., the person to whom our research and conclusions are presented. This text is, in accordance with the above considerations, also a commentary on the existing state and an attempt to draw attention to the need for the most conscious approach to one’s own scientific workshop.
Highlights
ABSTRACT: “In the light of archaeology...” means a statement or conclusion based on archaeological sources, its practice and theoretical models used in it
Czy takie określenie rzeczywiście jest niezbędne w pracach archeologicznych, skoro wiele z nich nie ma jasno wyartykułowanych założeń badawczych
Self-reflection allows for a more justified use, especially in historical archaeology, of the phrase “in the light of archaeology...”, because it is followed by a specific concept, the way of creating a narrative and a subjective approach, and not just a reference to the general research tradition
Summary
Powyższe pytanie nie jest bezpodstawne, ponieważ widoczne są duże różnice w praktyce badawczej, co przekłada się na styl pisania tekstów naukowych. Te same uwagi można odnieść do archeologii historycznej w jej kanonicznej postaci, gdzie również pojawia się mniej lub bardziej świadome podejście uznające nasze wnioski dotyczące przeszłości za „oparte” na źródłach, a nie „odczytane” w ramach naszej wiedzy i kontekstu kulturowego. Kolejną sprawą jest pytanie o to, czy nasze badanie dotyczy poziomu wytworów i relacji twórca – rzecz – użytkownik, czy może badamy zjawiska na poziomie społeczności ludzkich, uznając ich wytwory za przesłanki do budowania całościowego obrazu, gdzie artefakty stają się swoistym medium poznawczym, a nie przedmiotem samego badania. Nie chodzi mi o wrażenie, że historia jest bardziej „atrakcyjna” niż archeologia, która kojarzy z „zastygłym obrazem”, a nie procesem dziejowym, jak dzieje się to w historii. Urbańczyk (red.), Archeologia w teorii i praktyce NARRATION IN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY BUILT AROUND THE ARGUMENT: “IN THE LIGHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
