Archaeological Monuments Research Articles

Structural and Functional State of the Microbial Communities in the Ancient Soloids of Archaeological Monuments on the Russian Black Sea Coast

Structural and Functional State of the Microbial Communities in the Ancient Soloids of Archaeological Monuments on the Russian Black Sea Coast

NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE OF JIZZAK REGION AS DEVELOPMENT FACTORS OF ECOTOURISM

The cultural and natural resources of the regions are an important factor in the development of eco-tourism. In total, there are 427 cultural heritage sites in the Jizzakh region, of which 268 are archaeological monuments, 100 are architectural monuments, 59 are monuments of monumental art.

Ancient era archaeological monuments of Ganja about the research

Ancient era archaeological monuments of Ganja about the research

Геоархеология и археологическая минералогия «во всем пространстве сего слова»

The paper presents the information about the Annual All-Russian Conference with international participation named after Professor Victor V. Zaykov “Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Mineralogy”, which has been held since 2014 at the South Ural Federal Research Center of Mineralogy and Geoecology UB RAS in Miass, Chelyabinsk Region. The main topic of the Conference is devoted to the analysis of technologies and raw material base of ancient and medieval societies. The scientific reports consider the topical problems of geoarchaeology and archaeometry, the practice of applying mineralogical and geochemical research methods to study archaeological monuments and artifacts, GIS, analysis of the use of rocks and stone material processing techniques in ancient societies, key issues of analysis of ancient ceramics, archaeometallurgy and metal production. In recent years, one of the key areas of the Conference has been the study of migrations, individual mobility and the food system of ancient communities by analyzing the isotopic composition of C, N and Sr.

STONE CASTLES OF WESTERN UKRAINE:CONSTRUCTION AND THE CURRENT CONDITION

The article deals with defensive structures of only one type – stone castle complexes. The purpose of this study is to compile a list of stone castles that have survived to this day in whole or in ruins on the territory of Western Ukraine, to identify the geography of their distribution, and to highlight the main stages of their emergence. The timeframe of the study is limited to the 11th-17th centuries and is justified by the fact that the first stone castles appeared on the territory of Ukraine in the 11th century, and the 17th century was the final period of construction of defensive castle structures. During the research, it was determined that most defensive stone castles were built in the period from the middle of the 14th century to the middle of the 17th century. The peak of construction was the period from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. However, the real period of time for the construction of stone castles in the territory of Western Ukraine was the end of the 11th – end of the 17th century. To understand the general situation with the state of preservation of stone castles, we have developed a classification dividing them into three main groups: 1) Preserved castles, those that have preserved their integral volumetric-spatial appearance through the centuries. They are both defensive (castles in Lutsk, Uzhgorod) and palace-like (castles in Vyshnivtsi, Olytsia). They are adapted mainly for museum spaces and are actively visited by tourists. 2) Fragmentary preserved castles - this group includes castles from which only single structures have been preserved - towers, walls or buildings, which as of today have already been restored, preserved and adapted for certain functions (castles in Zvyagel, Halych, and Letychiv). 3) Castles in a state of ruin. The last group of objects, which is the largest in total, can be divided into three subgroups according to the degree of preservation: I. castles in a state of ruin, which have an integral closed contour of defensive walls, preserved individual buildings and structures in a state of ruin, foundations and individual sections of the walls of lost buildings and structures (examples are castles in the areas of Stare Selo, Pniv, Zolotyi Potik, etc;) II. castles in a state of ruin, where the perimeter of the defensive walls is torn, the foundations and individual sections of the walls of buildings and structures are preserved (examples are Kudryntsi, Sydoriv, Sataniv); III. castles in a state of ruin, represented only by small fragments of the complex, the rest of the castle is made up of archaeological remains (examples include Lviv, Taikury, Zhvanets, Halych, Chervonohrad, etc.); In a separate group, we distinguish castles that have been wiped off the face of the earth, which can be considered purely archaeological monuments (examples include Dunayiv, Kolomyia, Kukyziv, Sheshory, etc.). In this study, we deal with only 88 castles that have been recorded by research, reflected in publications, and have at least a partial inventory. In percentage terms, only a quarter of this number has a complete appearance and is fragmentarily restored, 1/8 is partially preserved, and more than half of the objects are in a state of ruin. Half of the castles-ruins are almost completely lost. For further research and preservation of stone castles in Ukraine, it is necessary to focus efforts on their complete inventory, development of programs for their conservation, and restoration. A prerequisite is the activity of state bodies to popularize castles as an important component of the national cultural heritage.

