FARSIGHTED VIEW OR AUTHORITY IN TROUBLE
Selected contents from this journal
Languages of publication
This article has been written in response to J. Dabrowski's and M. Mogielnicka-Urban's polemics (2004) with certain theses presented in my book (A. Mierzwinski 2003), in which I refer to a syncretic model of culture. I had discussed this model in detail with regards to the social and ritual aspects of production in the Oder river basin in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. In the present article, I have shown the futility of the debaters' attempt to question the possibility of using fingerprint marks on pottery for the study of the social identification of the pot makers. Consequently, their intent, which was to question the validity of the theory that the round discs were produced by men, proved unsuccessful. Neither were they able to discredit the theory that these discs could have been used as casting driers. The debaters did not present any arguments to substantiate their reservations concerning the specific modeling technique. The allegation that I have undertaken to reconstruct production and trade relations is baseless. From this point of view, one would rather say there is no motivation on my part to undertake such investigations. It is because I am a declared constructivist and far from any Marxist categorization. In the outcome, the assumptions and theses presented in my work, both general and specific, have not suffered in the face of these objections. This is due not only to the weakness of the latter, but also because the confrontation concerns divergent research attitudes, namely, traditional (empirical) archaeology versus contextual archaeology.
Publication order reference
CEJSH db identifier