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

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 2 Archeologia Polski

Years help

  1. 2 2008

Authors help

  1. 1 Dulinicz M.

  2. 1 Tabaczynski S.

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  ETHNOGENESIS OF SLAVS
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

SEMINAR OF ETHNOGENESIS OF THE SLAVS - INSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONS (Seminarium na temat etnogenezy Slowian - Podsumowanie)

100%
Tabaczynski S.
Archeologia Polski
|
2008
|
vol. 53
|
issue 1
101-107
EN
The research on the ethnogenetic processes is still an unresolved problem. Direct observation of objects and phenomena, the unity of time and place, the vicinity of form and secondary features of the recovered material are treated as credible indicators of the community. Such a community could be formed and endured only in the conditions of stable contacts of a communicative character. L. Zabrocki (1963) believed that this concept could act as a bridge between linguistic and historical sciences. M. Parczewski is trying to include it in discussions connected with the ethnic interpretation of archaeological cultures. 1.- The realization of this postulate is problematic. An obstacle consists in the complexity of the relationships between the populations distinguished on the basis of non-uniform and qualitatively different criteria. 2.- L. Leciejewicz doesn't see the need to revise the arguments for the autochthonist theory in the 1970s but it seems that such a need exists. 3.- In a new look at the genesis of early medieval ceramics, Z. Kurnatowska constates that many of settlements in the end of Antiquity from Great Poland and from southern Poland, did not decline suddenly: they still existed till the end of the 5th c., and, may be, continued in the next century. The 'craftsmen-made' ceramics seem to be element of continuity between the Late Antiquity and early Middle Ages. 4.- W. Szymanski gave attention to three fortified settlements in the territory of the East and West Slavs, from the 6th-7th c., connected with the southern territories. One question is whether the preference of hills chosen as places for defense organization at the beginnings of the Middle Ages was the Slavs' traditional manner of proceeding, or, it can be treated as their elastic adapting to a concrete situation existing in the new occupied territories? 5.- J. Nalepa (2007) challenges the scientific basis of the concept of K. Godlowski and M. Parczewski concerning the ancient settlements of the Slavs. He accuses these archaeologists of a 'dismissive, careless treatment of historical written sources and an ignorance of the methods of the scientific analysis, evaluation of their worth and the establishment of facts by their confrontation with other relevant sources of information'. A separate problem is the essence of Slavdom. This comprises primitivism: hand-made pottery, without decoration, is 'Slavic' whereas that more advanced technologically would be of alien origin (Cracow school opinion). This type of reductionist approach borders on the absurd. Could it be that the coincidence of our seminar with the publication in 'Slavia Antiqua', for long associated with Prof. W. Hensel, articles of similar approach - those of J. Nalepa (2007), H. Mamzer (1999), P. Barford (2003), T. Makiewicz (2005) and J. Piontek (2006) - can be seen as a turning point? Perhaps we will see now the beginning of a period of rational progress in the field of investigation concerning the origins of the Slavs, based on clearly defined methodological principles and free from emotion and ideological pressure.
2

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND SLAV ETHNOGENESIS (Antropologia fizyczna, archeologia, etnogeneza Slowian)

80%
Dulinicz M.
Archeologia Polski
|
2008
|
vol. 53
|
issue 1
111-134
EN
Recently published works by the Poznan anthropologists J. Piontek (2006) and R. Dabrowski (2007) have provoked archaeologist to join the debate on the potential of anthropological research for studies on the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. As an archaeologist the author finds it of foremost importance that anthropology 'verifies or falsifies hypotheses and theories formulated by other disciplines (of science)', that is, archaeology included. Since the history of different human groups, including the biological diversity of different populations, can be studied based on a differentiated set of skull morphological traits, one cannot but hope for the opportunity to verify the 'allochthonous' theory of Slav origin. Janusz Piontek has written that 'the archaeologists' visions of the process of Slav ethnogenesis are but one of several propositions competing with ideas either suggested or put forward by representatives of various other disciplines of general anthropology'. Assuming the same concerns physical anthropology, one should ask a number of questions and voice certain doubts formed after a careful perusal of the works of the above mentioned scholars. Results presented by J. Piontek are inspiring, but leave the field open to further questions. Why the small biological distance between people buried in the 13th century in Norwegian Bergen and those laid to rest in graves in Kolobrzeg from the 14th through the 18th century? Why is the 'Cedynia II' population closer to the 'Przeworsk culture' group than to 'Cedynia I' population, which comprises a series of skulls from an adjacent part of the same cemetery? Is it not because the comparison is partly based on the 'Przeworsk culture series' consisting of just nine skulls? Why is the 'Cherniakhov culture' population so similar to the 'Konskie' group, that is, individuals buried in inhumation graves of the 10th and 11th century in central Poland? The two populations are separated not only by thousands of kilometers, but also by six or seven hundred years in time! The reservations formulated above justify a basic question: is the method applied by J. Piontek actually capable of demonstrating real genetic ties between populations or is the effect of this proceeding merely a determination of morphological resemblance without the possibility of explaining the reasons behind it? The method presented by J. Piontek and R. Dabrowski demonstrate a big potential in studies of prehistoric populations. The determinations of both researchers, well grounded in anthropological material, are their important contribution to a discussion of the biological picture of Polish territories in the past. Nonetheless, a prerequisite of this kind of research is a close association between the physical anthropologist and archaeologist. Otherwise, it leads to interesting results, but worse than potentially possible. The hazards are well reflected by R. Dabrowski's study, where no such collaboration can be observed. Moreover, the limitations in the application of the demographic method to investigations of fossil sources, discussed several years back by E. Piasecki (1990), should also become a field of discussion for archaeologists, anthropologists and demography experts alike.
first rewind previous Page / 1 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.