Перейти к содержимому. | Перейти к навигации

Персональные инструменты
Вход
Разделы
Вы здесь: Главная Издания Археологические вести Annotations of issues Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации.

Археологические вести. Спб, 1994. Вып. 3. Аннотации.

 

ОТ РЕДАКЦИИ

 

В.М. Массон. Взаимодействие культур и культурная интеграция

V. M. Masson. Interaction of cultures and cultural integration

Cultural interaction is one of the widely-spread historical processes. As a rule, its consequences turn out to be more significant and fruitful than those of the unidirectional effects described as influences. Being reflected by that museum sample of the ancient material culture which is studied by archaeology, such interactions are highly meaningful both in terms of the professional demands of archaeology in its narrow sense (e.g. for archaeological chronology), and for the interpretative constructions of a broader anthropological scope.

One of the manifestations of the interactive processes at the level of their results is cultural integration. This phenomenon has not received sufficient attention in the historical studies, whose authors traditionally adhere to the binary opposition of the stimulus vs. response (or influence vs. autochtonous development) type, treated in mechanical terms. The transition to constructions taking into account the dialectical nature of the processes is hampered by the burden of our dogmatic heritage. This is especially evident in the scheme of so-called "formations", an evolutionist doctrine which has acquired deterministic features. It was believed that matriarchy should be necessarily followed by patriarchy, the primitive tribal society, by the slave-owning formation, and so forth up to the Utopian structure of communism. This view was certainly influenced by the Darwinist philosophy with its emphasis on gradual evolution. However, as developments in modern biology suggest, macro-evolutionary processes should be viewed differently from microevolutionary ones, the former being more complex and not always compatible with gradualist views. The alternative idea is that of punctuated equilibrium. Such an approach is all the more essential in studies of social phenomena, which (and 1 see no reasons to disclaim Marxist formulas at this particular point) represent the most complex form of the motion of matter.

In this respect, the phenomenon of cultural integration mirrors the complex dialectical nature of the process of cultural origins and provides a better explanation of the historical events than does the straightforward search for monoethnic structures or the influence vs. borrowing opposition. The latter are largely related to mechanical phenomena, although under conditions of a complex social organism they usually undergo the stages of selection and adaptation. The phenomenon of cultural integration reflects the movement of culture through transformation towards a new quality. Of course, a significant role in the formation of new standards and norms was played by selection and adaptation as integral elements of this process. As a rule, cultural integration is caused by deep-level political and economical factors of social consolidation. An immense role is played also by fashion, which emerges in the domain of socio-psychological stereotypes. The tempo and scale of integration are different in periods before and after the emergence of states. In both cases, the crucial factor is social psychology, and when it is not taken into account, the social organism reacts to the introduction of certain standards by rejecting them.

The concept of cultural integration is of utmost importance for the study of multiethnic structures. In the course of integrational processes, a stable cultural complex is often formed. It represents a sort of superstructure above the multiethnic structures which may range from single cities to large political unities. It should be kept in mind that cultural integration favours also the formation of new ethnic structures, especially at the regional level.

An illustration of the complexity of processes resulting in culture formation in various historical periods is provided by the present issue of "Archaeological News". In the Paleolithic, despite the relative abundance of progressive lithic technologies, the process of cultural interaction as a whole was apparently quite rudimentary, and cultural integration seems to have been virtually nonexistent. Especially illustrative in this respect, is the Upper Paleolithic microregion of Kostenki, where several cultural complexes, usually termed cultures, coexisted without any interaction. The biological species is a closed unity due to a system of barriers isolating the mechanism of local evolution. In the cultural sphere, conservation was secured by traditions, which at the early stages of social development were especially efficient in repulsing external influences. One of the periods when the barrier of cultural traditions blocked the development of cultural integration was the Upper Paleolithic.

An appreciable shift occurred in the early agricultural period, when societies which had attained similar levels of cultural and intellectual development displayed considerable receptivity to integrational processes. Yet here as well the "rejection" is evident. If the decoding of the famous tablets from the early agricultural site of Tartaria, Romania, proposed by A. A. Weiman, one of the world's most authoritative experts in Proto-Sumerian texts (see this issue), is correct, a highly peculiar picture emerges. In the depth of the early agricultural Balkan area with its remarkable achievements in the artistic and intellectual domains a stable complex is found which is related to the temple structures of the Sumerian civilization. No matter whether the kulturtrager from Uruk had actually built their temple somewhere in the vicinity or whether we have before us a unique case of import having no pragmatic value, it is absolutely clear that these hallmarks of urban civilization had in no way been integrated into the system of early agricultural communities, which, in my opinion, had achieved the initial stage of the early complex society. Numerous and diverse signs found on the artefacts from the early agricultural Balkan sites are doubtless related to some symbolic and magic system, but do not represent a system of writing, which is a phenomenon different, in quality. So the Proto-Sumerian prototype did not in any way affect the local society, which was probably content with the available systems of storage and transmission of information (probably the oral and the artistic ones).

Two striking cases of cultural integration can be mentioned for the ancient world: the Celtic civilization and the Scythian world. Having emerged on the basis of Halstattian traditions, the highly developed cultures of mainland Europe were in the late 1st millenium ВС rapidly heading towards urban society. In doing so they adopted the Greco-Roman prototypes and incorporated them into the local cultural milieu. The amalgamation of these components resulted in the Celtic civilization. This to a large extent applies also to the interaction of the nomadic traditions and the Hellenic standards at the late stage of the Scythian culture, represented by so-called Scythia Minor. Another controversial issue is the ethnic affiliation of the people who created the Chernyakhov Culture. A compromise view suggesting that this culture was multiethnic appears to have gained ground in recent years. There are even more reasons to regard the Chernyakhov Culture itself as an outcome of the processes of cultural integration which occurred beyond the limes of the Late Roman Empire but with the active use of its technological and cultural standards and even its monetary units.

One more example of the integration processes is the Sogdian civilization, whose brilliant monument, Jartepa Temple near Samarkand, is described in the present issue. In Sogdian art and religious symbolism, traditions and complexes of images are evident which apparently derive from the culture of India (via the Kushan milieu). These traditions, however, are tightly interlaced with other elements of the Sogdian cultural complex in terms of general style and spirit without evoking a sense of dissonance.

A case of cultural integration in medieval times is presented by processes which occurred in the Baltic region from the 8th to the 11th centuries, when ties in all spheres, from politics to trade became more intensive. Scandinavian artefacts circulated in Eastern Europe (see this issue), while Slavonic ones were distributed outside Old Russia (a fact which has not been studied in sufficient, detail). Especially demonstrative are norms which were developed by the elitary subculture of the Russian princes' Norse bodyguard, with its standard set of costume, weaponry, and items of religious symbolism. Fierce (but somewhat unsophisticated) debates between Normanists and anti-Normanists floundered within the same fixed limits set by the mechanical binary opposition. It is likely that here again we observe the outcome of integration processes which, in the domain of culture, corresponded to the new qualitative level attained by the political and economical network. At any rate, it is perfectly obvious that the accumulation of archaeological data should prompt us to develop a more understanding and receptive attitude towards those complex phenomena which were accompanied and mirrored by the artefacts unearthed in the course of excavations.

 

НОВЫЕ ОТКРЫТИЯ И ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

 

Н.К. Анисюткин. Древнейшие местонахождения Раннего палеолита на юго-западе Русской равнины

N. K. Anisiutkin. The earliest sites of the Early Palaeolithic in the South-West of the Russian Plain

Early Palaeolithic sites Pogreby and Dubossary-Bolshoi Fontan in the lower Dniester region are connected with fragments VI and. VII of the Dniester terraces above the floodlands. Subaerial sediments of these terraces are formed by loess-soil complexes, several metres thick, of the Early and Middle Pleistocene. This is a peculiar section where horizontally lying sediments, exposed not on a vertical section (as usual) but on a "screen" inclined towards the river, are only slightly "sprinkled" with a thin arable layer. The latter is not a real Holocene soil but a product of the modification of underlying layers. The collections of stone tools mainly consist of those found on the surface, only a small number of stone objects being uncovered of Pleistocene sediments. Single objects were found in the Dnieper (Riss) loess, Zavadovsk (Mindel-Rissien) fossilized soil as well as in Sulsk loess and Martonoshsk soil of the Mindel period (Fig. 1). Palaeolithic artefacts, made of different kinds of flint and some other materials (quartzite, quartz, sandstone, limestone), have a white patina and a lustree. The latter is the most intensive in the upper part of the slope (section) with the Dnieper loess and the least intensive in the lower part (Mindel sediments in Dubossary). This testifies to the redeposition of the material from the surface of the upper terraces. Interdisciplinary studies have confirmed these conclusions about redposition of the material. Estuary sediments of the second half of the Mindel period have been revealed. The ancient estuary spread along the pra-Dniester valley up to the latitude of Dubossary. Ancient people probably settled on its banks. The sites are located near the outcrops of ancient pebbles which were used as raw material. The presence of strongly fired and cracked flint objects which were later covered with patina points to the fact that the hearths used to be burnt here for a long time and intensively. Later, apparently during the Riss glacial period, these sites were destroyed by erosion, the flints were carried down the slope where they were buried for the second time in the upper part of Early Pleistocene sediments. Subsequent erosion, mainly caused by human activities, partly destroyed the topsoil-loess sediments. Thus, stone artefacts were uncovered again and became surface finds. The industry which can be tentatively termed the Dubossary industry (taking into account its uniqueness for the South-West of the Russian Plain) is presented by numerous small flint tools and large pebble forms. The latter are made mainly of low-quality raw material. Among the pebble tools there were choppers and chopping tools as well as smaller side-scraper forms with steep retouch of the edges. True handaxes are absent. Fragments of bifaces predominate. Among the several intact ones there are forms with natural backs. Side-scrapers are absolutely predominant including the typical ones with demi-quina retouch as well as specific forms with alternate retouch resembling chopping tools on flakes (Fig. 2: 2 and Fig. 3: 7, 9). Unifaces (Fig. 3: 10) an protolimaces are very few. Denticulated and notched tools are of minor importance. End-scrapers and burins are scanty and atypical. Not only huge clactonian flakes but also pebble fragments were blanks for the tools (Fig. 2: 3 and Fig. 3: 9, 10, 12, 13). This industry in its general features is close to the Early Palaeolithic of Central Europe and in a lesser degree of Western Europe in terms of the complexes without typical handaxes and with predominant small tools including larger pebble forms. On the Russian Plain, a similar industry was studied by N. D. Praslov on the Seversky Donets (Khriatschi, Mikhailovskoye). Further investigations may result in the discovery of more ancient sites.

 

В.В. Щелинский. Функциональное назначение двусторонне обработанных орудий мустьерской стоянки Заскальная V в Крыму

V. E. Shchelinsky. On the function of bifaces from the Mousterian site Zaskalnaja V, Crimea

Bifaces are a typical and, most probably, a culture-distinctive component of a number of Mousterian industries in Central and Eastern Europe. They are characterized by complex morphology and regular design. A large number of such tools was excavated at the Mousterian site Zaskalnaya V, Crimea. What was the function of these tools? A sample of 114 tools has been studied by the function-use-wear method. They are divided into two typological groups according to their outwards features: points (leaf-shaped, triangular, triangular elongated) and bifaces of other categories. Points (15). Nearly half of the tools with use-wear traces were either unfinished or reshaped. They were used for different purposes, mainly as butchering knives. Used according to their function were several triangular spearheads with use-wear traces as a result of fastening to the shaft. The lack of specific use-wear on the spearheads is due to the fact that at the site these tools were mainly made and repaired. Bifaces of other categories (99) are divided into subgroups: backed pointed single-edged, pointed double-edged, backed pointed double-edged, and bifaces without either points or backs. Irrespective of the shape the tools were mainly butchering knives. In other functions they were used very seldom. Bifaced knives were intended for long-term use. In the typological respect, these are the most informative tools.

 

А.Е. Матюхин. Палеолитические мастерские в бассейне нижнего Дона

A. E. Matiukhin. Palaeolithic workshops in the Lower Don basin

The stratified site Biriuchia Balka 2 is situated near the farmstead Kremenskoy, Konstantinovsk district, Rostov region. It covers the upper part of the ravine slope and is about 3 kilometres from the ancient bank of the river Seversky Donets. A systematic study of the site started in 1988. By now its preliminary geological study has been carried out. Absolute dates have not been established. The site covers an urea of about 500-600 sq. m. Several excavation areas about 70 sq. m each were laid in the northern, eastern and southern parts. The field works revealed a rather complex stratigraphy of the deposits of the ravine slope (Fig. 1). Above the chalky marls in the base of the section there are alluvial deposits of the ravine and layers of brownish loam dated from the Kalinin time. Six Mousterian layers are established here. Above there is a layer of brownish-grey loam which the geologist S. V. Khrutsky considers to be the fossil soil supposedly of the Bryansk interstadial (Pandorf).

