The Department of Historiography, Source Studies, and Archaeology: The History of Self-Reflection

Abstract

The paper discusses the study of the history of the Department of Historiography, Source Studies, and Archaeology of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, established in 1964 as the first department of this kind in Ukraine. Particular attention is given to historiographical reflection, in such forms as specialized articles, bio-bibliographic indexes, memoirs, and biographical works about members of the department. The initial stage of reflection was associated with the name of Yu. Yo. Zhuravsky, who in the 1970s to early 1990, together with colleagues in the department and in other subdivisions of the Faculty of History, pioneered research on the past of historical education and scholarship at the university. The late 1980s saw the appearance of the first bibliography of works by the teaching and research staff of the Department of Historiography, Source Studies, and Archaeology. Since then, such publications have become a regular occurrence. To mark the 60th anniversary of the department, a book-length bibliography was produced covering the period from 2004 to 2024. Together, these bibliographic studies form a database that makes it possible to analyze certain quantitative indicators and thematic range of research, and to identify network connections. Even a cursory overview of the existing bibliographic indexes shows the high productivity of the department. The paper also touches on memoirs and biographical works about professors of the department. All these texts, diverse as they are in focus and genre, help both to trace a continuity of tradition and research practice and to register innovations, as well as to grasp the department’s distinctive creative spirit and understand the role of particular individuals in its formation. The periodization method helps detect trends in the evolution of the department. In particular, the author draws attention to 1978, the mid-1990s, and 2015, marking them as turning points in the history of the department. Concluding remarks express concern regarding the continuing erosion of disciplinary boundaries in historical scholarship and elimination of departmental specialization over the last decade. The author, however, finds hope in the recent emergence of certain positive trends.