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.