Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 22

first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  prehistory
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
EN
The credit for establishing archaeology as an academic discipline at the Jagiellonian University goes to Józef Łepkowski (1826-1894), an antiquarian, art historian, and archaeologist, who obtained his habilitation there in 1863 in the field of “medieval archaeology with application to Slavic and Polish monuments” and, as a private docent, was granted the right to lecture. After his appointment as an associate professor in 1867, Józef Łepkowski became the head of the newly created JU Chair of Archaeology. The Chair, initially provisional, gained the status of a permanent one in 1874. In 1867 Łepkowski organised Gabinet Archeologiczny (the Archaeological Collection), with a wealth of archaeological finds from all over Polish lands, and with objects of art as well, which provided necessary basis for his teaching. After Łepkowski’s death, lectures in prehistoric archaeology did not resume until 1905, when Włodzimierz Demetrykiewicz (1859-1937) obtained his habilitation in the field of “prehistoric archaeology”. Demetrykiewicz, who attended Łepkowski’s lectures, was an educated lawyer but chose a career as a conservationist of monuments and prehistorian. Until 1933 he remained the main organizer of education in archaeology and prehistory at the Jagiellonian University. Later, the fate of the academic prehistoric archaeology was bound up with the research and organisational activity of Józef Żurowski (leader of academic prehistoric archaeology from 1933 to 1936), Tadeusz Sulimirski (from 1936, in fact till 1936, nominally till 1950), and the creator of the JU Institute of Archaeology, Rudolf Jamka (1950–1971).
PL
Nauczanie archeologii prehistorycznej na ziemiach polskich zostało zapoczątkowane w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim, w roku akademickim 1863/1864 za sprawą Józefa Łepkowskiego, który w 1863 roku habilitował się w zakresie archeologii i sztuki średniowiecznej, uzyskał tytuł docenta i prawo wykładania. W swoich pierwszych wykładach z cyklu „Archeologia sztuki średniowiecznej”, mówił m.in.: „O zabytkach słowiańskich i polskich, przedchrześcijańskich”, wprowadzając do nurtu kształcenia uniwersyteckiego tematykę najdawniejszych dziejów, wyprzedzających czasy historyczne. Informacji w tym zakresie dostarczały gromadzone wówczas przez różnych „miłośników starożytności”, zbiory znalezisk archeologicznych i podejmowane coraz częściej – dla ich pozyskania – prace wykopaliskowe. Ta swoista „moda” na gromadzenie materialnych pamiątek i źródeł wiedzy o najdawniejszej przeszłości była popularna zwłaszcza wśród inteligencji oraz wykształconego i patriotycznie nastawionego ziemiaństwa. Łepkowski, aktywny również w tym zakresie, już w 1867 roku zorganizował tzw. „Gabinet Archeologiczny UJ”, z bogatymi zbiorami znalezisk archeologicznych ze wszystkich ziem polskich a także zabytkami z dziedziny sztuki, stanowiący zaplecze dydaktyczne dla prowadzonych wykładów. W Gabinecie, który w 1871 roku został ulokowany w Collegium Maius UJ, tj. ówczesnym Kolegium Jagiellońskim przy ul. św. Anny, powstała również specjalistyczna biblioteka. Po uzyskaniu w 1866 roku stanowiska profesora nadzwyczajnego, w 1867 roku Józef Łepkowski obejmuje też utworzoną dla niego Katedrę Archeologii UJ; początkowo tymczasową, a w roku 1874 przemianowaną na stałą. Józef Łepkowski, świetny organizator (w 1886 roku rektor UJ), działacz społeczny, konserwator zabytków Krakowa, a przede wszystkim znakomity uczony cieszący się uznaniem wśród archeologów krajowych i europejskich, nie wykształcił jednak podobnego sobie następcy. Stąd też po jego śmierci w 1894 roku, wykłady z archeologii prehistorycznej podjął dopiero po 10-letniej przerwie (i po habilitowaniu się w 1905 roku), jeden z słuchaczy wykładów Łepkowskiego, a z wykształcenia prawnik – Włodzimierz Demetrykiewicz. Jego wykłady, ujęte w cykle trzyletnie, uporządkowane były chronologicznie, z zastosowaniem