Numerous flint artefacts were found only in its northern part. The soil is overlapped with seams of yellowish loams which are overlaid (with an uneven lower contact) by brown loam formed under conditions close to solifluction, most probably in the Early Ostashkov stadial (24 000 BP). The lower Upper Palaeolithic layer (layer 3) is situated in this loam. The upper layer (layer 2) is connected with light-brown loam. Finally, the modern soil contains neolithic and aeneolithic finds.

The present article deals with the finds from the eastern and southern parts. In layer 2, 8204 objects were collected, in layer 3, 123475. Virtually all of the finds are made of flint. Quartzite objects are rare. Flint in the shape of nodules and slabs lies in the marls on the opposite slope of the ravine. The site is about 100 metres from the flint sources. Flint objects from the Upper Palaeolithic assemblages are mainly grey, sometimes dark-grey and yellowish. They differ in technological, physical and mechanical properties. Often flint of poor quality was used. A lot of objects in the collections of both layers in the eastern and southern parts are broken.

The assemblage of layers 2 and 3 mainly consists of core-shaped pieces, cores, debitage flakes, and debris (Table 1). Most of the cores are parallel plane ones. Prismatis cores are rare. There are few flakes and blades, i. e. flanks, of high quality. As regards the tools, a wide diversity of features and the existence of atypical forms should be noted (Table 2). Layer 2 contained 74 tools. These are mainly triangular points and side-scrapers. In layer 3 - 971 tools were uncovered. Their typological features are determined by large tools, which include formless macrotools, chopping-tools (Fig. 2, 7), bifaces (Fig. 2, 4-6), cleavers (Fig. 2, 3), pieces with bifacial schist plate with a hole drilled at the base (Fig. 2, 1). Among the bifaces there are acheulian pieces, i. e. tools proper (Fig. 2, 5-6) and a large group of unfinished artefacts (Fig. 2, 4). Tiny tranchets are unique (Fig. 3, 11). There are few typical pieces among the points (Fig. 3, 10). Most of the side-scrapers (93 pieces) are those with convex and straight sides (Fig. 3, 12). Double, convergent and transverse scrapers are rare (Fig. 4, 5). Endscrapers (148 pieces) are classified into typical, atypical ones and their blanks (Fig. 3, 3-6, 9, 13-15). The number of end-scrapers made of flakes, lames and fragments of the latter is nearly the same. Most of the end-scrapers are ordinary and fan-shaped ones (Fig. 3, 3, 5-6, 9). There are single end-scrapers with a pointed base, thick-nosed, core-shaped and carinate end-scrapers (Fig. 3, 15). There are also single pieces of oval and circular end-scrapers (Fig. 3, 13). Among the triangular points (245 pieces), there are intact (32 pieces), nearly intact (21 pieces) ones, preforms as well as different fragments of points (187 pieces). Altogether there are about 45 finished tools, the remaining are unfinished ones, i. e. broken and waste pieces (Fig. 4, 7-8). Moderately and strongly elongated triangular points prevail. Subtriangles and foliate pieces are single (Fig. 4, 8). Some triangular points have exceptionally regular proportions and are exquisitely fashioned (Fig. 3, 1-2; Fig. 4, 1-3, 10-12). Of special interest are small points (Fig. 3, 1-2; Fig. 4, 1-3, 7). The triangular points have mainly straight, slightly or moderately convex bases. Typical and atypical burins are rare (Fig. 3, 7). Extremely significant are pieces with thinned bodies (Fig. 4, 4), pieces with thinned bases (Fig. 3, 8) and core-shaped tools (Fig. 4, 9).

The typological composition and technological features of the tools from the eastern and southern areas as well as from layers 2 and 3 are similar. They differ in numerical proportion. In both layers the waste outnumbers the tools. There are many tested and unfinished pieces among the tools. This applies equally to most of the bifaces, pieces with bifacial flaking, core-shaped pieces, pieces with thinned bodies and those with thinned bases, some double and convergent side-scrappers. In our view, these are not functionally significant tools, but triangular points, and end-scrapers abandoned at differents stages of manufacture, and their blanks. These typologically different tools have common features, uncluding the predominant treatment of the base, its straight or concave outlines, truncated bulb of percussion, simultaneous treatment of the base, one or both sides, etc. Several reduction series may be suggested illustrating the stages of manufacture (for instance, of triangular points). One of them is as follows: a) a core-shaped piece; b) a biface (several stages); c) a triangular point (several stages). The presence of a great number of macrotools is explained primarily by their use for making bone and antler fabricators employed for fashioning triangular points and end scrapers. Taking into account the typological composition of the industry of Biriuchia Balka 2, it should be classified as a separate functional type of sites - a workshop-site, its main features being intensive economical activities and intensive production - purposeful manufacture of a limited number of tools and their preforms (triangular points and end-scrapers). We think that in functional terms (not in chronological or cultural ones), Biriuchia Balka 2 is similar to such sites as Bogunitse, Ondratitse and Lishen in Slovakia. Triangular points have parallels in sites of the Streletskaya culture, in particular Kostenki 12 (layer 3), Kostenki 6, Kostenki 1 (layer 5), Kostenki 11, Sunghir. The similarity here is morphological, i. e. formal. Generally, it is difficult to draw absolute parallels between the above-mentioned sites and Biriuchia Balka 2, the main reasons being that they belong to different functional types, the typological composition of their industries, is also different, and the tools at the sites of Kostenki are few. Therefore we refrain from strict cultural comparisons. In cultural and chronological terms Biriuchia Balka 2 is close to Sunghir. Recent excavations in the Biriuchia River mouth have shown that industries with macrotools, end-scrapers and triangular points developed in the Lower Seversky Donats Basin earlier than they did at Biriuchia Balka 2. We hope that future field and laboratory works would clarify the problems under consideration.

 

И.В. Сапожников. Локальный хозяйственно-бытовой комплекс на позднепалеолитической стоянке Большая Аккаржа

I. V. Sapoznikov. A local dwelling complex at the Late Palaeolithic site Greater Akkarzha

The Greater Akkarzha site was discovered by P. I. Boriskovsky in 1955 and excavated under his guidance in 1959 and 1961. The finds from these excavations (about 19 thousand flint objects) have been published and, among those from sites of the southern steppes of Eastern Europe (Amvrosievka, Kamennaya Balka 1, 2, etc.) used in a lively discussion concerning the specific historical development of this region in the Late Palaeolithic. Greater Akkarzha has usually been considered as a final Palaeolithic site with a destroyed cultural layer giving no idea of its planigraphy, settlement pattern, etc.

Recent field work carried out at this site in 1988-1992 by the Bug-Dniester expedition of the Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, under the guidance of the present author prompts us to revise previous views.

According to the geologist V. F. Petrunia who studied the section of sediments at Greater Akkarzha and on the basis of the pollen analysis made by S. I. Medianik, the loess containing the cultural remains is defined as that of the lower Black Sea region. It has formed under the conditions of the cold and continental climate most likely corresponding to the Late Valdai climatic minimum (18-20 thousand years BP). This is a much earlier date than that ascribed to the site on the basis of flint typology.

Our excavations revealed dwelling complexes presenting the accumulations of cultural remains and connected with hearths. The article deals with a detailed description of one of these accumulations situated at the border of the settlement and presenting an oval 5 - 5,5 x 2,5 - 3m oriented West-East with a hearth in the middle (Fig. 1, 2). Technical and typological characteristic of the flint objects uncovered within the accumulation limits (2406 specimens, including about 80 cores and 85 tools) fully agrees with our knowledge of the industry of Great Akkarzha obtained during the previous excavations (fig. 3-6). The bone material includes fragments of buffalo bones (no more than 40 pieces out of 406 fragments), probably belonging to one individual (an adult male). This complex must have been a short-term seasonal dwelling, which is confirmed by the pollen analysis: the total content of the pollen of plants growing in places inhabited by man (plantation, nettle, etc) does not exceed 4%, whereas at long-term Palaeolithic sites this figure is several times higher.

Summarizing the data on the cultural layer of Greater Akkarzha and taking account of archaeological and ethnographic materials on the bison-hunters of the North American Plains we think that this site with a monobison fauna developed as a result of a multiple stratigraphic alternation of seasonal (spring-summer) camps of Late Palaeolithic bison-hunters. Other sites of the region with the monobison fauna should be interpreted in the same way: Amvrosievka, Anetovka II, Zolotovka I. It should be noted, however, that the cultural layer of Zolotovka must have formed during one season.

 

С.В. Ошибкина. Мезолитические погребения Восточного Прионежья

S. V. Oshibkina. Mesolithic graves to the east of the Onega Lake

In the region near Lake Onega there have been recently discovered a neolithic cemetery in the Popovo area and the Peschanista grave, They are situated close to the south-eastern coast of Lake Lacha in the Kargopol administrative area of the Arkhangelsk region, While studying these sites we have paid special attention to the burial conditions, the relationship of the sites to the cultural layer and also to the determination of the context of the sites. The cemetery at Popovo was discovered in 1979 and the graves which were excavated were published (Oshibkina 1982, 1983).

In this article we present three more graves (VIII, IX, and X). It is clear that the site belongs to the Veretie culture which was spread, to the east of the Onega lake in the large former glacier area early in the Boreal or probably even earlier. Bone and stone artifacts which have been found on the confirm the fact that the cemetery belongs to the population which occupied the sites Veretie, Sukhoe and Niznee Veretie. The Popovo cemetery stands apart from the settlements, being situated in a specially allocated area.

In Peschanista site we discovered a complicated burial arrangement which consisted of a male skeleton in a grave whose leg bones had been separately buried nearby and 4 pits and 15 accumulations of animal and fish bones.

The male's skull and legs were examined by a number of specialists (paleoanthropologists, pathologists, forestic scientists), who consider that they belong to one person of about 50 or 55 years old, who had ТВ, which resulted in the typical damage to the surface of the bone. Here: we have a case of a complicated burial rite of the early Mesolithic. A bone from the male skeleton is dated to 9890+120 BP (GIN 4858). The burial was made on the top of a glacial moraine and was surrounded by pits (about 700-110 cm deep) containing animal bones (skulls of hares, fox and bird bones), which had been covered with ochre. The tools consisted of blades, burins and separate bone tools similar to the Veretie type.

Both sites are not related to the cultural layer of the settlement. The dead are considered to be tall archaic Europeans.

 

Н.Н. Скакун. Новые раскопки энеолитических поселений в низовьях Дуная

N. N. Skakun. New Excavations of the Eneolithic settlements in the Lower Danube Region

In the early 1960s a new culture was found in the Ukraine and Moldavia on the left banks of the Lower Danube and the Prut. It had not been known there earlier and is quite different from the Cucuteni-Tripolje culture distributed on the neighbouring territories. The parallels, that are most striking in the pottery assemblage (the shape and ornament of the vessels), linked the newly discovered culture with of the Gumelnitsa culture in its early version Aldeni II on the right bank of the Danube in Romania. However, settlements on the left bank of the Danube are unique. This has prompted a protracted discussion focusing on their cultural affiliation. Many general and special problems have not been solved so far due to the insufficiency of data necessary for a thorough description of these settlements, which are of great importance for the understanding of the cultural and historical processes of the Late Aeneolithic in South-Eastern Europe. For that reason, archaeological excavations were resumed at Nagornoje II, one of the settlements on the left bank of the Danube. The present paper describes the finds which were insufficiently known earlier.

Nagornoje II is a stratified settlements situated near Lake Kagul, 15 kilometres north of the Danube and 40 kilometres from the town Ismail. Its area was 1 hectare by the time of its discovery. In all the cultural strata a number of dwellings and subsidiary structures has been uncovered.

The lower Aeneolithic layer is dated from the late 4th millennium ВС. Its stratigraphy is extremely complex due to the destruction caused by later structures. Of special interest is a surface house with adobe walls (Fig. 1). The rectangular dwelling, 42 m2 in area, was oriented from the south to the north and had a plane rammed earthen floor. No holes left by pole constructions have been found. This feature distinguishes the dwelling from those excavated at settlements in Romania and Bulgaria. It seems to have been built in the same way as the modern houses in the neighbouring village. Clay mixed with straw (chamur) was the main building material. It was used for building thick walls with the minimum of wooden elements.