History of the study of archaeological monuments in the territory of Chovdar (Phase 1, 1903-1921)

History of the study of archaeological monuments in the territory of Chovdar (Phase 1, 1903-1921)

Archaeological monuments of Ancient Egypt in the collection of V. S. Golenishchev (based on the materials of card index)

This paper continues study of the unpublished archival material kept in the Department of Ancient Orient at the State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. The aim of this publication is to put into scientific use the provenance data written by Golenischeff’s hand on Egyptian objects from his own collection. In present paper we analyse the information from the so called ‘fichiers’ (cards) indicating the strict location, from which the object comes. The purchase of an object at some place did not mean, however, the same geographical provenience of an object. Sometimes Golenischeff indicates this provenance from dealers’s words. The cards also bear indirect references (Latin cf. and French à comparer — “to compare”) to many geographical locations, and to the publications of outstanding researchers of that time (W. M. Flinders Petrie, G. Quibell, E. Naville et al). Consequently, we may suppose the same provenance for these ‘compared’ (i. e. analogous) monuments. Occasionally the information about the purchases is combined with details about the dealers (legal antiquarians or illegal diggers). In this paper we also add the information from the Golenischeff’ notebooks kept in Paris and from the archaeological reports (one of them is a newly published material). A unique evidence gives us the inscriptions made by Golenischeff’ hand (in black ink or graphite pencil) on the surface of some ceramic. So far, we are aware of 8 such objects (in one case there is a paper sheet with an indication of geographical site).

ИСТОРИЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЧЕСКОГО ИЗУЧЕНИЯ ГОРОДИЩА ГУНДЕЛЕН-2

The article is about the history of the archaeological examination of the Gundelen-2 site. The monument is situated on a high rocky ledge on the right bank of the Gundelen river, a tributary of the Baksan river, between the settlements of Zayukovo and Kendelen. The fortified hamlet is situ-ated in an important and strategically beneficial location, from which the entire adjacent river val-ley and the entrance to the Baksan canyon are easily seen. The town is located on a rocky ledge that runs north-south and is made of sandstone rocks, with steep cliffs on three sides: the southern, eastern, and western. On the northern side, where there is no natural protection, the settlement is protected by a number of fortifications - two ditches and a pair of ramparts. The size of the set-tlement in the widest place reaches 70 meters, and in length 220 m. The Gundelen-2 settlement is part of an archaeological monument complex that includes the Zayukovo-3 burial site and the Gundelen-2 rock catacomb burial ground (Fig. 1). The complex has been known since the 30s. XX century and has been visited numerous times by researchers over the subsequent decades, but serious study of the monuments did not begin until the 10s. XXI cen-tury.

Grave from Nezabylice, Chomutov District. On the Phenomenon of Inhumation in Stage B1 of the Early Roman Period in Bohemia

The article describes the discovery of a skeletal grave in 2015 in Nezabylice (NW Bohemia, Chomutov district) at a cremation burial ground, which was dated to stage B1 of the early Roman period according to characteristic metal objects. Today, only four dozen similarly dated skeletal graves are registered in Bohemia, which, together with the early date of acquisition, makes them one of the rarest and most difficult to recognize archaeological monuments in this area. In the given situation, every recently researched skeleton grave from the early Roman period brings a wealth of new and important information about this distinctive phenomenon of burial rite among the Elbe-Germanic tribes.