najnowszych wówczas koncepcji w zakresie periodyzacji pradziejów. To właśnie działalność Demetrykiewicza spina klamrą archeologię prehistoryczną w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim z czasów przed i po I wojnie światowej. Starania Włodzimierza Demetrykiewicza o odrębność kształcenia w zakresie archeologii prehistorycznej, zaowocowały uchwaleniem w 1925 roku przez Wydział Filozoficzny UJ, projektu odrębnych, 4-letnich studiów zakończonych magisterium z prehistorii. Projekt ten został zaaprobowany przez Ministerstwo Wyznań Religijnych i Oświecenia Publicznego i wprowadzony do oferty kształcenia uniwersyteckiego. Program studiów z prehistorii zaproponowany przez Demetrykiewicza, przewidywał wykłady kursowe obejmujące całokształt prehistorii, z trzema egzaminami cząstkowymi (epoka kamienia, epoki metali przed narodzeniem Chrystusa i epoki metali po narodzeniu Chrystusa), ćwiczenia oraz seminarium, na którym słuchacz miał przygotować pracę pisemną. Dochodziły do tego przedmioty uzupełniające z dziedziny nauk przyrodniczych i humanistycznych. Demetrykiewicz wielką wagę przykładał też do naukowej aktywizacji studentów. To z jego inicjatywy w 1929 roku zorganizowane zostało Koło Naukowe Słuchaczy Prehistorii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, którego spadkobiercą jest dzisiejsze Koło Naukowe Studentów Archeologii UJ. W niepodległej Polsce Włodzimierz Demetrykiewicz – podobnie jak Józef Żurowski, jego uczeń i (od 1933 roku) następca na stanowisku kierownika Katedry Archeologii Przedhistorycznej UJ – włączył się aktywnie w organizację służby ochrony zabytków, wchodząc w skład utworzonego w 1920 roku (według wzorców galicyjskiego Grona Konserwatorów), Państwowego Grona Konserwatorów Zabytków Przedhistorycznych. Józef Żurowski (doktorat w 1922, habilitacja w 1928 roku), prehistoryk, muzealnik i aktywny badacz terenowy, z racji własnych doświadczeń i kompetencji badawczych, w szerokim zakresie wprowadził do programu kształcenia uniwersyteckiego zagadnienia metodyki badań wykopaliskowych, wspierając ten nurt obowiązkowym udziałem studentów w praktykach terenowych. Istotne znaczenie w kształtowaniu warsztatu naukowego prehistoryków krakowskich w tym czasie miała też współpraca z Muzeum Archeologicznym PAU, kierowanym od 1937 roku przez historyka z wykształcenia ale też archeologa i wybitnego muzealnika – Tadeusza Reymana. To z tego pokolenia uczniów Demetrykiewicza i młodych współpracowników Żurowskiego, rekrutowało się grono znakomitych prehistoryków i praktyków w zakresie konserwatorstwa, muzealnictwa i metodyki badań terenowych w osobach m.in.: Gabriela Leńczyka (doktorat u Demetrykiewicza w 1929 roku), Rudolfa Jamki (mgr w 1930, dr w 1932), Kazimierza Salewicza (mgr w 1932), zamordowanego później w Katyniu Jana Fitzke (mgr 1932) i Józefa Marciniaka (mgr w 1933). W 1934 roku, już u Józefa Żurowskiego uzyskali też m.in. magisteria: Jan Bartys – również zamordowany w Katyniu i Stefan Nosek. To na barkach tego pokolenia archeologów spoczęły w dużej mierze losy krakowskiej archeologii w trudnych czasach końca lat 30-tych, wojny i okupacji niemieckiej oraz wczesnych lat powojennych. Po nagłej śmierci Żurowskiego w 1936 roku, Katedrę Prehistorii na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim obejmuje jednak wychowanek szkoły lwowskiej, uczeń m.in. Leona Kozłowskiego – Tadeusz Sulimirski, który rok później uzyskuje też stanowisko profesora nadzwyczajnego UJ. Sulimirski, po uzyskaniu habilitacji z prehistorii na Uniwersytecie Jana Kazimierza, w 1931 roku (w zastępstwie profesora Leona Kozłowskiego pełniącego w tym czasie funkcje rządowe), obejmuje Katedrę Prehistorii na macierzystej uczelni. Po powrocie Kozłowskiego przenosi się do Krakowa, z ugruntowaną pozycją badacza o wielkiej aktywności pisarskiej i terenowej (do września 1939 roku Sulimirski podejmował badania wykopaliskowe w 35 miejscowościach). Rozszerza też wówczas swoją działalność badawczą na zachodnią Małopolskę i pełni różne funkcje, m.in. w Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, w tym funkcję sekretarza