STRUCTURAL AND SEMIOTIC INVESTIGATIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGY - Volume 2
The time to sum up usually comes when there is some ground for that, however, it seems reasonable to analyze the very first steps of our series just because we are not confined to the restrictions of an anniversary or dedicated edition, and thus we can say something that is not traditionally expected and say it more candidly. It is always easier to estimate great milestones as the accumulated potential, the databank, and the papers published are well visible, have been reviewed by critics and time tested. Sharing ideas at such an early stage of a series is a rather subtle and useful thing at the same time, something like painting a self-portrait by an artist during the early period of his creativity. This is something inimitable.
Presenting the first volume published in 2002 we made a brief mention of the main problems which archeologists applying the semiotic analysis have to face. This time we give the shortest review focusing on how we move, and what the future prospects of semiotics in archaeology are. In spite of the fact that the series is called "Structural and Semiotic Investigations in Archaeology" the overwhelming majority of papers published in both volumes can be defined as "semiotic investigations". The matter is that the semiotic approach (without the attribute "structural") applied in archaeology is mainly aimed at the search for all possible signs, sign systems and fields as well as their semantic characteristics in culture phenomena, but for all that their connections and relations are not analyzed. In other words, the structures corresponding to them are not simulated, by A.B.Ostrovsky's exact definition (1998), and even if they are this are performed at the level of correlation with a certain invariant acting, in fact, as an associatively formed scheme. The cases when structural elements of the signified and the signifier are rigidly connected with each other are exceptions which as a matter of fact do not require from a researcher establishing any communicative bridge. The structural and semiotic approach has got, so to speak, much semiotically deeper destination generating many problem situations necessary for a researcher and oriented to revealing a mechanism accumulating a certain culture phenomenon in carriers of traditional cultures. The role of biological bases is inevitably actualized here; to put it more precisely, an urgent need for integration of archeological semiotics with neurophysiology and cognitive psychology arises. In the interaction with the latter, as V.V.Ivanov writes (1987), the possibility to comprehend which archetype images exactly (used, for example, as the basis on which objects are identified) are genetically inherent increases largely which, in its turn, facilitates organization of a person's inner life and behaviour by a group of people. This approach has already proved itself in the field of linguistics, folklore studies and ethnology, but in archaeology investigations of this kind are still rather scarce. And this is quite understandable since archaeology as a discipline, in our opinion, alas, lacks its own reliable methodological foundation with sufficient intellectual support which is necessary for carrying out structural and semiotic analysis. We entitled the series with the prospect in view, though certain progress has already been made.
In all fairness let us point out that the structural and semiotic approach cannot give a guaranteed answer to the questions under consideration, however, it enables one to look at the object under study from various, sometimes absolutely unexpected, points of view and at different angles of perception of the material studied which undoubtedly leads to much greater cognitive effect. Moreover, such direction of research creates preconditions for formation of some kind of bridges between various, sometimes opposite, scholars' views. These points of view, by virtue of many reasons, can not always be presented as structurally equivalent positions, but the dialogue though a specific one will be provided for all that, which is indeed indispensable. Exchange of opinions, in its turn, not only enables new ideas to appear, but also permits realization of the old ones. The concepts discussed will be mutually enriched, and methodological disagreements cannot be an insuperable barrier here. In short, principles of semiotics enable a researcher to look for scientific truth in the direction and in the perspective which seem to him most productive.
All the above implicitly concerns the papers of both volumes. Each of them, in our opinion, is controversial in its own way, but only in the dialectic sense of the word. The very application of the semiotic analysis involves inevitable controversy, firstly, because of the nature of such research, and secondly, for the reason that the processing technique of a source of the sign nature reflects "the state of the art" in archaeological semiotics and archaeology in general at present. Irrespective of the purposes and aims put by the authors the papers represent themselves just working out methods for the description of sign systems and ways of pointing out their structural elements which should be considered as an approbation of some simulating system. At subsequent stages of research integrated construction of complex functional models of the phenomena of ancient cultures can be expected. One of the components of progress is a search for such procedures of sign systems description which would have the least effect on the result of research (Lotman Yu.M., 1965). For the archeological semiotics it is much more important now to put questions than to give answers, which, in fact, is displayed in the published papers at the subconscious level. So the content of our volumes can be qualified as something like new links in the development of a scholarly approach named "Structural and Semiotics Investigations in Archaeology" rather than continuation of the development of the already existing trend. There are many things that should be settled here still, and all this requires time. The main thing today is the necessity to realize that investigations in archaeology, as well as in history in general, have, by and large, acquired semiotic features in many respects which is encouraging. But at the same time it is very important to get rid of the old stereotype when a historical fact is understood as a completed process. A judgement of a modern archeologist may and must be an object of his own research, as well as, by the way, a course and a structure of his thinking (and not only the interpretation) should be objects for criticism of his colleagues.
The volume combines the papers whose ideas are so different that it is impossible to speak about any central line which would determine its thematic integrity. After publishing the first volume though, it was planned to prepare exclusively specific editions and the first of them were to be entitled as follows: "Thing in Funeral Rite" and "Art as Language in Ancient Cultures Outlook". Alas, we have not managed to put these plans into practice which seems quite justifiable since we deal with the new developing trend in archaeology now, where a process of replenishment of semioticians is still in progress. Therefore, the heterogeneity in the subjects of the volume, in the terms and concepts used, in application of methods and techniques, etc. should be viewed as akin to the natural process of formation. In other words, heterogeneity corresponds with the so-called "romantic" period of development of this sphere of archaeology. The time of "research classicism", by Yu.M.Lotman, is to come later. The papers of the volume seem to cover nearly all the cultural and chronological range within the limits of which, in fact, archeologists work, i.e. from the Stone Age to the late Middle Ages. As well as in the first volume the most numerous is the Scythian and Sarmatian part which is not surprising; the part investigating the medieval time has enlarged. The latter cannot but please in view of skepticism existing among archeologists concerning the efficiency of revealing sign systems in this historical epoch.
The volume consists of 17 works whose authors represent Ukraine (7), Russia (9), and Japan (1). Despite of the limited number of countries the geographical location of the contributing authors is quite representative, in comparison with the first volume, and that has become even more so. Besides the scholars from the universally recognized research centers of Russia (Moscow and St.-Petersburg), scholars from the Urals (Nizhni Tagil), the Northern Caucasus (Vladikavkaz and Stavropol), Central Russia (Ryazan), North Russia (Vologda), and the Altai (Barnaul) have responded to the invitation to participate. As far as Ukraine is concerned, here the traditional bulk of participants from Kiev, Odessa and Donetsk were complemented by colleague from Ivano-Frankovsk. The papers with the exception of the first two being more of theoretical than applied nature are arranged in the chronological order.
A.V.Yevglevsky
