‘Lepenski Vir – Schela Cladovei Culture’, a Paradigm Paralysis?

185

AURELIAN RUSU

‘Lepenski Vir – Schela Cladovei Culture’, a Paradigm Paralysis?

Keywords: Lepenski Vir – Schela Cladovei Culture, archaeological paradigm, archaeological interpretation, archaeological process, Mesolithic

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Harald Floss and Raiko Krauss for their invitation to participate in WKH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO :RUNVKRS Ȇ6RXWKHDVW (XURSH before Neolithisation’ within the Collaborative Research Centre SFB 1070 ResourceCultures organised by the Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters at Schloss Hohentübingen, Tübingen, where a version of this SDSHUZDVSUHVHQWHG'UDJRŊ'LDFRQHVFXIRUUHFommending me to Raiko Krauss; John Chapman for his critique on a preliminary draft of this paper; Uwe Müller for text correction.

Abstract This paper examines the state of the archaeologiFDOSDUDGLJPȆ/HSHQVNL9LUȂ6FKHOD&ODGRYHL&XOWXUHȇXVLQJDȆ.XKQLDQȇIUDPHZRUN,WIROORZVWKH process of archaeological discoveries of human rePDLQVLQWKHJHRJUDSKLFDOUHJLRQQRZFDOOHGȆ,URQ

*DWHVȇDWWKH'DQXEH5LYHULQ(XURSHWKHȴUVWDUchaeological interpretations of those discoveries and the archaeological re/actions that followed XSWRWKHSUHVHQWVWDWHRIUHVHDUFK7KLVȆSDUDGLJPȇ Ȇ/HSHQVNL9LUȂ6FKHOD&ODGRYHL&XOWXUHȇLVYLHZHG E\WKHDXWKRUDVDȆWRROȇLQXQGHUVWDQGLQJWKHKXman past. Therefore this paper focuses on the TXHVWLRQZKHWKHUWKLVȆWRROȇKDVUHDFKHGWKHSRLQW where it can be called a paradigm and as such be useful for further archaeological research of other ȆQHZSDUDGLJPDWLFDUFKDHRORJLFDOKRUL]RQVȇRULILW is still in the process of becoming one.

Research on the Archaeological Record of ‘Lepenski Vir-Schela Cladovei Culture’ The remains of Lepenski Vir – Schela Cladovei Culture’s give the impression that something is missing, or more precisely that something is being missed. This prompted the implied question in the title of this paper. It is not meant as a rhetorical DUWLȴFHLQRUGHUWRNHHSWKHUHDGHULQWHUHVWHGEXW instead it is just a more accurate expression of one researcher’s line of thought after he went through the published archaeological record. There is a VHQVHRILQGHȴQDEOH

186

Aurelian Rusu

7RXQGHUVWDQGDQGFODULI\WKHȆ/HSHQVNL9LUȂ Schela Cladovei Culture’s’ published archaeological record I found it necessary to study the work of Thomas S. Kuhn (1996), which proved to be very useful. Thus, his definition of paradigms being ȆXQLYHUVDOO\ UHFRJQLVHG VFLHQWLILF DFKLHYHPHQWV that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners’ (Kuhn 1996, X) will be the guiding line for my endeavour. Applying this perspective, a clear question cannot be stated. Because the paralysis is not within a paradigm as it is with the archaeological published record (and the archaeologists who handle it) that FRXOGIRUPWKHȆ/HSHQVNL9LUȂ6FKHOD&ODGRYHL&XOture’ paradigm.

‘Lepenski Vir – Schela Cladovei Culture’ ,XVHWKHWHUPȆ/HSHQVNL9LUȂ6FKHOD&ODGRYHLFXOWXUHȇEHFDXVHVFLHQWLȴFDOO\WKLVLVWKHRUGHURIDSpearance in archaeology of the two parts that conVWLWXWHLW/HSHQVNL9LU&XOWXUH6UHMRYLÉ DQG 6FKHOD&ODGRYHL&XOWXUH%RURQHDQͿ HDFKRI them coined after eponymous sites that were excavated by the researchers quoted respectively. And also, to stress the fact that each one of them was used to refer to certain discoveries, which in fact ZHUHSDUWVRIWKHVDPHȆSDUDGLJPȇ7KDWLVDQDUchaeological interpretation of material and spiritual manifestations of some human groups (17 sites located so far) in a certain chronological period (c. 9500 – c. 6000 calBC), in a certain environment – in this case what is known today as the Danube’s Iron Gates area/region. As with any terminology, the one is being used for this paper is an entirely arbitrary choice of words, which are supported historiographically. And this should matter most, while addressing knowledge about the past. If indeed the terminology is misleading, then of course, this fact should be addressed and improved. However, as curUHQWO\ȆIDUPHUVȇLVXVHGVRIUHHO\LQDUFKDHRORJ\WR label people from Neolithic times, perhaps using Ȇ/HSHQVNL9LUȂ6FKHOD&ODGRYHL&XOWXUHȇLVQRWWKDW altogether incorrect or misguiding. Especially if one understands this label to be just what it is – a name for archaeological discoveries, made when they were made and done by the archaeologists

who made them, and who choose a form of labelling that was at hand to them at this point of time. Considering the time of the discoveries and their publications and the fact that this terminology – whether Lepenski Vir Culture, Schela Cladovei Culture, Lepenski Vir – Schela Cladovei Culture or Schela Cladovei – Lepenski Vir Culture – found its way into archaeological records (has been used since then and is known for what it stands for) then it is just convenient for future researchers to continue to use it. In fact, following the arguments above, out of the list of suggestions: Lepenski Vir Culture, Schela Cladovei Culture, Lepenski Vir – Schela Cladovei Culture, Schela Cladovei – Lepenski Vir Culture, Iron Gates MesoOLWKLFRU9ODVDFȂ6FKHOD&ODGRYHL&XOWXUH6UHMRYLÉ DE%RURQHDQͿ 5DGRYDQRYLÉ  %RULÉ HW DO   Ȇ/HSHQVNL Vir – Schela Cladovei Culture’ is the most correct one. Considering archaeological and historiographic factors that stand behind a semantic construction in archaeology, this should be the one most accurate.

Its Paradigmatic Formation $V ZLWK DQ\ FRQFHSWXDOLVDWLRQ DW ȴUVW WKHUH LV D stage that can be called pre-paradigm. For the archaeological culture in case, this would have to do with the researchers who excavated its sites. And as such, with the schools of archaeology that each of them where formed at, as well as their own type of specialisation in archaeology. The importance of this is found in the way they carried out their excavations and the way that they were prepared to perceive the discoveries that they were to uncover. ,WLVZHOONQRZQWKDWWKHUHVHDUFKHUVZHUH