Komisji Prehistorycznej. To postać Tadeusza Sulimirskiego symbolizuje w pewnym sensie dramatyczne losy archeologii prehistorycznej na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w tych czasach. Sulimirski, mający piękną, patriotyczną kartę udziału w walkach o niepodległość z lat 1918–1920, po klęsce wrześniowej jako kapitan wojsk pancernych przedostaje się przez Rumunię do Francji, a następnie do Wielkiej Brytanii i – w okresie organizacji Polskich Sił Zbrojnych na zachodzie – kontynuuje służbę wojskową na różnych stanowiskach. Później urlopowany z armii w 1941 roku, zostaje mianowany na stanowisko Sekretarza Generalnego w Ministerstwie Oświaty polskiego rządu emigracyjnego w Londynie. Sławę i uznanie zyskuje jednak jako wybitny, europejskiej rangi archeolog, przede wszystkim znawca prehistorii Europy Wschodniej i wczesnohistorycznych ludów koczowniczych; Kimmerów, Scytów i Sarmatów – niestrudzony społecznik i organizator aktywności naukowej polskiej emigracji, wieloletni rektor Polskiego Uniwersytetu na Obczyźnie. W Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim, w latach okupacji, odpowiedzialność za losy archeologii prehistorycznej spadła na barki młodszego pokolenia uczniów i współpracowników Włodzimierza Demetrykiewicza i Józefa Żurowskiego. Należał do nich przede wszystkim Rudolf Jamka, który już w 1941 roku wraz z Albinem Jurą podjął tajne nauczanie w zakresie prahistorii, zorganizowane następnie (za zgodą rektora Władysława Szafera), w ramach Tajnego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, bazując na własnym księgozbiorze oraz bibliotece i zbiorach Muzeum Archeologicznego PAU. Lokal, biblioteka i zbiory Zakładu Archeologii Przedhistorycznej UJ, zostały bowiem zarekwirowane przez okupantów. To właśnie słuchacze tych zajęć, m.in. Maria Trzepacz-Cabalska i Stanisław Buratyński, tworzyli wraz z Rudolfem Jamką, zręby uniwersyteckiej archeologii prahistorycznej po zakończeniu okupacji. Istotną rolę odegrał tu też (po powrocie z Oflagu), Tadeusz Reyman, dyrektor Muzeum Archeologicznego PAU, prowadzący zajęcia z muzealnictwa, a przez jakiś czas również Stefan Krukowski. Rudolf Jamka położył też ogromne zasługi w budowie polskiej archeologii na Śląsku po zakończeniu II wojny światowej. W bardzo trudnych warunkach, borykając się z chorobą płuc, której nabawił się w latach okupacji, Jamka zorganizował Muzeum Prehistoryczne we Wrocławiu, którego został dyrektorem i już w czerwcu 1946 r. otworzył pierwszą na terenie polskiego Wrocławia wystawę poświęconą pradziejom Śląska. Równolegle z organizacją Muzeum Prehistorycznego przystąpił do tworzenia Zakładu Prehistorii na Uniwersytecie Wrocławskim, gdzie zajęcia dydaktyczne z tego przedmiotu rozpoczęto w początkach grudnia 1945 roku. Kiedy w 1950 roku Tadeusz Sulimirski z powodów politycznych zdecydował się ostatecznie na pozostanie w Anglii, to właśnie Rudolf Jamka obejmuje kierownictwo Katedry Archeologii Przedhistorycznej UJ, przemianowanej następnie na Katedrę Archeologii Polski. W kierowanej przez niego placówce, wypracowane zostały wówczas zasady kształcenia i strategii prowadzenia badań, które w pewnej mierze kontynuowane są po dziś dzień przez pokolenia jego starszych i młodszych uczniów. W 1971 roku profesor Rudolf Jamka, przy wsparciu swoich uczniów, profesorów Marka Gedla, Kazimierza Godłowskiego i Janusza Krzysztofa Kozłowskiego, doprowadza do powstania – w efekcie połączenia uniwersyteckich Katedr; Archeologii Polski i Archeologii Śródziemnomorskiej – dzisiejszego Instytutu Archeologii UJ. Profesor Rudolf Jamka został też mianowany pierwszym dyrektorem nowo powstałego Instytutu, ulokowanego już w samodzielnej siedzibie, uniwersyteckim budynku Collegium Minus (przy ul. Gołębiej 11). Zapoczątkowało to proces konsolidacji dwóch głównych specjalności archeologii w polskich uniwersytetach.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Professor Erazm Majewski

100%
EN
The article is dedicated to the first professor of prehistory at the University of Warsaw, Erazm Majewski, and his two students, Leon Kozłowski and Stefan Krukowski.
