Дослідження палеолітичних пам’яток широкими площами в радянській Україні на межі 20–30-х рр. ХХ ст
Loading...
Date
2017
Authors
Цеунов, І.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
У статті йдеться про зміни в підходах до розуміння найдавнішого минулого людини в середови-
щі українських радянських палеолітознавців наприкінці 20-х – на початку 30-х рр. ХХ ст. Автори
суттєвих змін у методиці польових досліджень палеолітичних стоянок належали до покоління
репресованих українських археологів.
Description
This article presents information about treatment of the ancient history by the Soviet Ukrainian
archaeologists in the end of the 1920s – the first half of the 1930s. The evaluation exercised in changing
Paleolithic field methods. The methods of the fieldwork are a complex phenomenon. The main archaeologist’s
aim is to study the Paleolithic cultural layer.
P. Yefymenko (famous Soviet archaeologist) held the idea that the cultural layer can consist of objects.
“The cultural layer is only trash near the dwelling,” Yefymenko wrote. Therefore, the main archaeologists’
purpose is to show the social structure of the archaeological site. In the end of the 1920s – the first half of
the 1930s, young Soviet archaeology tried to build a new science. This science should study the social
structure of prehistorical cultures.
The “Wide squares” method was a practical variant of the Soviet archaeology. This method was imposed
on all Soviet archaeologists. However, not all archaeologists understood what aim of “the new proletarian”
archaeology was. Most scientists worked with by the old “bourgeois” methods. M. Rudynsky is one of the
leaders the Ukrainian pre-World War II archaeology. At the Zhuravka and Pushkari sites, the Ukrainian
archaeologist tried to apply a new synthetic method. This article presents information about Rudynsky’s
synthetic field method. He makes photos of all pits. His pits (at the Pushkari, for example) were divided into
squares. The boundaries between the squares (10–15 cm edges) could help to fix the artifact’s position. So,
Rudynsky was fixing the exact location of all the artifacts in his pit at Pushkari. In addition, Rudynsky made
a tower for making photos of the whole pit. These photos help to show the general situation at the site.
Also, this paper includes information about the end of the 1920s – the first half of the 1930s. This time
was the time of the Ukrainian archaeology flourishing. After this period, the Ukrainian archaeology was
repressed. Rudynsky was accused as an anti-Soviet agent. We can find information about Rudynsky’s
criminal charge. “Yes, I’m an anti-Marxist archaeologist. I’m a follower of Th. Vovk and the French school
of paleontologists,” Rudynsky wrote. The famous Ukrainian archaeologist was broken by the “red” Soviet
criminal machine.
So, Rudynsky used the field technique of “Wide squares” excavations. However, Yefymenko as the author
of the “Wide square” method, thought that this methodology should be ideological. The archaeologist
should reconstruct the social organization of ancient societies. Rudynsky was not remodeling the social
structure of the Paleolithic societies. He only fixed and only described. His good field job resulted in the
Soviet prison. Rudynsky’s story was typical for the 1930s in the Soviet Union.
Keywords
М. Я. Рудинський, П. П. Єфименко, траншея, широкі площі, методика, палеоліт, M. Rudynsky, P. Yefymenko, the pit, “Wide squares” method, methodic, Paleolithic
Citation
Цеунов І. А. Дослідження палеолітичних пам’яток широкими площами в радянській Україні на межі 20–30-х рр. ХХ ст / Цеунов І. А. // Магістеріум. - 2017. - Вип. 67 : Археологічні студії. - С. 89-94.