PREFACE
At the present stage of its development archeology is in active search for new opportunities for the more complete extraction of information from artefacts. However, I have to admit that, by and large, this process proceeds by fits and starts. This could be seen, for example, in continually increasing numbers of classifications, typologies, and models in various trends of ancient cultures research. There is a problem of imposing by the researcher his language to the studied object or phenomenon. This problem, by the way, was raised more than 30 years ago by the Tartu-Moscow semiotics school founders when they were making a description of sign systems of the humanities and the phenomena of a social life. And it seems not incidental that among all history disciplines it is just in archaeology now that the peculiarities of research, the nature of sources, the level of archeological knowledge development, and the problems set have "created" urgent need and the ground for the appearance of the semiotic series.
Structural and semiotic view of the research process will certainly demand a rejection of the well-known world outlook stereotyped patterns of the modern level of thinking which still prevail in many archaeological issues. To solve the problems of higher order by formal methods means to solve them inefficiently, if at all, since the methods of determining formal characteristics of objects fail to penetrate deeply into their spiritual sphere of practical historical being.
Though studying of the bygone cultures phenomena, on the whole, has not overstepped the limits of extensive development yet which is obviously not going to happen soon, nevertheless, the depths of world vision and attitude of ancient people have been groped for a long time. Even if these attempts have by no means been always logical, consistent, well-grounded, methodically and methodologically perfect, nevertheless without these first steps it would be impossible today to develop the research trend the name of which is placed on the cover of this book.
There are a lot of problems concerning understanding and estimation of the meanings and characteristics of signs in history, and in particular in archaeology. It is practically impossible to describe them briefly as the field of the problem is so huge and arguable. But one of them is worth mentioning. The point is that everything perceived by the sense organs and superficially comprehended by modern consciousness, is not manifestation of this or that sacrality and, moreover, the semiotic status yet. These features appear only upon comparison of signs when reading them. In research they often begin by making such statements and after that start to ground them with the data following involuntarily the predetermined aim. Acting as a sign is not a natural quality for an object. This quality is socially attributed and socially fixed to it. So persons communicating by means of a sign should know that the given material object indicates something definite that is outside this object. With the presence of such knowledge the material object becomes a sign and can act as means of communication.
Extensive study of sign systems in the humanities testifies to maturity of semiotics as a branch of knowledge. This is exhibited, in particular, in attempts to use its statements and methods as instruments for studying ancient cultures.
Application of the structural and semiotic approach demands a critical eye as well as selection of terminology and methods for the analysis inasmuch as, for instance, traditional linguistic conceptual understanding of a sign reading process does not always suit archaeology. Let us imagine a mortuary complex where all the attributes are in disorder (as it seems to us), being as a whole an original, specific, and incoherent language for us though the one with familiar "letters". Consequently, at least for this reason it is necessary to interpret archeological material using apart from other methods also the decoding theory creating and developing purely archaeological conceptual apparatus.
Among the problems posed to archeologists elucidation of the limits of the interpretative possibilities of signs is of paramount importance since the very determination of the load which a certain phenomenon has received from other phenomena is rather problematic. Another major problem is to establish the limits of the semiotic approach in archaeology, as well as find out opportunities of the "own" material.
A.V.Yevglevsky