Wybrane motywy archeologiczne z zakresu archeologii śródziemnomorskiej na monetach europejskich z lat 1990–2005

The role of coins is not limited only to a means of payment, but through the various iconographic and epigraphic contents they contain, coins are also a means of cultural communication. The obverse and reverse of coins are a specific form of image, which includes motifs understood as a repeating decorative element that is also a pattern or an iconographic element expressing specific symbolism and themes. Archaeological motifs reflect archaeological monuments or their elements, and their themes commemorate not only the monument itself, but also related aspects studied by archaeologists, e.g. the broadly understood context. The aim of the considerations was to examine the numismatic form of commemorating and popularizing archaeological heritage on the example of selected motifs referring to monuments of Mediterranean archeology appearing on European coins in the years 1990–2005. First, the motifs were analyzed in terms of the form of their depiction on coins, then the archaeological theme with which the motifs were connected was determined and, on its basis, axiological considerations were carried out, the aim of which was to learn a potential answer to the question – why a given motif was placed on a coin.

Wybrane motywy archeologiczne z zakresu pradziejów i wczesnego średniowiecza na monetach europejskich z lat 1992-2022

Coins are not only a means of payment, but also a means of cultural communication. Both their obverses and reverses contain epigraphic and iconographic elements that together create an image. Among the iconographic elements, there are motifs understood as a repeating decorative element, but also as an expression of a certain type of idea. Archaeological motifs reflect their form of archaeological monuments or their elements, while their subject matter commemorates not only the monument itself, but also various related aspects researched by archaeologists. The aim of the considerations was to examine the numismatic form of commemorating archaeological heritage. The presented prehistoric and early medieval motifs appearing on European coins in the years 1992–2022 were first analyzed in terms of the form of their depiction on coins, then the archaeological themes with which these motifs are connected were taken into account, and on this basis axiological considerations were possible, aimed at answering the question – why a given motif was placed on the coin.

Spontaneous Hierotopia in Modern Myth-Making: The Case of Arkaim

The phenomenon of spontaneous hierotopia is considered as a process of spontaneous sacralization of places, which, according to the participants of this activity, have supernatural properties. Its development is conditioned, on the one hand, by the effect of the image of the sacred rooted in the cultural consciousness, on the other hand, by modern socio-cultural problems, in relation to which spontaneous hierotopia acts as a compensating factor. This phenomenon has insufficiently reflected positive potential embodied in a set of vital functions. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze the peculiarities of spontaneous hierotopia, which expresses the real needs of the subjects involved in this activity, who act outside the institutional systems, including confessional ones. Therefore, their cultural creation is characterized by eclecticism and bricolage way of creating sacred artefacts, which is typical for spontaneous myth — making in general.The autonomy and uncontrollability of this phenomenon to the generally accepted institutional systems generates a sharply critical reaction from secular (scientific) and religious (traditional-confessional) authorities. The analysis shows the lack of objectivity of such criticism: claims to the unscientific nature of spontaneous hierotopia are unfounded due to the fact that it is based on mythological imagination; the inconsistency with canonical attitudes is an irreversible consequence of personal and creative situational construction of sacred objects.Concretization of the peculiarities of spontaneous hierotopia, made on the example of the archeological monument Arkaim, allowed to reveal the main regularities of the process of spontaneous sacralization and to establish the urgency of the problems reflected in it. Specific features of the formation of sacralized loci are analyzed. The special atmosphere of tolerance, peacefulness and positive interaction inherent in such places due to the totality of their subjective and objective properties is characterized.

Trade and Export of Archaeological Cultural Goods: A Conflict of Ideas

Under Polish law objects that are archaeological cultural heritage discovered, accidentally found, or acquired as a result of archaeological research, are the property of the state. This is the situation of the original acquisition of the monument. As a further consequence, archaeological monuments are excluded from trade (becoming res extra commercium). Besides trade, the export of archaeological cultural goods is also highly problematic. In the case of permanent export of a monument abroad, the law imposes the obligation to obtain a permit for such permanent export, issued by the minister responsible for culture and the protection of national heritage. The regulation in Polish law makes it almost impossible for any archaeological cultural goods to be legally exported. The restricted freedom on the market of works of art and monuments in relation to archaeological finds, together with the limited options of mainly temporary export, have created high activity in the black market, calling for a change of approach of the national law towards archaeological heritage. This leads to the question: Should we introduce some legal changes in the ownership rights of archaeological heritage to bring it closer to people?

