The history of Pacific archaeology: a case of geographic zoning

The article focusses on various research approaches to the analysis, structuring, and generalization of data on the history of Pacific archaeology, including chronological, problem-thematic, national, and geographical approaches. These approaches are not fundamentally different, but rather interconnected in the research process and represent different perspectives on the subject. It is argued that the history of archaeology, in general, and the history of Pacific archaeology, specifically, are elements of "collective scientific memory" and can be effectively studied by archaeologists alone. Special attention is given to the potential of the geographical approach, which involves dividing the Pacific basin into ten zones with conventional boundaries based on established historical tradition. This division allows for internal subdivisions and flexibility, and considering future research possibilities. In addition, the level of knowledge (competence) and the availability and lack of a sufficient number of publications in Russian media dealing with the history of archaeological research in that area is determinedfor each designated zone. As a result, it has been indicated that, on the one hand, a clear narrative on the history of Pacific archaeology has been developed in Russian literature (North Pacific, Far East, Southeast Asia, Mesoamerica, and South America). On the other hand, there are many "white spots" on the vast territories of the Pacific (Oceania, Australia and New Zealand, Northwest Coast, and California), where scholars have only a general understanding of the chronology of events and materials, but not of the history or circumstances of their discoveries, the personalities involved, scientific institutions, and the features of organization of research. Options such as thematic projects, analytical reviews, dissertation research, and student specialization can be used to address this issue.