Another complex has no parallels; it consisted of three large pits connected by corridor-like trenches directed at right angles. The nature of finds in this complex (pottery, animal bones, flint tools) as well as the absence of a hearth do not allow us to identify the function of the complex with certainty, although, judging by the size of the pits it might have been a dwelling complex.

Of great interest are also the two "little ditches" or "little trenches" intersecting the excavated part of the settlement from the east to the west and directed parallel to each other and perpendicular to the bank line (Fig. 1). The ditches cut through the pits and end in them. Three similar "ditches-trenches" were excavated at the Bolgrad settlement. At the Roumanian settlement Suchevan (Aldeni II) four ditches surrounded the dwellings. Similar structures, interpreted as fortifications, were found at the Aeneolithic sites in Bulgaria.

The point of view expressed by S. N. Bibikov about the two building periods of the Aeneolithic at. Nagornoje II has no stratigraphic confirmation. The site contains a great number of cooking vessels (handmade pots, pans, etc.) and table ceramics (pots, bowls, goblets with grey and jet-black surface and fine polishing). The ornament is pricked, carved, or polychromes. This pottery assemblage is close to that of Aldeni II (Fig. 2-3).

The main feature of the stone tools is not only their similarity with the tools of the same period from Romania and Bulgaria but also the identity of the raw material: they are all made of Dobrudzhan rocks. Flint was brought to Nagornoje 0 from Balkan flint processing workshop as blanks or finished tools (Fig. 6). The unusual perfection of the blanks testified to the flourishing of the flint processing technique. The process was carried out in special workshops by the professionals. The use-wear analysis of the tools made by the author has shown that the site contained a wide range of specialized tools of various functions.

Of particular interest among the anthropomorphous figurines is a large specimen of a flattened female figurine with, bent and raised hands (Fig. 4). Between the breasts, near the neck, near the navel, and on the hands large openings were made bored through the figurine. Besides the female figurines seven male figurines have been excavated (Fig. 4). Their legs are shaped as small poles. The navel and the genitals are stuck on. A figurine of a bisexual deity is unique (Fig. 4. 10).

Among the votive objects there are clay diamond-shaped amulets and a tiny altar (Fig. 5) with the image of a tree scratched on one of its sides. Copper objects are extremely rare on the left bank of the Danube. At Nagornoje II a bead and a nag with unclosed ends have been found (Fig. 5). Among the other ornaments there are shell folds which an artificially deepened natural design on the surface.

The materials obtained have considerably extended our knowledge of the nature of the main components of the Aeneolithic culture on the left bank of the Danube.

 

Б.Н. Удеумурадов. Древние земледельцы Южной Маргианы (юго-восток Туркмении

B. N. Udeumuradov. Early agriculturalists of Southern Margiana (Southern-Eastern Turkmenia)

The 1988-91 archaeological explorations in South Margiana (the Middle Murgab Basin, South-Eastern Turkmenia) resulted in the discovery of a farming culture. Its first site, the Takhtabazar cemetery, was excavated by the author. The Takhtabazar cemetery is situated on the left bank of the Murgab river, 32 km south-eastern of Takhta-Bazar. The excavation revealed 15 burials, most of them destroyed. The deceased were found in pits in a flexed position. The skeletons were oriented nord-west - south-east. Fifteen graves contained 87 clay pots, ten bronze objects, four stone objects, 12 beads (Table 1).

Pottery prevails in the cemetery (Fig. 1: 1-2). The pots were made on wheel, the baking is perfect. Most of the pottery is light-coloured (70%) There are also reddish and cream-coloured pots (26%). Light green pottery of the Namazga type is very rare (4%). Some graves contained vases of high stems (Fig. 1: 4, 6), conic bowls (Fig. 1: 1-3, 15, 16), miniature bottles and pots (Fig. 1: 8, 18-20), beakers (Fig. 1: 7), jars (Fig. 1: 13, 14, 23), a tagora (Fig. 1: 17), goblets (Fig. 1: 9-11), pots (Fig. 1: 12).

Bronze objects were found only in graves 1 and 9. These are two pins (Fig. 2: 2, 6), a dagger (Fig. 2: 1), three mirrors (Fig. 2: 3, 4, 7), a spatula (Fig. 2: 5) and three seals (Fig. 3: 1-3).

Among the stone objects there are two weights, beads, a miniature pot (Fig. 4: 1), a spindle-whorl (Fig. 4, 2) and two columns.

By analogy with other assemblages of Southern Turkmenia, the Takhtabazar cemetery is dated from the Middle Bronze Age (Namazga V), early 2nd millennium ВС.

The cemetery excavated is far being the only one in the Middle Murgab Basin. There are some other finds of the same period excavated north-west of the Takhtabazar cemetery. Among them the following objects should be noted: small goblets (Fig. 4: 3) and stone columns which have parallels at different settlements in Iran, Afghanistan and Northern Margiana.

In terms of cultural affiliation, the Takhtabazar cemetery is close to the Bactria Margiana group of cultures.

 

Е.Е. Филиппова. Плоская таштыкская маска из собрания Государственного исторического музея

E. E. Philippova. Flat Tashtyk mask from the collection of the State Historical museum

The Tashtyk funeral masks of the 1st millennium ВС - 1st millennium AD from South Siberia are a complex archaeological source. They reflect in a special way the process of interaction between different cultures, the origin of a new type of population and the complicated funeral rite of the Tashtyk tribes of this region.

The largest collection of these masks is owned by the State Historical museum in Moscow. Its core is formed by the materials of the 1936-38 excavations at Ujbat chaatas led by S. V. Kiselev and L. A. Evtiukhova. Various type of masks are represented different in appearance and belonging to different anthropological groups. All the masks are three-dimensional, bear a portrait resemblance to deceades persons, differ in the stage of preservation and the degree of colouring.

Of special interest is a small fiat mask with an unusual facial expression. It was found in a Tashtyk grave and certainly played a special role in the burial rite of these tribes, although it has no parallels among the traditional Tashtyk masks.

This is an example of a special type of Tashtyk masks. It has common features with the shaman masks from Tuva and might have belonged to a shaman who lived in the Middle Yenisey Basin in the Tashtyk period.

 

В.И. Денисова. Литейная форма мастера Гикесия из Ольвии

V. I. Denisova. The mould of the craftsman Hikesios from Olbia

Before the archaeological works at the site of Olbia Pontic (Milesian colony in the northwestern Black Sea area) there had been no data on the manufacture of metal objects there. The first materials confirming the existence of this industry were obtained by B. V. Pharmakovsky in the course of his excavations (from 1901 to 1914 and from 1924 to 1926) inside of the city's walls. Poorly-preserved remains of a structure with activity areas relating to the metal processing, a demolished forge, iron slags, some smiths' implements were brought to the light. The data generated from these field seasons make it possible to propose hypothesis that the manufacture of various metal objects had formed an important part in Olbia's economy.

During the following decades of investigations, archaeological remains of several metal-shops from various chronological periods were excavated in different areas of the city. Numbering more that hundred moulds (mostly of the Hellenistic period) come to the light as well. They show a type of closed bi-valved (i.e. two-parts, two-halves) moulds for casting trinketry (earrings, rings, bracelets, pendants ets.). Sherds of amphoras, fragments of tiles were utilized for their fabricating.

A remarkable piece was found during the 1985 season excavation of the Institute of History of Material Culture of Russia's Academy of Science at the central areas of Olbia. The piece (quadrilateral, roughly trapezoid) is made from a chip of the grinish-black colorit (thick 1,3 cm). Typologically related to the other Olbia's moulds it distinguishes in having two casting surfaces, that is to say, "negatives" (or concave images) are carved on the finished opposite sides. The one surface (Fig. 1: 1) shows a beast of pray facing right (the greatest length in its present condition is 6,5 cm). The obverse (Fig. 1: 2) has two (almost identical) funnel-shaped hollows (executed with a lack of care), that passed the chip through out. The upper rims of the both "funnels" (1,8 cm in diameter) are linked by a fork-like pourringchannel. The pouring-channel and three dowel-holes ca. 0,5 cm in diameter (one on either side below and one in the upper-hand corner - Fig. 1: 1) shows that the piece is the odd part of a closed bi-valved mould. A losing part must have had matching "negatives", and corresponding dowel-holes. During the casting operation the contours of both the parts of the mould should be supposed in pairs forming two biconic hollows linked by the common pour-ring-channel (Fig. 4). The mould must have been rested on a bed of sand, since its lower edge is not enough level to have permitted it stand alone. A metal rod, passed through each biconic hollow (Fig. 1: 2) before the pouring of a molten metal (probably the lead) in the mould, causing a central perforation in casted "bead". There is the tendency to call similar objects (not suitable for necklace) "spindle-whorls".

Apart from the funnel-shaped "negatives", there are an inscription and a drawing of a man's head in profile, on this surface (Fig. 1: 2).

From a first glance, one may get to the conclusion that the object published here belong to the category of the moulds with two casting surfaces. But there are some unusual features compelling to give pause. To begin with, the animal's image (Fig. 1: 1) has fragmentary condition. Secondly, the outer edges of the piece are trimmed disparate: the upper and right-hand edges are finished, the other two crudely dresses (Fig. 1: 1). Finely, the two dowel-holes have a strangle way of the arrangement: the one nearly touches the animal's nose, the other pierces his back (Fig. 1: 1). The piece is certain to have "gone through" two chronological phases (or periods) of its using. There had been a mould (Fig. 1: 1 - its original dimension cannot be guessed) for casting of an animal's image, perhaps an applique for attachment in relief to a plane surface. At same time in antiquity, the mould suffered some damage. It was broken at the left-hand side and along the bottom. Its upper right corner (the greatest height 7,4 cm, the greatest width 5,3 cm) was served as the material for manufacturing a half of new mould, that is, two funnel-shaped hollows were carved on the surface opposite to one with animal's image, and two above mentioned holes for dowels were drilled too. The hole in the right hand upper corner of the mould (Fig. 1: 1) is primary.

The piece come from an unrelated stratum contained numerous sherds of Greek pottery dated from the second half of the 6th through to the later part of the 4th century B.C. Since later material come from even lowlest levels of the stratum, the archaeological context, can not be used to date the mould for casting the "beads". There are some data, however, that permit accurate its dating. Firstly, mould published here, is very similar to the mould from Olbia, from a pit with the material of the 6th-5th century B.C. Stone moulds for casting similar specimens were unearthed during the excavations of some late archaic sites near Olbia. It is significant also, that the some lead specimens which must have been cast in the similar moulds were found in Olbia, both in the city and in its necropolis in some wealthy women tomb contexts.

The excavation evidences for these specimens place them generally near end of the Archaic period, ca 500-480 B.C. In the upper part of the piece (Fig. 1: 2) there is previously mentioned inscription denoting ownership. Its letterings agree with the date. Associated drawing which is contemporary with the inscription may be the "portrait" of Ikesios himself.

In dating of the primary mould (for casting the figurines of carnivore) we are led to be guided, lacking other data, both a stylistic character of the carving representation and some its monographic elements. The damaged fragment (the lower part of animal's body is broken away) shows the lion's head with open jaws and his withers with saw-like mane (Fig. 1: 1. Modern positive impression is presented herewith - Fig. 1: 5).

The lion rendered in this mould is well-established component of East Greek art repertory. He shows a mixture of Hittite and Assyrian strains native to the mainstream of the Greek Orientalizing style. In search the birth-place of the mould we should look to the Greeks-inhabited lands of the East Mediterranean littoral, in particularity, to Ionia, which were in close touch with the great achievements of the Ancient Near Eastern art. An eclectic and mannered carver (probably Greek) manufactured this mould with the knowledge of Oriental style, acquired them at second-hand, whether through imported eastern artifacts, or through imitation of image of metal objects made either by Greek craftsmen, or Oriental craftsmen living in their midst. The working life of the carver should not be dated before ca. 520-500 B.C. It seems likely that the mould originated at Miletos was brought to Olbia by a smith (his name is unknown) who was arriving to work there. The owner of the mould for casting "beads" was, it appears, Ikesios.

