This chapter provides an overview and interpretation of the intellectual activity of archaeology methodologists from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, mainly Arkadiusz Marciniak, Danuta Minta-Tworzowska, Michał Pawleta, and Włodzimierz Rączkowski. The idea they pursue is, in my opinion, a development of thought: from the object to thinking about the object, addressed both to archaeologists who are not convinced by the methodology and to representatives of archaeology practiced in the field of cultural studies, in order to ultimately define their contribution to integrated humanities. The presented overview has the form of a Bakhtinian polyphony of Poznań methodologists from the Adam Mickiewicz University, expressed in one voice. It is a voice merged from two different research approaches, both shaped by the Poznań School of Methodology of Jerzy Kmita, Leszek Nowak, and Jerzy Topolski. We are referring to natural science on the one hand, and the humanities on the other. It was on this basis that Professor Jan Żak created the methodological foundations of Poznań archaeology. After all, the research of the aforementioned methodologists is not so much about research methods as about the subject of archaeological research. The chosen research methods are a consequence of the specificity of the subject of research. If the focus of archaeological research is materiality, then it necessarily draws attention to the methods of natural science. However, if we ask about the subject of research, i.e., “what should we study?” and not just “how?”, it means that it is formulated on the basis of the archaeologist’s interpretation of the reality in which he himself functions “here and now”; it is cultural rather than natural science in nature, especially since the second part of the question, “how?”, is addressed to the community of archaeologists themselves functioning in the present. The present provides archaeology with conceptual frameworks that form the basis for interpreting the past. These determine the results of the research. Archaeology, in turn, communicates the results of its research to the contemporary cultural environment of which it is an emanation, confronting them with social expectations. Archaeology, therefore, not only co-creates the subject of its research, but also the reality surrounding it, in which it functions, and itself. In this way, the results of archaeological research provide the material for shaping contemporary culture, of which archaeology is also a part.

An Apologia of Methodology of Archaeology at Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Henryk Mamzer

摘要

This chapter provides an overview and interpretation of the intellectual activity of archaeology methodologists from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, mainly Arkadiusz Marciniak, Danuta Minta-Tworzowska, Michał Pawleta, and Włodzimierz Rączkowski. The idea they pursue is, in my opinion, a development of thought: from the object to thinking about the object, addressed both to archaeologists who are not convinced by the methodology and to representatives of archaeology practiced in the field of cultural studies, in order to ultimately define their contribution to integrated humanities. The presented overview has the form of a Bakhtinian polyphony of Poznań methodologists from the Adam Mickiewicz University, expressed in one voice. It is a voice merged from two different research approaches, both shaped by the Poznań School of Methodology of Jerzy Kmita, Leszek Nowak, and Jerzy Topolski. We are referring to natural science on the one hand, and the humanities on the other. It was on this basis that Professor Jan Żak created the methodological foundations of Poznań archaeology. After all, the research of the aforementioned methodologists is not so much about research methods as about the subject of archaeological research. The chosen research methods are a consequence of the specificity of the subject of research. If the focus of archaeological research is materiality, then it necessarily draws attention to the methods of natural science. However, if we ask about the subject of research, i.e., “what should we study?” and not just “how?”, it means that it is formulated on the basis of the archaeologist’s interpretation of the reality in which he himself functions “here and now”; it is cultural rather than natural science in nature, especially since the second part of the question, “how?”, is addressed to the community of archaeologists themselves functioning in the present. The present provides archaeology with conceptual frameworks that form the basis for interpreting the past. These determine the results of the research. Archaeology, in turn, communicates the results of its research to the contemporary cultural environment of which it is an emanation, confronting them with social expectations. Archaeology, therefore, not only co-creates the subject of its research, but also the reality surrounding it, in which it functions, and itself. In this way, the results of archaeological research provide the material for shaping contemporary culture, of which archaeology is also a part.