Археологічні пам’ятки Любеча

The archaeological heritage of Liubech (Lyubech, Chernihiv region, Ukraine) includes various monuments and objects from the Bronze Age to early Modernity (2000 BC – 17th century) with small time gaps. Archaeological surveys in Liubech began in the late 19th century and have continued until today with certain interruptions. Despite the close attention paid by scholars to the archaeological monuments of Liubech, it should be noted that the area of the city within its administrative boundaries (both the floodplain part of the Dnieper River and the densely developed part of the town) has not been sufficiently studied.

The role of communities in preserving, using and remembering heritage: archaeological monuments and dark heritage sites in Estonia

ABSTRACT This article deals with the question of how communities relate to their heritage in Estonia by focusing on four case studies, two of which represent archaeological sites and two dark heritage sites, and the respective communities involved with these places. The main objective is to understand the dynamics of how heritage communities preserve, use and remember their heritage. Another aim is to explore contemporary community-based and participatory heritage management practices in Estonia and how they relate to the ideals described in the Faro Convention. We examine how the location, the contribution of researchers and personal connections to historic places motivate local people, enthusiasts and the state to care for the sites. It is demonstrated that community-based heritage management is most effective when people are emotionally attached to historic sites, have a sense of ownership and want others to engage with and experience them.

Geoarchaeological investigations in Artanish Peninsula, Armenia: Testing a new geochemical prospecting method for archaeology

AbstractWithin the framework of an Armenian–German research project, taking place between 2019 and 2021 on the Artanish Peninsula at Lake Sevan (Armenia), in addition to numerous (geo‐) archaeological investigations, methods of geochemical prospection have been carried out. The ancient burial grounds of Artanish 23 and Artanish 29 have served as model sites to successfully test the well‐known method of geochemical prospection and evaluation of metal deposits in geology (mineral sector). As a result, a new experimental archaeo‐geochemical prospecting and evaluation method has been developed, which has been adapted for the exploration of archaeological monuments. It is planned to use this experimental method (which we consider new and important in archaeogeochemical investigation, but not a conclusive and comprehensive work per se), which has already proven its work capacity, in archaeological research, in the prospective areas of Armenia and other countries. In addition to these investigations, research on the transformations in the landscape of the ancient tombs related to Lake Sevan fluctuations has also been carried out. The anthropogenic impact of humans on the environment (geochemical halos formed in the soil on the surface of the tombs) has been studied, as well as the problem of the impact of geological environment on human life activities, that is, the relocation of the burial grounds to more elevated areas due to the rise in the lake level. Based on the results of geochemical sampling and high‐resolution magnetometer surveys, excavations have been performed at the site. Here, we present the results of an experimental study exploring the potential of combined magnetometer prospection and chemical soil analyses to locate and characterize the burial ground of Artanish on Lake Sevan, Armenia. The results have demonstrated the capability of these analyses to detect the sites, outline hotspots and interpret the features identified in the magnetometer results.

Defensive armament of the Hunnu

The article analyzes the findings of protective equipment made in the archaeological monuments of the Hunnu culture on the territory of Transbaikalia and Mongolia. The description of the main features of horn and iron plates is given, their images are shown. The origin of various elements of armor plating and the period of their existence are considered. Reconstructions of the armours and helmets of the Hunnu have been created with the involvement of fully preserved analogues. The Hunnic warriors used lamellar and scaly cuirass, poncho, and robe armor, as well as lamellar helmets with a closed dome and an open top. The leading role of the Hunnu in the development of iron armor in Central Asia is noted. The appearance of new details of lamellar armor with an original system of six holes and a plate shape borrowed from scaly armor was revealed in the Hunnu. These plates were borrowed by other nomads and the Chinese. It is concluded that the level of development of defensive means allowed the Hunnu to form independent units of armored cavalry. More complete types of armour and helmets, including those of imported origin, were probably owned by commanders (representatives of the nobility). Ordinary warriors used armor of a lightweight design, where in addition to iron, less resistant materials (horn, leather, wood) were also used. Despite the fact that the Hunnu armored cavalry did not yet have sufficient penetrating power in the confrontation with the Chinese infantry, their experience in the development of defensive weapons proved useful for the subsequent evolution of armor among the Nomads.