Organon
|
2017
|
vol. 49
57-103
EN
It is frequently assumed that the nomination of the human sciences is a regulating element, a vector and marker of identity. The words chosen to designate them are part of a complex process of certification and agreement involving collective choices. They promote paradigm stability and, thus defining their research field, disciplines make themselves known and, above all, recognized. The history of prehistory, a science still in its infancy as it was said around 1860, ideally obeys this canon. Nevertheless, the term prehistory was considered vague and elastic. Since its inception, in fact, prehistory was a crossroads science, adopting an eclectic approach and claiming for itself the analytical tools of geology and linguistics, ethnography’s evolutionism and the patrimonial outlook of earlier antiquarians. We no longer remember prehistory’s vocation to cross disciplinary borders and to encompass different fields of study. Historians have too narrowly focused their researches on its archaeological dimension, forgetting (or rather censoring the fact) that the word prehistory, supposed to foster and express consensus, was originally contested. The word spread in the European languages since the 1840s. However, since established sciences claimed its object for themselves, competing and non–equivalent denominations were invoked against it during the 19th century: archaeo–geology, comparative ethnography, linguistic palaeontology, palaeoethnology, primitive anthropology, palaetaphia ... . Thus, the identity problem was not solved during the foundational decades. Lexicography is a good indicator of these dissensions. It shows that sciences, in order to establish themselves, have to reshape taxonomies of knowledge, redefine accepted boundaries, and externally justify their right to exist.
5
100%
EN
This article spans the period from prehistoric times to the early Middle Ages. It presents the history of pre- and post- war history of research carried out on the territory of the present-day commune of Szadek, and a short review of the history of settlement in this region with a list of archaeological sites in the area. The earliest archaeological works were conducted there in the second half of the 19th century, when a cinerary-urn cemetery was found in the “Old Town” and amateur-archaeologists made discoveries in the neighbourhood of Piaski. A particularly interesting excavation site is in Przyrownica (Wola Łobudzka) with a Przeworsk culture cemetery, which was functioning for about 200 years.
EN
The first Affad was the one we saw when the archaeological sites there were first investigated at the beginning of the century. The second Affad, which is the region that we have been exploring in the past 15 years, bore many signs of modern Sudanese culture encroaching upon the desert. In 2009, an asphalt road cut through the desert and shortly thereafter, the Debba bridge and power lines were constructed, the latter coming from a hydroelectric power station on the Fourth Cataract. Affad 3.0 is what the location looks like today—extensive industrial-scale farms on terraces too far away for traditional agriculture. The investment has already caused irreversible destruction to the archaeological heritage. Cattle+ in the title of this article refers to new data on large ruminants. The discovery of auroch remains and the Neolithic cattle data are both extremely important proxies for the adaptation strategies of people inhabiting the Southern Dongola Reach in prehistory.
XX
Presentation of history and development of ethnoarchaeology studies at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland.