 

Ю.А. Виноградов. Раскопки храма Зат-Химьям в западном Хадрамауте (Райбун-V)

Yu. A. Vinogradov. Excavations of the temple of the goddess Zat-Himyam in Western Hadramaut (Raybun V)

The early farming oasis Raybun in Western Hadramaut, Wadi Dauan (the Yemen Republic), has been studied by archaeologists from Yemen and Russia for several years. One of the objects under investigation was a separate temple complex (Raybun V) excavated in 1989 and 1991.

Judging from numerous inscriptions - dedications the temple complex belonged to the goddess Zat-Himyam. It consisted of three buildings: the central one, a building with an altar; the northern one, the so-called refectory, and a small southern one which has remained unstudied (fig. 1). All three buildings were erected on thick stone socles, the walls were built of unfired brick with the use of wooden frameworks, which corresponds to the late stage of housebuilding in Raybun. Other categories of material culture, primarily pottery, also belong to this late stage. The complex was destroyed by a heavy fire. Coal samples taken from the burnt wooden structures yielded the following radiocarbon dates: 390±80, 330±50, 270±50, 260±60, 240±50 B.C.

The northern building (18x10 m) consisted of two halves raised according to the common plan. Most of the eastern part was taken up by a hall adjacent small rooms. A unique small stone altar was found in the hall. Its receptacle is shaped as a model of the whole building (Fig. 4, 10). The western hall is of interest due to the fact that the spaces between the columns in both rows were set with low mudbrick walls. Along them there were rows of small adobe posts (0,6x0,55 m, height - 0,35-0,4 m). The most plausible interpretation of the function of these structures is that the pavements between the columns served as small tables, and the posts, as seats. This interpretation is confirmed by the finds of hearths and numerous fragments of cooking pottery in this part, large basin-like vessels etc., but not the usual small pots with a round bottom which were used for cooking. It can be assumed that in the present case it was necessary to cook a lot of food for some public ceremonies. All these features allow as to describe the northern building as a refectory. The refectory was connected with the main part of the temple (with the altar) by means of two staircases, one of them (made of adobe) leading downwards, another (a stone one) upwards to a two-column portico in front of the entrance to the building with the altar (Fig. 2). The entrance was situated on the eastern side. The building (15x11,5 m) consisted of three rooms, the main (altar) hall and the two rooms adjacent to the entrance. There was a staircase leading to the roof in the southern room. The northern room must have been a depository. This supposition is confirmed by the following finds: 29 glass beads (a large concentration for a site), one cornelian bead and two pieces of gold foil.

The main hall (12,5x11,5 m) was divided into five naves by four rows of columns. The altar was situated in the central nave. Stone seats were installed in the last southern and northern rows of the columns. The altar had a rather complicated design. It can be divided into three main parts: 1) A table for sacrifices with a discharge situated in the eastern part of the altar. The discharge is directed southwards; 2) A quadrangular post (3,4x2,5 m, 1,3-1,4 m high) with a stone staircase leading to its top. The walls of the post are made of adobe bricks on wooden framework, the inner space is filled with pebbles. The staircase led to the post from the east, it consists of three steps. A dedication to Zat-Himyam is carved on the second step; 3) A space (room) between these two parts contained a large number of interesting finds: ceramic vessels having a ritual function (Fig. 3: 1, 2), pieces of burnt cloth, a gold plate in a medallion with a dark blue glass mounting in the centre (Fig. 4: 4), a fragment of the leg of a bronze sculpture of a goat (Fig. 4: 3), a round bronze mirror (Fig. 4: 7), etc. From the functional point of view the altar can be divided into two parts: the first one is connected with ritual libations (a table for sacrifices and a discharge), the second one, with ritual burning (a post filled with pebbles). It is interesting that the altar uncovered at another site of Hadramaut in Ba-Kutph has a similar design.

 

А.Э. Бердимурадов, М.К. Самибаев. Ранние росписи согдийского храма Джар-тепе II (V - начало VI вв.)

A. Z. Berdimuradov, M. K. Samibaev. Early wall-painting of the Sogdian temple Jartepa II (5th - early 6th century AD)

In the course of long-term archaeological studies of the early medieval temple Jartepa II situated in old Varagsar, on an offshoot of the Great Silk Way leading from Samarkand to Penjikent, wall-painting was found.

Originally, a rectangular building was standing at the place of the temple. Four oval two-storey towers with slit-like loopholes on the second floor were attached to its corners during the second construction period. In the third period, corridor-like rooms were constructed along the outer perimeter of the original building, providing a new defense belt instead of the oval towers. In period IV, the central part was radically reconstructed (Fig. 1). Part of the southern wall of the original building was completely demolished and a large eight-columned rectangular hall, oriented along the north-south axis, was built on the resulting space. In the northern part of the hall there are two adjacent passages connecting it with the cells. South of the hall, a twelve-columned vestibule was constructed, its long axis being perpendicular to that of the hall. One of the walls of the previous period (now the southern wall of the vestibule) is formed by a sloping passage connecting the building with the courtyard. Part of the southern facade of the vestibule was turned into a portal. During period IV, a niche was made east of the portal (the western part of the facade has not been unearthed so far).

All the walls of the cell, the hall, the vestibule, and the niche were covered by painting. Unfortunately, it was almost completely destroyed by a heavy fire which occurred in the late 7th or early 8th century. The date of the fire is established on the basis of the ceramic assemblage found in the burnt layer of period IV (Fig. 2).

During period IV, the building acquired a ritual function. Its architectural design (the vestibule, the hall, and the cell, situated in successive order along one axis) is similar to that of many ritual complexes covering a large time span, from the Achaemenid times to the fire temples of modern Indian Zoroastrians. However, even more relevant for the function of this building is the set of utensils and the subjects of the remaining wall-painting. These are dealt with in the present paper.

After a relatively short period following the fire, around 700 AD, the central part of the building (one representing period IV) was partly demolished and filled with rubble. The empty space was used to construct a new temple (period V). This building consists of a hall whose entrance faces south. The doorways in the northern wall connect it with the cell and the two side-rooms which are situated west and east of the hall. These rooms are surrounded by a roundabout passage on their three sides. There were apparently four columns in the hall. An aivan (portico) is situated south of the hall. In the cell, there is a podium with an altar for making fire (Fig. 3). The hall and the cell are decorated with wall-painting. Fragments of painting (formless spots of paint) have remained on the facial side of the podium. It is only on the walls of the passage connecting the hall with the cell that the painting is intact, revealing the figures of the donators or dancers. The architectural design of the temple of period IV was basically maintained throughout period V. The changes are related with the construction of the passage around the side-rooms and the altar in the cell, which are necessary attributes of a ritual building. In rooms of period V, numerous ritual objects were found (Figs. 4, 5). The closest parallels (in terms of chronology and geography) to the architecture of period V are presented by the city temples of Penjikent.

The two layers of painting in the facade part of the temple have been very poorly preserved. The composition of the earlier layer includes two donators standing on both sides of a small niche covered by representations of tulips in diamonds (Fig. 6). The upper parts of the figures (up to the chest) are completely destroyed. The postures of the figures (shoulders slightly moved backwards, arms directed to one side) suggest that the faces were turned towards the small niche. Both men are dressed in short coats with long side slits. The coats are strapped in the waist with narrow belts, from which knots, pieces of cloth, and small sacks are hanging down. Also attached to the belts by means of two leather strips each, are rectangular sheaths for daggers. The man to the right holds an object which looks like a lamp. Its two parts can be seen, a base with curved legs and a spike protruding upwards. The man to the left also held some object, which is no longer seen.

After the restoration works, the niches were painted anew, but only tiny fragments have remained of this layer. To the left of the small niche there is an outline of a human figure holding a sacrificial altar (Fig. 7).

In the hall, representations of three characters are seen on the western wall of the cast era tambour (passage connecting the hall with the cell) (Fig. 8). The one to the right is a musician playing a harp. To the: left, of him, in the centre of the composition, the second character is depicted holding a silver bowl in his right hand. The figure behind him is most likely that of a woman with some long object hanging down from her hands, possibly a piece of cloth or fur. Behind the harp, there is a stylized representation of a pomegranate flower blossoming out. People whom we see on the painting offer donations to a deity (or to the gods).

Donators represented on the walls of the niche in the facade part, of the temple (Fig. 6) look at the small niche (this is true of representations made both before and after the restoration works). Apparently, a portable miniature figurine of a deify was put into the niche during religious ceremonies.

The three characters painted on the wall of the passage in the hall look north (Fig. 8), where the cell of the temple was situated. It may be stated that here as well donators are represented and people who perforin an adoration act singing hymns accompanied by harp music.

Musicians and dancers, which are frequently present in Sogdian ritual compositions (c.e., a scene from room 10a in Temple 1 of Penjikent), were apparently participants of the spring theatrical festivals. Because the religious ceremony, which apparently marked the first appearance of the statue of the deity, was held at the time when the tulips blossomed, as represented in the niche of the portal (Fig. 6), it may be suggested that the entire scene painted on the walls of the Jartepa temple is related to the spring teas!, of world renewal. It is hardly incidental that the blossoming-out pomegranate flower painted in the hall (Fig. 8) is placed under the harp. The artist evidently attempted to show the association of music with the awakening nature. Tulip and rose festivals are still held in Central Asia in late spring.

The closest parallels for Jartepa II paintings are the early (5th – 6th cent. AD) paintings found in the temples of Penjikent. Not only the performance technique is similar in both instances, but the composition and the ritual scenes depicted ace also very close.

The date of the Jartepe II paintings has been established on the basis of a silver figurine of a woman (Fig. 9) found under the threshold of the passage on whose wall the three donators are represented. The proportions of this figurine (head and hands relatively enlarged relative to other parts), its facial features and the style of the clothing suggest that it. is chronologically (dost; to the early (5th-6th cent. AD) Sogdian paintings. However, the row of circles with which the facing of the woman's coat is ornamented presents a parallel with the dress of the Sogdians represented on the reliefs from Chandefu region, northern Henan, China. This restricts the chronological limit of the sculpture to the third quartet of the 6th century. And, because the sculpture is somewhat later than the painting, the date of the latter may be estimated at approximately 400-550 AD. It is more likely, however, that the Jartepa paintings fall within the earlier part of this span, the reason being that the late- 5th -early 6th century Penjikent specimens, which are the most similar, look less archaic than that from period IV of Jartepa.

The stylistic resemblance between the Jartepa scenes indicates that they were painted simultaneously during the major reconstruction of the building at the beginning of period IV, that is, no later than early 6th cent. No other materials are available which might help establish the exact date of this event.

The analysis of Jartepa II representations makes it possible to trace the formation of the Sogdian school of painting in the 5th century AD using the evidence from one single site. These pictures are valuable both as new and previously unknown works of art and as a source of information about the Sogdian icon painting. Having compared them with the paintings found in ritual and secular buildings of Penjikent we have disclosed the resemblance of their compositional ideas.

Despite resembling the Penjikent works in both technique and style, early paintings of Jartepa II show substantial differences. Especially peculiar is the way the faces are represented, with eyes being large and wide open. Apparently the local artists did not belong to the Penjikent school of painting.

 

Б. Амбросиани, П.Г. Гайдуков, Е.Н. Носов, И. Янссон. Первая находка скандинавской равноплечной фибулы типа Вальста на Руси

B. Ambrosiany, P. G. Gajdukov, E. N. Nosov, I. Jansson. The first find of a Scandinavian equal-armed brooch of Valsta type in Rus'

In the spring 1990 a Novgorod collector of antiquities found a well preserved equal-armed brooch on the right bank of the river Volkhov, 0,5-0,7 km south of (Rjurikovo) Gorodishche (Fig. 1, 2). The brooch lay in a heap of earth original from dredgings of the Volkhov between the new pedestrian bridge in central Novgorod and Gorodishche. The most objective description of the provenance is therefore "the region of the sources of the river Volkhov". It may come from a settlement or it may have been dropped into the river.

The brooch belongs to a small group of equal-armed brooches which can be named the Valsta type after one of the find-places (Fig. 5). The total number hitherto known is eight, including the Russian specimen. Four specimens come from graves around Lake Malaren in Central Sweden (Fig. 3) and the other specimens from a grave in western Norway, a cemetery in south-western Finland and a hill-fort in northern Estonia. Fragments of moulds for casting brooches of this type were recently found in Birka (Fig. 4).

There are considerable differences between the specimens but common to them all are the rhomboid arms with boss-shaped animal heads at the three free corners and bent "tufts of hair" sticking out from the heads. The Volkhov brooch has longer tufts than the others and the inner surfaces of the arms are decorated with stylised animal bodies instead of the nonfigurative pattern with a central boss found on the other brooches.

