Archaeology has traditionally been perceived as a historical discipline. This view still continues to be held particularly by researchers in Central and Eastern Europe. It would generally seem to be a valid statement. Archaeology creates, along with history, an optimal conjunction although history is in comparison with archaeology limited by the scope of written and other “narrative” records. The primary limitation of history is implied by the period when the written sources begin. This is too late in fact to intercept the basal processes in human development. Such an operational field could only be made in discourse on current archaeology, the space and time depth of which is practically unlimited. Its constraints actually reside in something else. The traditional layout of archaeology deals with artefactual structures which usually reflect human behaviour in space and are ordered in time. Such an approach is extremely persistent among archaeologists with a traditional Central European education. In such a concept, archaeology plays a supporting role despite the fact that the publication of any archaeological field research needs at present a broader association with a series of proper analytical methods.