Late Bronze and Iron Age archaeological monuments

Late Bronze and Iron Age archaeological monuments

Xiongnu ancient nomad inlaid buckles (2nd-1st centuries BC): Multi-analytical research

The recently excavated burial grounds of Ala-Tey of the 2nd-1st centuries BCE, located in the basin of the Ulug-Khem (Yenisei) River, at the entrance to the Sayan Canyon of the Yenisei, belong to the archaeological monuments on the territory of the Republic of Tuva (Central Asia) and are associated with the Xiongnu culture. The part of preserved inlays and the base of buckles were investigated using Raman and FTIR spectroscopy. By Raman spectroscopy in the buckle base, amorphous carbon was identified. The investigation also revealed the mineral contribution in the FTIR spectra of buckles plates such as kaolinite (Al2O3·2SiO2·2H2O) and quartz (SiO2) in addition to the absorbance bands of some organic components. Buckles inlays mineral composition was identified via Raman spectroscopy. Two different types of blue-green minerals were found: turquoise (CuAl6(PO4)4(OH)8·4H2O) and muscovite (KAl2(Si3Al)O10(OH)2). According to the Raman spectroscopy data all red inlays contain α-quartz and inclusions of hematite. The red inlay transparency is associated with the presence of moganite (polymorphic monoclinic modification of SiO2). The white inlay material consists of aragonite (CaCO3). The results of the study are relevant for better understanding of Xiongnu belt buckles materials and choosing appropriate strategies of its conservation.

The Collection of Archaeological Antiquities From the Pavlo Khavliuk Excavations in the Funds of Vinnytsia Regional Museum of History and Nature

The purpose of the article is to generalize information about the formation of the collection of archaeological monuments from the explorations and excavations of Pavlo Khavliuk, which is stored in the funds of the Vinnytsia Regional Museum of History and Nature. The research methodology is represented by: the principle of historicism, system approach, methods of logic, grouping, comparative-historical, statistical and problem-chronological principles. The scientific novelty of the work in the fact that it is the first generalizing work, which systematizes and analyzes the materials of long-term excavations by Pavlo Khavliuk (1925-2001) at various historical monuments of archeology from the territory of the Vinnytsia region, which constitute a significant part of the stock collection of the Vinnytsia Regional Museum of History and Nature. Conclusions. Pavlo Ivanovych studied the archaeological monuments of our region from 1950 to 2001. During this time, the archaeologist discovered more than 1,200 objects of archaeological heritage. Stationary excavations were carried out at almost 100 monuments (settlements, hillforts, burial grounds, etc.). From 43 of them, the materials entered the main fund of the Vinnytsia Regional Museum of History and Nature. The rest of the collection is in the research fund and is under development. Among the processed materials in the foundation collection, there are materials from the monuments of the Trypil culture (Borysivka, Luhova, Rakhny Sobovi, Ulanivka), the pre-Scythian period (Kunka), the Scythian period (Gaisyn, Zhornyshche, Severynivka, Slobidka, Soroka, Stina), the Zarubinets culture (Nosivtsi, Maryanivka, Rachny Sobovi, Parkhomivka, Raiky), Chernyakhiv culture (Gaivove, Garmaki, Gunka, Demydivka, Zayachivka, Skitka, Slobidka, Trostyanets), early Slavic period (Holiky, Kalnik, Korzhivka, Kochuriv III, Kuna, Pariivka, Parkhomivka, Semenky I, Trostyanets, Khrinivka, Chortoriya, Shchurivtsi), of the period of Kyiv Rus (Demydivka, Parkhomivka, Sazhki, Slobidka, Chervone, Chortoriya, Yurkivtsi). There are 1,676 objects in the "Archaeology" storage group, and 156 artifacts in the "scientific auxiliary fund". Scientific passports have been drawn up for these subjects and they are actively introduced into scientific circulation. The other part of the collection is being processed and replenishes the fund collection of the museum. The obtained data are systematized and comprehensively analyzed, their historical interpretation is presented. The work describes the characteristics of materials by archaeological cultures and years of excavation.