The strong relief of the Valsta type is characteristic of Scandinavian jewellery in the early and middle Viking period, and the animal elements in the decoration - including the bodies on the arms of the Volkhov brooch - are related to the Scandinavian gripping-beast decoration, typical of the early Viking period (second half of the 8th - second half of the 9th century). Three of the Swedish brooches were found in association with beads, and the Norwegian brooch was found with beads and oval brooches which indicate the same date. The types of beads represented in the Swedish graves are characteristic of the earliest layers (E3 and E2) in Staraya Ladoga, dated dendrochronologically to the period between the 750s and 860s, and they do not occur at Gorodishche where the settlement started in the second half of the 9th century or may be earlier (among the finds there are several Scandinavian brooches of early Viking-period types which may indicate this, but which may also have reached the site during a later period).

It is generally held that the Scandinavian equal-armed brooches have a Western European origin, and the Valsta type is one of the types that most clearly show this western origin. It can be grouped together with two more wide-spread types - P 58 and P 73 - and a couple of very rare types by their predominantly non-figurative design, partly probably of floral origin, in contrast to most other Scandinavian types which are dominated by typical Scandinavian animal ornaments. The closest parallels to the group come from an area between the mouth of the river Rhine in the north and the river Seine in the south.

The Valsta type therefore seems to illustrate the strong influences that reached Scandinavia in the early Viking period from the Frankish Empire via trading stations at the Rhine mouth. An important place for the production of the Valsta type was Birka, and the eastern distribution of the type seems to be characteristic of products from this place. The type was not produced in such large quantities as many other types of Viking period jewellery, and the Volkhov brooch shows no signs of long use. Its deposition date should therefore most probably be within the early Viking Age.

Objects of Scandinavian type form a significant group of finds in the region of the sources of the river Volkhov. They all come from the cultural layers of settlements. Graves with objects of Scandinavian character are, with one exception (from Gorodishche), not known. This fact should be kept in mind when we compare the frequency and character of Scandinavian objects from different parts of Rus'. The majority of the objects of Scandinavian type from the upper reaches of the Volkhov have been found at Gorodishche. In the 9th and 10th centuries this settlement was the main centre for merchants and craftsmen, warriors and administrators in the Il'men' area, situated at the junction of the two most important water routes through the eastern European forest zone: the route from the Baltic to the Volga and the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks".

It must be underlined that Gorodishche had a very strong North-European "flavour" in the 9th—10th centuries, owing to objects originating from Scandinavia, objects made in the Il'men' area but preserving northern traditions in their style and decoration, and finally objects which cannot be given any closer ethnic attribution but which are characteristic of various tribes and peoples around the Baltic. Artifacts of Scandinavian character appeared at Gorodishche in the second half of the 9th century, maybe even earlier, but the majority of Scandinavian objects belong to the 10th century. Scandinavian cult objects cannot have reached Gorodishche as objects of trade but indicate that emigrants from the north, both men and women, lived here. Objects of Scandinavian character were also manufactured at Gorodishche.

The Slavic elements in the material culture of Gorodishche have parallels in the West Slavic lands south of the Baltic sea. The questions concerning the Slavic immigration to Lake Il'men' and the Volkhov are not yet solved. However, the extent find material from Gorodishche indicates that the 9th and 10th century inhabitants were Slavs and Scandinavians,

In the initial phase Gorodishche repeated in a somewhat different way the development undergone earlier by (Staraya) Ladoga at the mouth of the river Volkhov. Typologically they constituted centres of the same kind. Around the year 1000 a new centre was formed at the sources of the Volkhov: "Novyj gorod", the "New Town", consisting of a Christian ecclesiastical centre, a market place, a princely yard and a new fort. Gorodishche, the "Old Fort", resigned its place to its successor Novgorod, in the same way as Gnezdovo resigned to Smolensk, Birka to Sigtuna, Hedeby to Schleswig.

Objects of Scandinavian type have also been found in Novgorod, in the layer of the 10th—11th centuries and in two cases in the layers of the first half of the 12th century, but their number is considerably lower than at Gorodishche. This difference is partly connected with chronology. Layers from the 10th century - the period when the Scandinavian impact on Rus' is most obvious in the material culture - are sparsely represented in Novgorod and mostly belong to the second half and the end of the century. The Scandinavians probably also settled in certain quarters and certain yards which may not yet been excavated. Future studies may therefore change our picture of the town. The difference between Gorodishche and Novgorod should, however, first and foremost be explained by the different socio-economic character of the two settlements. Gorodishche was a commercial and manufacturing centre of international character with a polyethnic population whose prosperity was based on its participation in long-distance trade and on its control of the water routes. Novgorod, on the other hand, was the capital of the northern part of the Russian state and based its existence on the exploitation of the surrounding farming population. At Gorodishche the Scandinavians were warriors, traders and craftsmen, partly living there with families, and they constituted a considerable part of the population. In Novgorod their presence is not so clear from the archaeological finds.

The newly found equal-armed brooch of Valsta type complements this general picture. It gives additional support to the opinion that the Scandinavians probably appeared on the upper reaches of the Volkhov earlier than the second half of the 9th century and also that the Scandinavians arriving in Rus' mainly came from the area around Lake Malaren in central Sweden.

 

О.В. Овсянников. Средневековая Арктика: археологические открытия последних лет

O. V. Ovsiannikov. The Arctic of the Middle Ages: recent archaeological discoveries

In recent years considerable study has been given to the medieval sites of Eastern European arctic - the antiquities which are of paramount importance for the understanding of historico - cultural and ethnic processes that took place in arctic tundras since the second half of the 1st millennium A.D., have been discovered on a vast territory from Scandinavia to the Northern Urals and are being intensively studied at present, two most important aspects associated with this progress should be pointed out: the study of medieval arctic leans upon the achievements of the medieval archaeology of the Eastern European northern forest zone, and, secondly, in the near-polar and polar regions of the we deal not only with casual separate finds but with a series of basic sites of different types (cemeteries, sacrificial places, settlements).

1. The study of the burial sites of medieval Lapps (Laplanders) in the Kola peninsula enabled archaeologists for the first time to raise the question of the origin of the Lappish medieval community in the Southern part of the peninsula (Gurina 1981: 65-70; Ovsiannikov 1985: 84-88; Ovsiannikov 1983: 98-106; Gurina, Ovsiannikov, Riabinin 1990: 125-134). Besides the above - mentioned funeral complexes in the form of stone fences but without fixed bones and grave goods though also belonging to Lappish sites were found on the Solovetsky Archipelago (Golhman, Lukianchenko 1979: 98-106; Martynov: 83-87). Different types of burial sites point to the complexity of ethnocultural processes in Protolappish society where local basis was strongly influenced by Finnish ana Karelian tribes, these processes took place on the territory which can be referred to as the "Lappish boundary" of Russian lands in the XIIth - XIIIth centuries.

2. In the context of the Lappish problem of special importance are the excavations of a settlement (a sacrificial place) of the XIIth - XVth centuries in the central part of the Kola Peninsula, in the vicinity of Lake Lov (Shayakhmetova 1990: 33-38) where Russian trade imported goods are quite common. On the Murmansk shore of the Kola Peninsula only one medieval find is known - a fragment of a XIIth century, bronze fibula was found in the Sidorovskaya Bay when examining the shore (Ovsiannikov O. V., the 1991 works).

3. In the Lower Pechora region we succeeded in finding and studying a complex of Vlth - XIIIth century sites characteristic of the culture of Pechora tribes (siir - ti) at different stages of their history. In the Vlth - Xth centuries when the tribes had close contacts with the Northern Pre - Ural and Trans - Ural regions the finds of the so - called "Permian animal style? are most common among bronze ornaments. The finds of the Xlth - Xlllth centuries are the produce of Russian craftsmen from northern towns (tools, military equipment, bronze and glass ornaments). Among the sites studied are two fortified settlements of the Vlth – Xth centuries and a sacrificial place of the Vlth - Xlllth centuries. Thus, in the Lower Pechora region sites were studied throwing light on the last stages of the existence of Pre -Samodian Pre-Nents population in the region in question (Ovsiannikov 1990: 99-105; Ovsiannikov 1990a: 150-186).

4. The complex of sacrificial places on Vaigach Island (Khlobystin 1990: 121-135; Khlobystin 1991: 23-38) is a site belonging to three historical stages: the period of the Vlth -Xth centuries is characterized by the finds typical of local Pechorian tribes; the next period (the Xlth - XIIIth centuries) is characterized by plenty of ancient Russian and Bulgarian imported goods and, finally, the late Nenets period (the XVIIIth - XXth centuries) is represented only by some Vaigach sanctuaries. Such "longevity" of sacrificial places is often not connected with certain cultural continuity but reflects the features and location of a natural object, as happened with Vaigach Island in the present case.

5. Of great importance for the understanding of historical and cultural situation in the Eastern European Arctic region is an ancient Russian hoard found during earth-moving work near Arkhangelsk (Nosov, Ovsiannikov, Potin 1992: 3-21). The hoard consists of silver coins and silver ornaments and is dated from the 30-s of the XIIth century. On the whole the hoard may be considered as a peculiar "treasure" collected and stored for trade with the tribes of the extreme North-East and kept in dangerous moments in the Northern Dvina delta, i.e. in the very beginning of the most difficult ana unsafe section of the trade route to the areas with the richest fur trades.

In our opinion, the sites considered are important for the study of local ethnocultures in different regions of the Arctic and the history of the development of transit trade route from the Western and Central White Sea region to the Extreme North - East, of Europe and the North of Western Siberia.

 

А.Н. Кирпичников, С.В. Белецкий. Новые сфрагистические находки из Старой Ладоги

A. N. Kirpichnikov, S. V. Beletsky. New sphragistic finds from Old Ladoga

During the 1992-93 excavations on the Zemlyanoye (Earthen) site in Old Ladoga, conducted by the Institute of History of the Material Culture, two examples of medieval Russian sphragistic art were Found, a stamp dating from the pre-Mongolian times (I), and a 14th century seal (II).

The stamp bears representations of the Cross and of some saint (St. Theodor type). Stamps imprinted in similar moulds have been found in Novgorod, Pskov, and Dubna, Moscow region. Because one of the Novgorod specimens comes From layer 19 of Nerev excavation area, this type may not be later then the 1130s.

No less man 130 stamps representing the Cross and a saint have been found in Russia. According to purely sphragistic criteria, they correspond to seals which belonged to princes, the sovereign temporal rulers of Russia. However, unlike the stamps, seals showing the Cross and a saint are rare in pre-Mongolian Russia (no more than thirty are known). So the functions of the seals and the stamps were different, despite the similarity of their design: while me former were used for the endorsement of documents, the latter were possibly related to the monetary activities of the qrand-ducal government.

The obverse of the seal bears the sign of Cross encircled by the inscription "(Archbishop) Alexey's". On the reverse, mere is an inscription of five lines, reconstructed as "Seal of the Archbishop of Old Ladoga". No imprints of this pair of moulds have been found so far. However, seals of other archbishops of Ladoga are known, one being that of Archbishop David (1309-25), another issued during Archbishop Moses's first prelateship (1326-30 ). The seal published here was made during the reign of Archbishop Alexiy (1360-88) and is apparently the latest of the seals issued by me archbishops of Ladoga and carrying the name and the title of the Archbishop of Novgorod.

 

АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ АРХЕОЛОГИИ

 

В.А. Алекшин. Новые данные о мустьерских погребениях Ближнего Востока

V. A. Alekshin. New evidence on the Near Eastern Mousterian burials

No Mousterian burials have been found in the Palestine after 1983. However, certain archaeological papers published in the late 80s and early 90s contain new information concerning the previously discovered burials. Some of these data help to specify the chronology, while others contribute to our understanding of the Middle Palaeolithic burial rite.

The first one to be discussed is O. Bar-Yosef's note on the discovery of two infantile skeletons in the Kebara shelter (Bar-Yosef 1988). The reports published in 1977 mention just one skeleton of a seven or eight-months-old child (Schick, Stekelis 1977; Smith, Arensburg 1977). Because the skeleton was well preserved, and both the burial pit and its covering were present, the scholars arrived at a justified conclusion that the burial was intentional (Stekelis 1977; Smith, Arensburg 1977; Smirnov 1991). However, given the number of bones found, it would be more accurate to assume that separate parts of a dismembered body were buried.