EN
The article presents remarks on outdoor reconstructions of primeval and medieval bridge crossings in Central Europe on the example of the selected constructions with a wooden structure. The presented bridges were the subject of archaeological research on terrestrialised lake and river reservoirs or the subject of underwater prospection. Destruction or interruption of the existence of many bridge crossings were caused by great changes in the aquatic environment and hydrographic grid on almost all the greater and smaller rivers of the European Plain. Many bridges were irrevocably destroyed as a result of natural disasters and numerous military operations. The relics of the destroyed bridges were usually discovered in the form of the concentrated pile structures of the former load bearing structures and the debris of the constructions from the above-water elements. Repeatedly in the concentration of these structures multi-phase bridges were hidden, which were always constructed in the same place, and many times rebuilt and repaired. In this case, both chronological and structural classifications of the pile structures were essential for the outdoor reconstruction. Over the past decades these reconstructions could be conducted due to dendrochronological analysis; however, on many bridge crossings, mainly young timber with a small number of annual growth rings was utilised, and it was sometimes impossible to determine the type of bridge constructions as well as the number of phases of their existence. Firstly the article presents the production of primeval bridges, by showing the bridge leading to the gate of the defensive settlement of the Lusatian culture from the 8th century BC (747-722 and 738-737 BC) in Biskupin on Kujawy in Poland. The next construction considered is a Celtic bridge from Cornaux-Les Sauges in Switzerland, which erstwhile connected the banks of the river Zihl. It was discovered during the so-called two water corrections in the Swiss Jura Mountains, which included three lakes: Lac de Neuchâtel, Lac de Bienne and Lac de Morat, together with the rivers flowing among them. Lowering of the water level by several metres and widening of the river bed and canals not only led to the transfiguration of the local landscape but also to the discovery of many new archaeological sites, among others 15 bridge crossings, from Neolithic to Roman constructions. The relics of the bridge from Cornaux-Les Sauges, from 120-115 BC, are displayed in Laténium, in an archaeological park in Hauterive on the shore of Lake Neuchâtel, in the form of the reconstructed section of this construction in the background of the small part of the river. It was diffi cult to create an artificial river current for the original 90-metre length of the bridge. In the further part of the article outdoor reconstructions of medieval bridges are presented. One of the examples of such old artefacts is a full-size 100m long bridge in Gross Raden (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), built in a simple pile-yoke construction, from two piles and two diagonal braces. It existed here from the end of the 9th till the beginning of the 11th century. Originally this bridge connected the island gord with the opposite shore of the lake, where a fortified craft settlement was located. The second shorter bridge of 10 m was located on a fosse which separated the craft settlement from the remaining part of a peninsula. Next, a much smaller bridge was built in the reconstruction of the gord in Kalisz-Zawodzie, built in the 9th century and utilised till the beginning of the 13th century. A minor bridge also built in a simple pile-yoke construction with two piles and two diagonal braces, over the fosse, led in a mild arch to the gate of the gord. A bridge crossing between Rapperswil and Hurden in Switzerland, in the smaller part of the Zurich lake called Obersee, is the biggest medieval bridge reconstruction in Central Europe. The bridge, erected in the years 1358-1360, originally had an impressive length of 1450m. In the first phase of its functioning it had a simple double pile load bearing structure, replaced with a three-pile construction in the beginning of the 19th century. A dyke built nearby in 1878, ended its existence after over 500 years. In 2001 a replica of this bridge, shortened however by almost 600 metres, was created, and intended exclusively for pedestrians and cyclists. Discussion on outdoor reconstructions of bridges should also include a large-size construction of the bridge-like port pier in Haithabu, a great Viking centre which existed in this place from the 8th till the middle of the 11th century, and which was located near Schleswig, Schleswig-Holstein Land. Its construction dated 885/886, is entirely based on archaeological sources which come from caisson surveys conducted at the bottom of the river Schlei. Its load bearing structure constituted oaken piles, of which 5-6 put transversally to the longitudinal axis of the pier, created multi-pile yokes analogically to the bridge constructions. In the process of the drainage of the expansive complex of meadows of the drained lake near Ravning Enge in Denmark, the relics of a bridge with the original length of 760 m and 5m width were discovered. The construction consisted of fourpile, row yokes supported by two diagonal struts. The bridge was erected at the turn of 979/980. In the area of the two abutments of this crossing, fragments of four spans, covered in part by the bridge deck, were reconstructed. Despite the absence of the water level, these parts of the bridge can be clearly presented against the background of the expansive meadows. The occasional replica of the part of Władysław Jagiełło bridge in Czerwińsk from 1410, built before the Battle of Grunwald with the Teutonic Order for the crossing of the Polish troops across the Vistula river, is also worth mentioning. Due to the impossibility to build a full-size reconstruction across the navigable Vistula river, this part was placed at the river bank and its old structure was reconstructed on flat-bottomed boats, where two parts of the bridge deck were placed. The final part of the article includes the remarks concerning the potential reconstruction possibilities of interesting bridge structures in Poland and the Czech Republic, whose relics were discovered during long-time excavation works. They include two bridges on Ostrów Lednicki, of a total length of 600 metres, built at the turn of the 10th and 11th century to the island gord, the residence of the first Piasts. These bridges with a beam, three- and four-pile load bearing structure, which are evidence of the independent technical thought of Slavs, without any similar analogies in the then non-Slavic countries, undoubtedly deserve a fragmentary or maybe even full outdoor reconstruction. It would constitute one of the dominating exposition highlights in the Museum of the First Piasts at Lednica. In the Czech Republic, the Museum of the Great Moravia in Mikulčice faces a similar challenge. Between several parts of this great settlement from the 9th century, where the relics of the 12 late churches of Great Moravia were discovered and are exposed, 3 bridge crossings with a row yoke construction were also documented in archaeological research. Reconstruction of these bridges, or at least of one of them, would undoubtedly enrich the cultural landscape of this great archaeological reserve.
