A Panorama of Theoretical Archaeology

Initial considerations. I the last 15 years, the interest of archaeologists in the general problems of their discipline-philosophical, methodological, logical, and theoretical-and in those which link archaeology with prehistory, history, sociology, and social or cultural anthropology (ethnology or ethnography, accordingly) has greatly increased. This intensification of interest has given rise to such a stream of literature in various languages that it has become apparent that special cumulative surveys of this literature are a necessity. The multidisciplinary nature of the subject and the need for rigorous evaluation and wide distribution make CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY the most suitable place for such surveys. The general nature, goals, and methods of such surveys are spelled out in my proposals (CA 13:346; 14:3-4) and the subsequent discussion (CA 13:348; 14:3-4, 63, 300, 335, 523; 15:3-4). I shall begin here by examining in more detail the nature of surveys on my particular theme and the current literature that surrounds it. Subject matter. Monographs systematizing a general theoretical discipline have been produced in various fields: Theoretical Biology (von Bertalanffy 1932, Bauer 1935), Theoretical Anthropology (Bidney 1953), Theoretical Geomorphology (Scheidigger 1961), Theoretical Geography (Bunge 1962), On Theoretical Sociology (Merton 1967), Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (Zvegincev 1967), and others. Surveying them, one arrives at the conclusion that specialists define their own theoretical branches differently. Some define them very broadly, including philosophical and methodological problems, on the one hand, and particular theories, on the other; others restrict them quite narrowly, limiting them to the general theory of the given science. I prefer a middle road. A complex of closely interdependent problems has become identifiable in the discipline and demands that researchers pecialize. Some definition or other is needed for this complex of problems, and it seems to me that a designation of "theoretical archaeology" fits better than others. In the beginning, I intended to denote this whole area of problems with the word "methodology" (see CA 14:4), since among Soviet philosophers the term is frequently used in this way, with ideological justification (cf. Stoff 1972; Mostepanenko 1972:18-19; Yadov 1972:29-39). In certain fields, however, this term is less convenient, as it has far too many meanings and demands such specifications as "overall," "general," or "special" (cf. Yadov 1972:30-39). In our case it is further inconvenient because of the fact that, not only in entire traditions, but in several languages, it is now construed only narrowly, with a meaning closer to "methods" ("methodology" signifying the sum of concrete, systematic rules, "methods" their application). In any case, in a discussion of theoretical archaeology, I have in mind that which makes up the contents of Taylor's (1948) book and which has been designated in other works (C. Hawkes 1954, Willey and Phillips 1958) by the words "theory and method. " Thus, I understand theoretical archaeology to be a cluster of closely interrelated problems having a general archaeological character and usually designated as philosophical, methodological, logical, and theoretical, including, in part, historiographical ones. The terms "philosophy of science," "epistemology of science," "logic of science," "methodology," "general theory," and "central theory" have different meanings in various terminological systems, entering differently into relationships of coordination and/or subordination. The bounds of these ideas are sometimes clearly demarcated, sometimes partially coincidental, sometimes wholly coincidental (in various contexts); sometimes one merges into another, assuming the properties of a component. First one and then another of these words assumes the role of general designation for the whole group of problems (of theoretical archaeology). All of them, however, either have many more meanings than the chosen one or are too firmly fixed in a narrower sense. In any case, no one doubts the close interdependence of these problems, and I intend to cover all of them in the literature without dividing it up. Therefore, I do not feel any need to explain their interdependence or to supply definitions for all the parts of theoretical archaeology and analyze their boundaries and correlations. It is sufficient o outline the general limits of the area involved in the survey and to indicate what is not to be included. LEO S. KLEJN is Assistant of the Chair of Archaeology, Historical Faculty, University of Leningrad (Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.). Born in 1927, he received his education at that university, studying protohistoric archaeology mainly under M. I. Artamonov and folklore under V. Ia. Propp and graduating in 1951. He became Lecturer in 1960 and assumed his present position in 1962. He has taught the history and methods of archaeology and the archaeology of the Bronze Age and, since 1964, has led the department's Problems of Archaeology Seminar (the first volume of the papers of which appeared under the title Problems of Archaeology in 1968). He has done fieldwork primarily in the steppes (barrow excavations), but also in ancient Slavic towns and Neolithic sites. His main interests are theory and methods of archaeology, the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Central and Eastern Europe, and the archaeology of the early Slavs. He has published more than 60 articles in various scientific publications. The present paper, submitted in Russian in the spring of 1976, was translated into English by Stephen P. Dunn. Unexpected delays in the mail made it necessary to publish the edited translation without Klejn's final approval. Any additions or corrections he may wish to make will appear in the June issue.