The grave was located in a area rich in ashes and kitchen waste (Bar-Yosef 1988). For that reason, stone tools, a rhinoceros's tooth, and a hearth unearthed near the skeleton should not be associated with the burial, contrary to a view expressed by Smirnov (1991).

According to Bar-Yosef (1988), the second infant was buried not far from the first one. The information on the second burial is included in a monograph by Smirnov (1991). However, in summarizing studies dealing with Mousterian burials of the Levant (Tillier e. a. 1988; 1991), the second Kebara infant is not mentioned. A recently published detailed report of the excavations in Kebara (Bar-Yosef e. a. 1992), also contains no data on that point, so the issue is still open to debate.

The chronology of the Middle Palaeolithic burials in Levant is a very contentious matter. The analysis of the Qafzeh Mousterian fauna indicates that it is similar to the fauna of layers E and F in Tabun (Bar-Yosef 1988a; Tchernov 1988). So the Middle Palaeolithic strata of Qafzeh are evidently earlier than they were believed to be several years ago, and may be contemporary with a hiatus between Tabun D and F (Tchernov 1988). Tabun D has been safely dated at 85 000-60 000 BP (Farrand 1979; Jelinek 1981). Apparently the Qafzeh burials must be older than 85 000 BP. Tabun E has been dated at 90 000-87 000 BP by the amino acid racemization method (Masters 1982). This technique tends to underestimate the absolute age. Thus it resulted in a conclusion that the Mousterian layers in Qafzeh were younger than the Upper Palaeolithic layers (Masters 1982). Evidently, the upper strata of Tabun E are earlier (100 000-90 000 BP?).

Thermoluminescence dates of layers containing burials in Qafzeh fall within the interval of 97 000 to 87 000 BP (Valladas e.a. 1988). Consequently, the Qafzeh burials could be dated at 100 000-85 000 BP.

The electron-spin-resonance (ESR) method makes the Qafzeh graves even older: 130000-83000 BP (Meignen e.a. 1989). However, the resemblance between the flint tool assemblages of Qafzeh and Tabun D precludes a large time gap between them. Most likely, the date of Qafzeh burials is somewhere between 90 000 and 85 000 BP.

Various scholars are far from being unanimous in their assessment of modern dating techniques as applied to Mousterian burials. Some of them accept these dates, which make the sites with burials considerably earlier than previously believed (Copeland, 1992). Others point to the inaccuracy of these methods, which can estimate the dates of the artefacts but not of the human remains (Hole 1992; Whallen 1992). The third ones maintain that new methods yield erroneous dates which should not be taken into account at all (Clark, Lindly 1988; 1989).

However, the case of Qafzeh demonstrates that the most reliable dates are obtained with the thermoluminescence method. The amino acid racemization method makes the Mousterian sites younger than they actually are, while the ESR method makes them older.

These facts indicate that the dates of Skhul B, obtained by means of both the ESR method (113 000-66 000 BP, see Stringer e.a. 1989) and the amino acid racemization technique (55 000-35 000 BP, see Masters 1982) should be viewed with caution. Nevertheless both chronological schemes imply that the time range of Skhul В was considerable, in keeping with A. Ronen's view (Ronen 1976). This view is also upheld by the stratigraphy of Skhul burials: while graves I, II, IV, and V are situated at the depth of 2 to 2,4 metres from the bench mark, the depth of graves III, VI-IX is 2,5 to 3,75 metres (McCown, 1937). Apparently, the two groups of burials are separated by a large time gap.

Contrary to the opinion expressed by Bar-Yosef (1988a), the considerable temporal extension of the layer Skhul В excludes the possibility of its being completely synchronous with Tabun C, since the latter falls within a narrow range of 53 000-51 000 BP according to amino acid racemization (Masters 1982). Given the systematic reduction of age introduced by this method, Tabun С can be placed in the interval between 59/58 000 and 50, 000 BP, which does not contradict the dates recently suggested for this layer (Bar-Yosef, Goldenberg 1988; Tchernov 1988).

The stone industry also indicates that only the early portions of Skhul В and Tabun С are contemporaneous (Garrod 1962; Jelinek 1981; 1982). The earlier stratigraphic group of

Skhul burials (III, VI-IX) is apparently contemporary with Tabun С (Alekshin 1993). The most likely date of the later burials (Skhul I, И, IV, V) is 50 000-45 000 BP.

The stone industry of Amud is similar to that of Tabun D (Ohnuma, Akazawa 1988). Because the date of the latter is 85 000-60 000 BP, the Amud burial cannot be later than 60 000 BP.

The burial of an adult male in Kebara layer XII (62 000-56 000 BP, see Valladas e.a., 1987; Vandermecrsch, Bar-Yosef 1988; Bar-Yosef e.a. 1992) and that of a child in layer X (65 000-58 000 BP, see Bar-Yosef e.a. 1992) are virtually contemporaneous.

The male skeleton Kebara XII lacks the cranium, right femur, all ankle and feet bones. All other bones, including those of the chest, are intact and were found in anatomical order (Tillier e.a. 1988; Bar-Yosef e.a. 1988; Tillier 1990; Tillier e.a. 1991; Duday e.a. 1990; Bar-Yosef e.a. 1992).

All researchers believe that the burial pit was uncovered sometime after the funeral. The head or the skull were extracted without disturbing the anatomical order of the other skeletal parts, including the mandible, which remained in the grave. To excavate the grave without disturbing the corpse would be possible only provided that the pit had a safe and easily removable cover (like a skin), with a small amount of earth above but none yet inside. In the hot climate, the dissociation of soft tissues proceeds rapidly, and the corpse in this case could be dismembered without the use of stone tools. At the same time, almost all the bones of legs and feet were apparently also taken out of the grave. After that the pit was filled up with earth, which prevented the skeleton from being destructed by the pressure of the sediments accumulating above it.

The Kebara burial demonstrates that besides dismembering corpses with stone tools which left scratches on the bones (Le Mort 1988, 1989; Ullrich 1986), the Mousterians used another way of handling their dead, one which left no traces. In the latter case, the body could be dismembered after the ligaments and other soft tissues had dissociated. Given the large number of burials with parts of skeletons missing (Alekshin 1993, 1993a), and no traces being left on the remaining bones, the second method was widely used in the Middle Palaeolithic.

Vandermeersch's mention of red ochre allegedly present in graves 8 and 11 of Qafzeh (Alekshin 1993) turned out to be inaccurate. It has recently been established that small clods of red paint, found in these graves, as well as a fragment of an ostrich's egg shell from grave 11, got there from the cultural layer, where they are abundant (Tillier e. a. 1988). So to the best of our knowledge, the Levantine Mousterians did not put red paint in the graves.

All the above does not affect my earlier view concerning the semantics of the Mousterian funeral rites (Alekshin 1993, 1993a). Most of the Middle Palaeolithic burials are incomplete, no matter how soon after the funeral the bodies were dismembered. These rites are similar to those widely practiced in the traditional hunting and gathering societies, where separate bones, skulls, skins, entrails, or scales left over after the meat of mammals, birds or fish had been eaten were buried to revivify the animals (Hallowed 1926). Such rites are quite archaic and were apparently practiced by the Mousterians as well. The ritual burial of a dismembered carcass of a doe has been found in Nahr Ibrahim cave, Lebanon (Solecki 1975; 1982). In Regourdou shelter, France, dismembered remains of bears, mostly young ones, have been discovered (Bonifay 1989). Symbolic animal revival rites attempted to restore the natural balance which had been disturbed by the kill.

Dismembered remains of people of the Middle Palaeolithic indicate that the Mousterian hunters tried to turn the dead people back to life by the same means which they used to revivify the killed animals. The revival of man, perhaps in a new bodily disguise, should restore the social balance disrupted by death.

The funerary rite emerged as a magical means protecting the Middle Palaeolithic hunters from extinction. It was part and parcel of human culture, a way of opposing death and preserve the stability of a hunting community. The view of Mousterian burials as a purely emotional response to death, much the same as that shown by the chimpanzees (Dibble, Chase 1993), is erroneous. At the same time, all the totality of archaeological facts concerning these burials (lack of funerary food, burial offerings, or red paint) testifies to the virtual absence of ideas concerning the other world.

 

М.В. Аникович. Основные принципы хронологии и периодизации верхнего палеолита Европы

M. V. Anikovich. The main principles of the chronology and periodization of the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe

Chronology and periodization are closely connected but not identical concepts: in chronology historical facts are projected on to the time scale external to them, in periodization historical time proper is expressed - qualitative variations of the historical process itself in the course of its development. The chronology of the Upper Palaeolithic is built using first and foremost geological stratigraphy, stratified sites playing the main role. The time scale on which the Upper Palaeolithic sites are projected is geological time, which determines the sequence and conditions of the formation of corresponding strata. Radiocarbon dates are considered to be the most reliable method in finding correspondence between geological and astronomical time. However, their correlation with modern absolute chronology is not perfect. With respect to the Upper Palaeolithic, it would be more correct to speak about radiocarbon rather than absolute age. European Upper Palaeolithic sites are geologically dated from the last two thirds of the Wu'rm (Valdai) glaciation. This period is divided into two parts, the "Middle Valdai" and the "Late Valdai" (using the East European terminology), each of them being divided, in turn, into smaller intervals. The upper time limit of the Upper Palaeolithic is believed by most archaeologists to coincide with the boundary between the Pleistocene and the Holocene (according to C14, about ten thousand years B.P. ). The lover limit is somewhat different in different regions of Europe: about 40 thousand years B.P. on the average. In the 30s-50s Soviet archaeologists tried to construct sociological periodization of the Upper Palaeolithic based on significant social and economic changes. This periodization was methodically unfounded and purely speculative. At, present the predominant opinion is that such periodization should be archaeologically based: it must use archaeological criteria. The present author considers the Upper Palaeolithic as the "Bone Age" and brings it into correlation with the Mousterian, the Neolithic ("the Pottery Age"), the Bronze Age and the Iron Age as equivalent taxonomic units. The Mesolithic is considered as the final stage of the Upper Palaeolithic. Thus, the upper chronological limit of this period in Europe rises up to the 7th millenium. For the inner periodization of the Upper Palaeolithic different archaeological criteria can be used. The overall technical and typological similarity expressed by the terms "Szeletian", "Aurignacian", "Gravettian" does not satisfy this task as the existence of each of these three types of industries in Europe covers a considerable period of time: about a half of the Upper Palaeolithic and more. Moreover, these industries are largely coexistent. The author defines these taxonomic units not as stages but as the "Routes of Development", or "Technocomplexes". The first step towards a common European periodization of the Upper Palaeolithic should be the working out of regional periodizations based on the chronological distribution of archaeological data and the discovery of important changes. For the Upper Palaeolithic of Eastern Europe such changes are registered the large-scale disappearance of some archaeological cultures and the emergence of others. Three stages can be distinguished here on these grounds: 1. The early stage -archaic Szeletian cultures coexist with developed Aurignacian ones, later also with Gravettian cultures. 2. The middle stage - the period of prosperity of the Upper Palaeolithic in all aspects: from stone and bone industries to the construction of dwellings and art. 3. The final stage links the cultures of the Late Pleistocene with mesolithic cultures.

 

С.А. Васильев. Финальный палеолит Сибири и мадлен Франции: сравнительный анализ структуры стоянок

S. A. Vasilyev. The final palaeolithic of Siberia and the Magdalenian of France: a comparative analysis of structural features

The last decades have witnessed a considerable progress in the study of the Upper Palaeolithic in parts of Southern Siberia (the Western Siberian Plains, Yenisei and Angara basin, and Trans-Baikal region). This progress has resulted in the discovery of several structural features. The most astonishing fact to emerge is the apparent similarity of the Siberian sites with the Magdalenian ones of the Paris Basin, Northern France. To begin with the affinity is seen in similar geographical settings of these sites. Cultural horizons are embedded in the laminated sandy and loamy alluvias deposits which form the riverside terraces.

Also, numerous parallels are seen on the structures within them. The main concentrations of artifacts are associated with hearths of various types. Among those worth attention are slab-lined structures (Fig. 1). A large number of sites have yielded traces of light-weight dwellings surrounded by stones (Ust' Menza 1-4, Studenoye 1, Etiolles, and Ui II, see Fig. 2). The model pioneered by A. Leroi-Gouran on the basis of the Pincevent data appies to Siberian data as well. The identification of huts in cases where traces of stone linings could not be observed is much more difficult. The ethno-archaeological model proposed by L. R. Binford apparently applies both to the French sites like Verberie, and to the Siberian sites like Golubaya 1 and Maina. Spatial analysis of the occupational surfaces has revealed different patterns in the distribution of artifacts and charcoal lenses (Fig. 3). The increased frequency of backed bladelets may be relevant for the identification of domestic units (Pincevent, Verberie, Etiolles, Ui II, see Fig. 4 and 5).

