Полевые отчеты как источники информации об археологических памятниках Республики Калмыкия, исследованных в 1929–1991 гг.

Abstract

Introduction. A field report summarizing archaeological works — like findings proper — is a key source of information on conducted investigations. In the Soviet Union and present-day Russia, it has been common practice that findings be distributed among public museums or repositories affiliated to institutions in charge of those excavations, while field reports be obligatorily stored at scientific archives. Goals. The study attempts a comprehensive analysis of Kalmykia’s field reports (1929–1991) and shall thereto enumerate field reports and identify repositories they are stored at, assess their availability in scientific discourse and forecast further studies. Results. The work clarifies scientific archives of the Institute of History of Material Culture (RAS) and the Institute of Archaeology (RAS) contain a total of 76 such reports (1929–1991), while Kalmyk Scientific Center (RAS) houses 42 reports compiled in 1975–1991. The latter period witnessed deliveries of 59 reports to the Institute of Archaeology (RAS), i.e. KalmSC never received 17 reports at all. In terms of availability in scientific discourse, the field reports can be divided into two clusters: those of 1929–1976 were published almost completely, and those of 1977–1991 have been published in fragments only. However, a number of experts, such as P. Rykov, I. Sinitsyn, U. Erdniev, P. Koltsov, E. Shnaidshteyn, M. Ochir-Goryaeva, have published virtually all field survey-related documents of theirs from the period between 1929 and 1991. Conclusions. The conducted analysis shows that appropriate use of field reports for scholarly purposes requires that efforts aimed at investigating the latter be duly integrated: further research and publication endeavors can be planned only after one gathers complete data together. To facilitate this, it is urgent to gain copies of reports missing at KalmSC, and this shall be possible only after all the reports be made completely available. This shall prevent cases characterized by that — when it comes to compile a selection within one cultural-chronological group or some category of grave goods — individual parts of material simply make a ‘white spot’ resulting from unavailability of particular reports.