What kind of archaeology do we need?

Od vremena konstituisanja arheologije kao akademske discipline do danas, dogodile su se dve radikalne revizije teorijskih polazišta, ciljeva, metoda, odnosa prema drugim poljima istraživanja. Međutim, potencijalno dalekosežne posledice ovih dubokih preispitivanja nisu imale jednakog odjeka u svim akademskim sredinama. Kritičko preispitivanje epistemoloških osnova arheologije u Srbiji ukazuje da je naša profesionalna zajednica u velikoj meri ostala rezistentna na promene paradigme u širem disciplinarnom okruženju, te još uvek preovlađuje kulturno-istorijski pristup, prvi put podvrgnut temeljnoj kritici još sredinom XX veka. Hvatanje u koštac sa ovim značajnim zakašnjenjem otvara mnoga ozbiljna pitanja, počevši od selekcije između različitih, ponekad međusobno suprotstavljenih teorijskih stanovišta koja su već decenijama deo arheološkog istraživanja i sa sobom nose određene konsekvence u pogledu metodoloških i metodskih aspekata discipline. Parcijalno, nekritičko i nedovoljno teorijski utemeljeno preuzimanje pojedinih elemenata istraživanja može dovesti do jednako loših rezultata kao i potpuno zatvaranje za uticaje iz drugih arheoloških sredina. Stoga je nužno u disciplinu uvesti svest o društvenoj odgovornosti arheologa, značaju akademskih narativa koje proizvodimo i načinima njihovog stvaranja. Ovaj zadatak neminovno počinje već tokom osnovnog akademskog obrazovanja, ali uključuje i pitanje različitih odnosa prema široj društvenoj zajednici.From the time of the constitution of archaeology as an academic discipline to the present, two radical changes have taken place of theoretical postulates, aims, methods, relationships with other disciplines. However, potentially far reaching consequences of these fundamental changes have not had the same impact in all the academic communities. The critical assessment of the epistemological foundations of archaeology in Serbia indicates that our professional community has remained resistant to the large extent to the paradigm changes in the wider disciplinary surrounding, so the culture-historical approach still prevails, even though it was severely criticized as early as by the middle of the 20th century. Facing this significant delay raises many important questions, starting by the issue of selection among various, sometimes mutually conflicting theoretical approaches, being a part of archaeological research for several decades and implying certain consequences in terms of methodological aspects of the discipline. Partial, non-critical and insufficiently theoretically informed borrowing of individual elements of research may lead to equally bad results as the total rejection of influences from other archaeological environments. It is therefore necessary to bring into the discipline the comprehension of the social responsibility of archaeologists, the importance of the academic narratives we produce and the ways of their creation