Other structural features include concentrations of debitage indicating locations of ancient workshops. Statistical analysis of frequencies of various artifact classes found within these structures has made it possible to differentiate between various structures and activities within them. Flat stone pavements are less common, and caches of stone and bone fragments are extremely rare.

All structural features identified in Northern Asia are very similar to those of the French Magdelenian. This may be due to the resemblances in the subsistence behaviour and settlement patterns of the Late Palaeolithic hunters living in various regions. It may be suggested that vast subsistence and settlement areas existed in the final Pleistocene.

 

Г.Ф. Коробкова. Орудия труда и начало земледелия на Ближнем Востоке

G. F. Korobkova. Stone tools and the beginning of agriculture in the Near East

The functions of working tools and, first of all, those immediately connected with farming economy can be established by means of the use-wear analysis of stone tools invented by S. A. Semenov and supplemented by experimental results. This primarily refers to harvesting implements indicating the slightest changes in the set of plants reaped with them. It is these implements that enabled us to solve a complicated problem: when and where the transition from gathering wild cereals to their cultivation took place. According to the specialists studying the palaeoecological situation at the sites of the Natufian culture, it was the Near East, first of all, the territories of the Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine.

The subjects of the study (with T. A. Sharovskaya's direct assistance) were the collections of Epipalaeolithic layers Kebara el Wad (layer B), Abu Hurreyra (trench E, layers 311, 312, 313, 314, 315), Nahal Oren (layer VI) kept in the British National Museum.

The work resulted in the complete study of the whole collection of Kebara В (over 300 objects), Epipalaeolithic layers of Abu Hurreyre (over 3100 objects) and the Natufian layer Nahal Oren (about 800 objects). This makes up over 4200 various flint artifacts, not counting over 2000 artifacts from the layers of Beidha. It should be noted that these collections are by no means of equal value either qualitatively or quantitatively. Kebara В mainly contained working tools (78, 3%), for flint splitting waste remained at the site. At Abu Hurreyra tools made up over 16%, at Nahal Oren over 20%. The types of tools at these sites were nearly the same, the main difference being the percentage of this or that type. The assemblage included tools used in furriery, tanning (various end-scrapers, perforators for shin needles, polishers) woodworking and bonecarving (microburins, burins, scrapers, saws, drills, chisels, planing cutters), butchering knives, tools used for harvesting different plants, for stone splitting and trimming (fabricators, flakers), treating shells and making ornaments of them (saws, drills, microburins), grinding and making paint (paint grinders, pestles, scrapers), polyfunction implements.

Among over 300 artifacts from Kebara В inserts of various harvesting tools made up 94 items or nearly 50% of the whole number of working tools. At Abu Hurreyra there were 8 inserts or 1,6% of over 3100 flint artifacts. Layer VI of Nahal Oren contained 3 inserts among 760 artifacts which made up 1,9% of the whole number of tools. Of special interest are inserts used for domesticated wild cereals. These inserts display all indications of micro-wear established on the basis of experimental data. For instance, 17 bladelets among 94 inserts of Kebara В suggest that they should have been used for domesticated wild cereals. Among 8 inserts of Abu Hurreyre I is connected with domesticated wild cereals. One insert out of 3 at Nahal Oren was used for the same purposes.

Harvesting knives from Natufian sites used for cutting wild cereals which were already being cultivated are characterized by a bright, smooth narrow burnished strip, 1-3 millimetres wide. The burnished strip is compact by the working edge of the blade, regular, penetrates into the microrelief of the working surface. The edge is slightly deformed as a result of the crumbling of the blade in the process of wear. The parameters of microfacets are 0,2-0,5 millimetres. The retouch is onesided, irregular, sometimes forming groups, deep, located by the edge. There are single facets on the other side of the blade. The traces of crumbling are mainly detectable under the microscope, very seldom by a naked eye. Within the burnished strip there are numerous linear traces parallel or slightly inclined to the blade. The lines are narrow, thin, elongated, close to each other, alternating with holes bearing traces of wear on one side and single comet-shaped figures. They often combine to make wider furrows. The upper boundary of the use-wear surface is often vague (depends on the position of the blade in the slot of the haft). These traces are characteristic of the inserts of harvesting knives from Kebara B, Abu Hurreyra and Nahal Oren. Thus it may be concluded that these tools were used for cultivated wild cereals.

Thus the data obtained as a result of use-wear and experimental study of harvesting knives with insert blades from 4 Natufian sites (Kebara B, Abu Hurreyra, Nahal Oren and Beidha) allow us to speak about the beginning of primitive cultivation of wild cereals in the 10th millennium B.C. Many indirect data stated above point to this fact. This is also supported by numerous supplies of grain (of wild cereals) found at Abu Hurreyre with their further domestication in pre-pottery layers. The investigations considered also confirm G. Hillman's hypothesis for the development of the pre-domestication from of cultivating wild weete in the Epipalaeolithic. Use-wear experimental studies of the working edge of harvesting knives provide support for this hypothesis. At present no definite evidence is available for the growth of wild cereals near Abu Hurreyra. This might be reason why its population started domesticating the seeds of wild cereals brought from far away as a reserve. Domestication might have been carried out on small plots worked with the most primitive earth-digging tool - sticks-diggers found in the Early Palaeolithic complexes of the Jeitun culture in Turkmenistan and effective when working all types of soil, especially arid soil (as our experiments have shown).

The harvest gathered in from such small plots by no means could ensure the subsistence minimum for the population of these settlements. Gathering wild cereals still remained the main way of getting food-stuff. Used in economy were other kinds of plants - reed, cane, wild grasses. Traces of wear resulting from harvesting these plants are clearly observed on the surface of working tools. They are well differentiated and backed by experimental results.

Thus the microwear analysis of industries from the layers of Kebara B, Abu Hurreyre, Nahal Oren shows that the pre-domestication period of cultivating wild cereals started in the 10th — 9th millennium B.C. and resulted in complete domestication of wild cereals in Preneolithic period A and B. Therefore the origin of farming in the Near East should be dated from the Epipalaeolithic. The elaboration of diagnostic indices of harvesting knives and sickles supports the conclusion that harvesting tools play a decisive role in determining economic orientation and were used for specific purposes: for cutting wild or cultivated cereals, grass, reed, cane, nettle and other kinds of plants. Concrete definition of their functions contributes to the reconstruction of true historic pattern of prehistoric economic systems. They are not of the most important indices defining the economy of hunters and gatherers who took their first steps in farming.

 

А.А. Вайман. О квазишумерских табличках Тэртэрии

A. A. Vaiman. On the Quasi-Sumerian tablets from Tartaria

In 1963 N.VIassa published a paper with a description of three baked clay tablets which were found during his excavations in Tàrtâria, Transylvania, Roumania (figs.1-3). On one of them (fig.l) a tree is depicted with two animals standing on its sides. The researcher compared this representation with the impression of a Sumerian seal. Two other tablets (figs.2,3) carry signs, many of which, according to Vlassa, are either identical with, or very similar to, those inscribed on the tablets from Uruk IV (early Proto-Sumerian script). The sensational find has gained a wide publicity. The most significant paper that has appeared so far is that by А.Falkenstein who has basically supported Vlassa's conclusions. Falkenstein has compared the Tàrtâria tablets with those from layer III in Uruk and Jemdet-nasr (late proto-Sumerian script) using a number of criteria, such as clay, format, stylus, structure of the text, signs. He has proved beyond doubt that the script of the Tàrtâria tablets had been directly influenced by the proto-Sumerian script. At the same time, the tablets have not been studied in sufficient detail yet.

The present article is yet another attempt at studying the Tartaria tablets. It offers more accurate tracings of certain signs; also, a new attempt is made to identify the Tartaria signs with both early and late versions of the proto-Sumerian ones (see our list on fig.4); some characteristics of the Tartaria script are discussed, providing a possibility to assess the degree of their independence with respect to the proto-Sumerian script; a tentative interpretation is suggested for both the separate records and the texts in general.

First and foremost, according to published photographs, the copies of the tablets need to be corrected. The most important corrections are as follows. Tablet 2: 11, sign No.9 (fig.4): the cuneiform oblique dash (fig.2) is not shown. Tablet 2: V, sign No. 10 (fig.4): the middle horizontal incision (fig.3) is not shown; III and IV: the dividing incisions (fig.3) are not shown. It appears that the published copies have been made from the photographs rather than from the tablets themselves.

We have already mentioned that three of the Tartaria signs (Nos.9, 10, and 16) have been incorrectly identified by Falkenstein.

In sign No.9, the oblique dash has not been taken into account, and its presence makes it impossible to identify this sign with the proto-Sumerian sign No.260 (Falkenstein, 1936). Rather, it should be identified with the proto-Sumerian sign No.214 (Falkenstein, 1936).

Sign No. 10 has been identified with the proto-Sumerian sign No.810 (or 543, see Falkenstein, 1936); however, the latter has two vertical lines inside, which are absent in the Tartaria sign. The identification given in our list is self-evident.

Sign No. 16, for no apparent reason, has been identified with the proto-Sumerian sign No.753 (Falkenstein, 1936), although, judging by the context, it should doubtless be identified with the proto-Sumerian number No.905 (Falkenstein, 1936).

As to sign No.l, in the published copy of tablet 2 (fig.2) it looks like two angles (see I 2, fig.4). The horizontal line is admittedly vague; yet its traces are evident in the photograph, which indicates that this sign should be identified with the similar sign of tablet 3, I 1 (fig.4).

Altogether, sixteen of the eighteen Tartaria signs have been identified with the proto-Sumerian ones. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to find proto-Sumerian prototypes for the two remaining signs as well.

Because signs Nos.2, 4, 6, and 10 of the Tartaria tablets (fig.4) have only early proto-Sumerian parallels, it may be assumed that other Tartaria signs, too, were borrowed from the early, rather than from the late, proto-Sumerian script.

It has already been mentioned that not just the signs (possibly all of them) were borrowed, but other things as well, including the material for writing, the rectangular or round shape of the tablets (the latter occurs, although rarely, in layer IV of Uruk), the manner in which the text is divided into parts by means of vertical and horizontal incisions, and the technique of writing. However, the borrowed elements are transformed in such a way that one should speak of an independent Tartarian script rather than of a Tartarian version of the proto-Sumerian script. First and foremost, people who created this script, in contrast to the Sumerians, used only knife-shaped styluses.

The Tartarian script differs from the proto-Sumerian one also in the construction of the texts. Each of the two texts is divided into columns by a vertical incision, and each column is divided into lines by horizontal incisions (table 3, V, provides an exception, see fig.3). In each collumn, the first line from the top contains a number and what is probably the name of the thing counted, while the second line is composed of one to three signs which are not numbers (see tablet 3, I, fig.3, for an exception) and which explicate the numeric record of the top line. As it has been stated above, such a construction is not possible for the proto-Sumerian texts, in which just one line would suffice. Horizontal incisions on Tartaria tablets are situated directly under the signs of the top lines, which is never the case on the proto-Sumerian tablets.

Signs on the Tartaria tablets are arranged so that they fill up all the available space, creating an impression of a completed text. It is especially evident on table 3 (fig.3), where the signs of the top lines are situated quite close to the upper margin, while the signs of the bottom lines come close to the lower margin; as a result, free space is left above the signs in columns II, III, and IV. Such an arrangement of signs is not observed in proto-Sumerian texts.

Certain important differences between the Tartarian script and the proto-Sumerian one are related to the orientation of various elements. Nearly a half of Tartarian signs (Nos.l, 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, 16, 18) are rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise relative to their Sumerian prototypes (fig.4). Admittedly, such rotation occurs also in the early proto-Sumerian script, but these cases are exceptional.

While in proto-Sumerian texts the higher-order digits are placed above the lower-order ones, making up a column, in tablet 2, II 1, of Tartaria (fig.2) higher-order digits are situated to the left of the lower-order ones, making up a line. It would be natural to suppose that such a line was read from the left to the right. It is quite likely that all signs written in a line on the Tartaria tablets were read in a left-to-right fashion (see tablet 2: I 1,2; И 1,2, see fig.2); but being arranged vertically, they were read from top to bottom (tablet 2: I 2, II 1,2, see fig.2; tablet 3: V, sec fig.3). The columns were probably read in the same way as the digits in a line, from left to right. It should be reiterated that in proto-Sumerian texts signs within lines, except digits, are scattered in an apparently random order, while the adjacent columns are read from the right to the left.