PL
The study of ethnicity is an exceptionally controversial subject in current archaeologicalinvestigations. This issue has also frequently appeared in polish prehistoric literaturefrom the very beginning of archaeology till the present. The problem is that archaeologyin Poland is still under strong influence from a conservative, culture-historical paradigm.This methodological approach leads to the desire to make simple connections betweenmaterial remains, discovered by archaeologists, with specific categories of ethnicity. If weadd to this various efforts to use archaeology in the legitimation of modern ethnic andnational claims, we can imagine how complicated these sorts of studies can become.The main aim of this paper is to show the history of investigations set to define theethnic character of the people who inhabited polish lands in prehistory. The author willfocus especially on the area of East Pomerania during the Late Bronze Age and Early IronAge due to the live discussions among scholars concerning the ethnic origin of societiesfrom that area. At the end of this article a new perspective in research into ethnicity will beoutlined with special attention to the need for an interdisciplinary approach to this topic.
EN
Coins are not only a means of payment, but also a means of cultural communication. Both their obverses and reverses contain epigraphic and iconographic elements that together create an image. Among the iconographic elements, there are motifs understood as a repeating decorative element, but also as an expression of a certain type of idea. Archaeological motifs reflect their form of archaeological monuments or their elements, while their subject matter commemorates not only the monument itself, but also various related aspects researched by archaeologists. The aim of the considerations was to examine the numismatic form of commemorating archaeological heritage. The presented prehistoric and early medieval motifs appearing on European coins in the years 1992–2022 were first analyzed in terms of the form of their depiction on coins, then the archaeological themes with which these motifs are connectedwere taken into account, and on this basis axiological considerations were possible, aimed at answering the question – why a given motif was placed on the coin.
EN
A complex view of the prehistory in southern Jordan emerges from the excavations of the Jagiellonian University team, which carried out in 2018 its second season of fieldwork at the sites of Munqata’a and Faysaliyya, even as analyses of finds from the previous season were underway. Human communities living here in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age practiced both sedentary and mobile lifestyles. The changing landscape around them, caused by natural erosion processes and periodical climate change, is also taken into consideration while interpreting the explored relics.
EN
Science popularization books, La Terre avant le déluge by Louis Figuier and L’Univers: les infiniment grands et les infiniment petits by Félix-Archimède Pouchet, represent the success of science popularization publishing of this period and the desire to spread naturalistic knowledge far and wide. With a spiritual approach to nature, they underline the important epistemological stakes of this period. The aim of this study is to question the literary, stylistic and formal strategies to assert or underline thoughts on nature in these books.
