Міркування щодо концепцій культурогенезу

• Veröffentlicht in: Археологія і давня історія України
• Datum: 2021
• 1. Verfasser: Отрощенко, В.В.
• Format: Artikel
• Sprache: Ukrainisch
• Veröffentlicht: Інститут археології НАН України 2021
• Schlagworte: Проблематика культурогенезу
• Online Zugang: https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/187483
• Назва журналу: Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
• Zitieren: Міркування щодо концепцій культурогенезу / В.В. Отрощенко // Археологія і давня історія України: Зб. наук. пр. — К.: ІА НАН України, 2021. — Вип. 2 (39). — С. 52-58. — Бібліогр.: 35 назв. — укр.

Статтю присвячено дискусії довкола осередків культурогенезу, яка трансформувалась впродовж останніх років у зіставлення осередково-пульсаційної та осередково-акумулятивної концепцій культурогенезу з виходом на періодизацію бронзової доби півдня Східної Європи з позицій археології чи преісторії. The concept of centers of culturogenesis, formulated and developed by V. Bochkarev was accepted and caused a number of considerations, clarifications and links to the regions of Eurasia during the Paleometal era. The implementation of the topic «Culturogenesis in the Eneolithic — Bronze Age in Ukraine» at the Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine brought the attention to the problems of culturogenesis. V. Pankovskyi, comparing the points of the participants in the discussion on the vision of the manifestations of culturogenesis, determined the existence of two of its concepts — center-pulsating and center- accumulative. The researcher believes that the existing concepts of culturogenesis are different approaches to understanding the essence of cultural deposits, based on the principles of archaeology or prehistory. V. Pankovskyi’s sympathies on the side of archaeology and the creator of the center-pulsating concept of culturogenesis of V. Bochkarev, who proposed the periodization of the Bronze Age, based on technological changes in the production of non-ferrous metals. The author considers such periodization to be no less controversial than the previous ones, given its limited source base. V. Pankovskyi, based on the center-pulsating concept of cultural genesis, concludes that the periodization of V. Otroshchenko is not archaeological, being a cultural- chronological scheme of regional prehistory. To my opinion, the concept, due to its delicate substance, cannot be applied in assessing certain periodization on its own. However, its creators are capable of it completely. It should be reminded that any periodization of prehistory is a scheme. The question is the following: is the periodization of the Bronze Age made by V. Gorodtsov an archaeology or a scheme of regional prehistory? In general, it is too early to draw a line between archaeology and prehistory by comparing two concepts represented at the level of theses and individual articles. Both concepts of culturogenesis have already entered the segment of prehistory, without breaking with its archaeological «umbilical cord». Primitive archaeology and prehistory should not be too different.