Organon
|
2018
|
vol. 50
19-43
EN
Discovered in August 1922 by the Count of Saint–Périer and given to the laboratory of Pale- ontology in the National Museum of Natural History of Paris a few months later, the Venus of Lespugue can be seen as a major Palaeolithic work. A lot of theories have tried to explain its meaning and function in Palaeolithic society, but its biography within the museum still remained to be done. This biography will help to examine the situation of the whole of Prehistory within the National Museum of Natural History, to understand the evolution of this institution during the last century, and to reevaluate the rank of masterpiece that has been attributed to the Venus in the new Musée de l’Homme
EN
The aim of the paper is to present the results of a typological and chronological analysis of movable finds obtained during excavations at site no. 20 in Przemyśl in the years 2005–2007. The site covers the area located directly on the west side of the cathedral church, around the building of the former Cathedral School at the Cathedral Square. Due to the location of the site on the eastern side of the castle hill in the vicinity of the Romanesque rotunda of St. nicholas, this site is an important research point with reference to Przemyśl. The remains of intensive open settlement were exposed at this site in the form of residential and utility features in two phases: 1. Roman influence (phase B2–C2) and 2. early Middle Ages (between the second half of the 10th or the beginning of the 11th and the end of the 12th century). The immovable features together with the initial report were published after the completion of the research in 2006 and 2007. It was noted that after using the open settlement, an earth rampart was built here, in which six subsequent phases were distinguished. The early Middle Ages ceramic material was the only type of artefacts that were discovered in the subsequent six phases of the earth rampart. On the basis of some characteristics – technology, ornamentation or rim shapes, an attempt was made to determine the chronology of piling up successive layers of the rampart. The material in all layers is similar and it can be dated to the 11th–13th century. Therefore, the rampart was probably created from the end of the 12th or 13th century. A large collection of Modern period pottery sherds was obtained from the mound of the youngest 6th phase of the rampart, which was established as the period from the end of the 16th to the 1st half of the 17th century.
EN
Plant remains collected on the multicultural archaeological site 2 at Zagórze, originated from features of the Linear Pottery, Lengyel and Malice Cultures dated to the Neolithic, the Lusatian Culture from the III or IV period of the Bronze Age, the Tyniec Culture from the La Tène period, and the Puchov Culture from the Roman period. For several features chronology and/or culture were not recognized. The recovered material included charred and uncharred fruits/seeds, wood charcoal and rare impressions in daub. Uncharred diaspores were considered intrusions from younger layers and were ignored in the interpretation of the results. The results obtained for features from different time were of uneven value. Plant remains found in the Linear Pottery culture features included single grains of barley, emmer wheat, bread wheat, and rye and numerous grains of common millet. Wild herbs (about 17 species) belonged to field and ruderal weeds. Anthracological spectrum was dominated by oak and pine, birch, alder, and hazel were relatively frequent, while hornbeam, fir, beech and maple were represented by single specimens. Possible contamination of the samples by the younger intrusions including bread wheat, rye, and common millet as well as hornbeam and beech was discussed. Plant material recovered from features of the early phase of the Lusatian culture dated to the Bronze Age (Table 5) was of special interest because hitherto only very scanty archaeobotanical data were available for that period in Poland. Among the cereals, common millet grains were the most abundant, single grains belonged to barley, emmer and bread wheat. Millet was often found in large quantities on the Lusatian culture sites dated to the Hallstatt period, the now available data support the view that the spread of millet cultivation began already in the Bronze Age and this species became one of the most important cereals at the transition to the Iron Age. The richest plant material was found in the Puchov culture features dated to the Roman Period. People of this culture cultivated different cereals, among which millet and emmer were the most common, less abundant were barley, rye, bread wheat, oat, and spelt wheat.
EN
The research team sought to develop learning media of Indonesian history based on the historical reproduction of replicas of historical heritage objects and electronic pen (e-pen) maps. In general, the objective of this research is to develop and produce learning media of Indonesian history to raise students’ historical consciousness. An instructional media company, “Pudak Scientific,” is involved in aiding in developing and producing history learning media. A multi-year research and development approach was adopted, in which the first year focused on developing the model/prototype of the learning media in question, whereas the second year was concerned with building the product prototypes, production trials and field validation in high school. The learning media under development is in the form of i) replicas of historical objects in prehistoric era, ii) replicas of historical objects during the Hindu Buddhist era, iii) replicas of historical objects during the Islamic Empire, and e-pen maps of three historical periods of Indonesia. Replicas and e-pen maps serve as a medium to assist students in raising their historical consciousness.
Organon
|
2018
|
vol. 50
67-100
EN
Based on a case study, this paper aims to examine the scientific, industrial and political interests that intertwine at the 1878 Paris World’s Fair. We will focus on a graphic composition that was elaborated from various copies of rock art presented in several pavilions of the Exhibition and published by a science magazine. This figure was composed to compare the artistic capacities of European prehistoric and African contemporary primitives, all belonging, in the dis- course of the French anthropologists, to the same race. The article considers the construction of anthropology in public space as a science claiming to be capable of analysing racial relationships in their environment and therefore capable of scientifically directing the French colonial project.
Organon
|
2017
|
vol. 49
265-280
EN
The first research on Prehistory in Alsace took place in 1865 in Haut–Rhin, in the foothold of a naturalistic society founded in 1859 in Colmar. Collections of stone tools and fossil bones attributed to prehistoric times, were built from this period, in a way inspired by the discoveries made in France and Belgium. After these early beginnings, the four changes of nationality that took place in Alsace between 1870 and 1945 led to deep changes in the life of scientific societies and museums. Nevertheless, prehistoric research has continued in this region despite these constraints. Researchers like Paul Wernert took advantage of this situation by establishing the link in their work between the French and German traditions.
EN
The ways of interpreting prehistoric burial grounds were modified several times within last decades. However, still dominant is the approach in which the most important is to document well, to systemize and to specify grave findings. The present paper considers the researches emphasizing the space relations in the burial ground area as well as the interrelations between ritual structures situated there. The grounds, in historical depiction, were analysed on the basis of the following methods: cultural evolutionism, positivism, structuralism, and also hermeneutics and phenomenology. Gradually, the attention was paid to the new research problems: distances between graves, directions of the burial grounds’ development, establishing their inner and outer boundaries, settlement of ritual structures (hearths, funeral pyres, concentration of pottery and stones) and the tradition of using the space of burial grounds in later historical periods. The conclusions presented in the paper show that the biography of archaeological structures, such as burial grounds, is initiated in primeval history but is completed by other generations of observers and researchers of those relics. Their space „text” is unceasingly read and interpreted.
PL
W obrębie Mazowsza północno-wschodniego występuje szereg mniejszych regionów geograficznych, wśród których Równina Kurpiowska posiada swoją istotną specyfikę. Od paleolitu aż po czasy wczesnego średniowiecza stanowiła dogodny szlak przemieszczania się grup ludności. Większość wędrowców nie pozostawała na tym obszarze dłużej. Z uwagi na bardzo nieatrakcyjne warunki glebowe puszcza traktowana była jako obszar eksploatacji czasowej lub sezonowej. Dolinami rzek na obszar ten zapuszczali się przedstawiciele kolejnych kultur archeologicznych z południa i północy, w poszukiwaniu dogodniejszych ekumen, ewentualnie zapuszczając się na teren puszczy w celach handlowych. Jedynie w epoce kamienia na obszarze Równiny Kurpiowskiej permanentnie gospodarowały grupy ludzkie zajmujące się łowiectwem, zbieractwem i rybołówstwem. W okresach związanych z gospodarką wytwórczą: rolnictwem i hodowlą teren ten był rejonem ścierania wpływów kulturowych, idących z różnych kierunków. To spowodowało, że na obszarze pierwotnej Puszczy Kurpiowskiej rytm rozwojowy nie odpowiadał przemianom na ziemiach sąsiednich. Model gospodarki wypracowany przez łowców, zbieraczy schyłku środkowej epoki kamienia, z niewielkimi modyfikacjami przetrwał do czasów niemal nam współczesnych. Dopiero działania administracyjne, odlesienia, wypalanie dolin rzecznych ograniczały stopniowo zasięg Puszczy Kurpiowskiej i wprowadzały nowy typ gospodarowania. Nie dochodziło jednak do pełnej akulturacji mieszkańców mateczników puszczańskich. Może to być jednym z elementów poczucia odrębności i dumy z własnej przeszłości dzisiejszych mieszkańców puszczy – Kurpiów.
EN
The Kurpie Plain has its own specific physiographic characteristics. From the Paleolithic to the early Middle Ages, it was a convenient route to move groups of people, both in the north-south and east-west direction. Due to the very unattractive soil conditions, the forest was treated as a temporary or seasonal exploitation area. The territory of the Kurpie Plain, originally formed as a result of the Riss Glaciation (Warta Stadial) and transformed during the Baltic glaciation through the formation of a large sandur area with elements of earlier moraine. The oldest sites in Puszcza Kurpiowska can be certainly attributed only to the second half of Dryas III and the beginning of the pre-Boreal period (11th/10th millennium BC). Looking at the entire prehistoric period of inhabiting the human community in Puszcza Kurpiowska, I come to the conclusion that the model of economy developed by the hunters and gatherers of the end of the Middle Stone Age, however shockingly it sounds, with minor modifications survived until almost contemporary times.
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.