Finally, in contrast to what is seen in proto-Sumerian texts, numerical designations in Tartaria tablets do not always precede the non-numerical ones. Thus, in line I i of tablet 2 (fig.2) the numerical symbol is placed to the right of the non-numerical sign, while in line II 1 of the same tablet it is situated below, so in both instances the non-numerical sign precedes the numerical one. Taking into consideration the proto-Sumerian parallels, non-numerical signs in these lines may be interpreted as designations of the things that were counted. All the above brings us to the conclusion that in the language of the Tartarian tablets the names of the things counted apparently precede the respective numerals, or, more generally, the names of the defined things precede the definitions.

The abundance of numerals on the tablets indicates that the latter were economical documents. The meaning of the numerals and of some other signs may be quite safely established by the meaning of their Sumerian prototypes. A certain degree of caution, however, is required since the borrowed signs could have some shades of meanings or even new meanings which were not inherent in their prototypes.

Tablet 2 (fig.2). I 1. Sign No.9 (fig.4) may denote an agricultural worker.

Sign No. 15 (fig.4) is a numeral (originally sixty; however, after having been borrowed. it could acquire the meaning of the respective key numeral in the decimal system, one hundred).

I 2. The two upper signs, Nos.3 and 1 (fig.4) may mean (left to right) "given" ("distributed") and "barley", respectively, and sign No.7 (fig.4) below it, "supervisor".

II 1. The upper sign, No.2 (fig.4) means "goat" or "sheep" (one specimen). Below it, there is a row of numerals: 600, 60, 10, 10, the total amount being 680 (or 1000, 100, 10, 10, totalling 1120). All together may signify 680 (or 1120) head of goats (or sheep).

II 2. The central sign in the line is No.5 (the meaning of the respective proto-Sumerian sign is not known), and to the right of it, two signs, No.ll, "sun", "daytime", "white", and No.8, "sanctuary". The combination of the two latter signs may be read as LARSA, the name of the Sumerian town.

So the inscription on tablet 2 may be tentatively read as follows: 11,2 Sixty (or one hundred) agricultural workers, BA.SE, supervisor.

II 1, 2 Six hundred and eighty (or 1120) head of goats (or sheep).

SA (name?), LARSA (?) Tablet 3 (fig.3). On this tablet, numerals are present only in the middle three columns, II, III, and IV. I 1. Sign No.l (fig.4): "barley" (or, more generally, "grain"). I 2. Sign No. 13 (fig.4) cannot be identified with any proto-Sumerian prototype. II 1. Sign No.18 (fig.4), "one", repeated five times and thus meaning "five". II 2. Sign No.10 (fig.4). This sign is identified with an early proto-Sumerian sign, which, however, has not been identified with any sign in the later script. It appears likely that columns I and II should be viewed together: I 1, "grain", I 2, a cubic measure; II 1, "five"; II 2, a name or a position of a person.

III 1, 2, and IV, 1, 2. The two top lines in both columns contain the same sign, No.12 (fig.4). Apparently, in early proto-Sumerian texts the respective sign already denoted a cubic measure, SILA, probably that of oil. In the Tartaria tablet, this sign, judging by the context, also stands for a cubic measure of some product. The bottom lines of the columns contain signs Nos.4 (its meaning is unknown) and 6, "calf". Like the sign in the bottom line II, these signs probably signify a person's name or position.

V. The column is not divided into lines, and does not contain numerals. There are two (or three?) signs, Nos. 14 and 10 (fig.4), the latter one being the same as that which occurs in line II 2. These signs evidently summarize the contents of all the preceding columns. Thus labtet 3 admits of the following interpretation:

I 1, 2 Of grain... (an unknown measure). II 1, 2 Five (to such-and such). HI 1, 2 One SILA (cubic measure),... (to such-and-such). IV 1, 2 One SILA (cubic measure),... (to such-and-such). V ... No other clay tablets with inscriptions have so far been discovered in Tartaria, and the distribution area of this script is not known. The specimens described were found not in archives, but in a pit, which the excavator believed to be ritual. Before having been placed in the pit, the tablets probably served as amulets. This would explain the presence of holes in two of the specimens (figs.2 and 3). Apparently, strings were passed through these holes to suspend the tablets.

So the tablets described attest to the existence in Tartaria of an original script based on prolo-Sumerian prototypes. The belief that this script was invented prior to the proto-Sumerian one and influenced it, is totally unfounded.

Because the Tartaria signs derive from early proto-Sumerian ones present on tabiets from Uruk layer IV, the Tartaria script apparently emerged in the last quarter of the 4th Millennium ВС. Nothing definite can be said as to where it was invented, but this hardly happened in Transylvania. More likely, its homeland was an area closer to Iraq. Functionally, the tablets were obviously economical documents.

 

А. Стальсберг. Проблемы культурного взаимодействия Руси и Скандинавии в VIII-ХI вв. (по археологическим собраниям СНГ)

A. Stalsberg. Problem of cultural interaction between Rus and Scandinavia during the 8th-11th centuries (based on archaeological collections in CIS)

When back in the sixties, I tried to get to Russia to study Scandinavian-Russian relations during the Viking Age, I was refused by the Soviet authorities: there are neither materials nor specialists in this field. Since then much has changed and perestroïka finally did way with politics ruling history. The points of view, especially during the nationalistic communist regime, were divided into normanism and anti-normanism. This division does not serve a scholarly study and should be abandoned.

I have been working on this topic for 25 years, but there still are a few pages to finish off in a long ready publication of the Scandinavian finds in Russia, other tasks had been given priority. This article is a short analysis based on this study.
The study covers the Viking Age (VIII - mid Xlth centuries) Scandinavian finds found on the territory of Old Rus and the adjacent territories in the north, east and south, since all these finds are the result of the same process. The Baltic states are not included because the finds there obviously belong to a different process. My use of "Rus"' is therefore inaccurate but used for the sake of convenience.
The chronology applied is the wide end overlapping one used by scholars in the later years: early Viking Age /EVA: end VHIth - end IXth cent.; middle /MVA: end IX - second half Xth cent.; late/LVA: second half Xth - first half XI cent. It is used for types as well as complexes.
Scandinavian finds must be defined. It is an object, combination of objects, grave ritual in the Scandinavian tradition (not necessarily made in Scandinavia or by a Scandinavian, but probably originally for a Scandinavian - with that taste and religion). A second requirement is methodologically important; the finds have to be discernible among the local finds (the swords constitute a problem not yet solved. They are of common European types, but I have included them not least because of usage in archaeology so the reader may judge. Some swords of late types from the Ukraine are undoubtedly Russian). Not all Scandinavian finds testify to the presence of Scandinavians in Rus, but costume, burial rite, cult objects and runes are taken to do so.
My catalogue of Scandinavian Finds contains 413 complexes varying from a single stray find to rich graves and settlements, found in more than 140 sites. The earliest find is a chest of smith's tools in Staraya Ladoga, which is mid-Vlllth century. The EVA finds are found along the Ladoga-Volga route, MVA also along the Ladoga-Dneiper route, the LVA only along the latter. They stem from hoards, graves, settlements, stray finds (Fig.I and 2).
The Finds originate mainly from Middle Sweden, none from Gotland during "Birka-time". After Birka's fall in the middle of the Xth century Gotlandic Finds appear along the Dnieper route. Written sources mention Norwegians going cast, but they cannot be archaeological ly discerned.
Before drawing any conclusions about what the Scandinavians/Swedes did in Russia, some points have to be mentioned: rapids and portages are serious hindrances for travellers and natural control points for the inhabitants; all Scandinavian finds to the interior of them are found in centres /towns. The scattered rural finds are in the Lake Ladoga area to the exterior of them (Fig.1,2).
It is striking that more than half of the Scandinavian Finds are women's. Even if there must have been at least as many men as women. There obviously was a considerable number of women among the Scandinavians in Rus. Women are more easily identified than the more internationally dressed men. Women and children mean some kind of families. The Scandinavians were for 1,5-2 centuries buried in between other town dwellers in the cemeteries, i.e. the relationship was orderly, not hostile. In the Lake Ladoga area the intermingling is even stronger (Fig.2). There were men and women in all periods and regions (Tabl.1,2). It is impossible to know the number of Scandinavians in Rus, but the maximum percentage graves with Scandinavian finds, a minimum percentage - Scandinavian graves, can be calculated for some cemeteries and the max. are 7-13 %, min 0-4 % (Timerevo, Petrovskoe.Mihajlovskoe, Gnezdovo, Shestoovicy). There social status is important, but I have Found no stood indications. They obviously were not among the poor, some were rich.
The finds in Rus and in Scandinavia (eastern finds) shop active two-way contacts throughout the Viking Age. Thus, we can draw some conclusions about Scandinavians' activities in Rus on the basis of the archaeological material:
I. Archaeology cannot solve the core problem of classical normanism: who founded the Old Rus state?
2.Archaeology has problems seeing the traces of tax collecting raids etc, or expansive Swedish politics to the east, as assumed by earlier normanists.
3. Piracy is known in the Baltic and the Caspian seas (probably via the Black Sea), but would not have been possible in the area of portages and rapids where aliens were too easily controlled and piracy would not have been the rule. The integration in the cemeteries and the women's and children's finds confirms this.
4. Agricultural settlers would barely be let into densely settled areas around the towns where the Scandinavian finds stem from. The only rural finds are the Lake Ladoga stem.
5. Scandinavian officials are known from the treaties with Byzantium (911/2, 944/5), and the North sagas. Foreign officials will not have loyalty problems, which is exactly what the Primary Chronicle tells about the Rus, and it was convenient for the store to use these foreigners; to solve these problems. Officials might have families, live in towns and have rich burials.
6. Scandinavian mercenary soldiers are also known. They would also be without loyality bonds. They lived in towns which they should defend and control.
7. Graves with mixed couples indicate marriage and family contacts.
8. Wastage from production of ornaments may testify that Scandinavian craftsmen lived in Russian towns.
9. Merchants are well known and in accordance with the characteristics of the material: families integrated into towns reached only by controllable portages end rapids. Women obviously took part in the making of their economic unit/family, since 22% of the weighing equipment found together with Scandinavian finds occurs in women's graves. The cessation of Arabian silver to Buller in the 970-s explains obviously why merchants lost the interest for the Volga route (which obviously bed nothing more to offer).
According to what has just been said there is no single explanation why the Scandinavians went East. During the first part of the XI century the typically Viking Age objects disappeared in Russia because they also became unfashionable in Scandinavia itself. Further contacts are witnessed by other sources. Some of the Scandinavians may have been assimilated, others no doubt went home. The decrease in Scandinavian graves in ruble I seems to support assimilation.
It is hard to evaluate the impact of the Scandinavians on Rus politics, history and culture. They are not visible in the "post -Varangian" medieval Rus. The common traits are due to sharing parts of the north European culture. The Scandinavians did not found states, states are not founded as firms, but develop when time is ripe. But Scandinavian officials and soldiers were important for Russian history, but not as Scandinavian conquerors. Scandinavian trading contributed to keeping the financial wheel running. To judge by the archaeological finds, the Scandinavians were only a small minority in the towns, but they must have been visible and familiar in the streets. It is a pity that the normanist controversy has led astray an important historical, discussion about the relationship between neighbours. Researchers still have work to do concerning the VI1I-XI centuries

А. Гвиди. Итальянское "многостишие": различные направления доисторической археологии

A. Guidi. The Italian "pluriverse": different approaches to prehistoric archaeology

"Do you wish to understand the true history of a Neolithic Ligurian or Sicilian? Try, if you can, to become a Neolithic Ligurian or Sicilian in your mind. If you cannot do that, or do not care to, content yourself with describing and arranging in series the skulls, implements, and drawing which have been found belonging to these peoples".

This quotation, from Theory and History of Historiography, written in 1917 by Benedetto Croce, the greatest Italian philosopher of the twentieth century (Croche 1921: 134-135; translation by R. G. Collingwood), anticipates, with astounding prescience, the governing lines of Italian prehistoric research between the two World Wars.

The cultural Hegemony of Croce's idealist thinking represents one of the keys for the understanding of the impressive decline in the study of prehistory in Italy in that period. In his various writings, Croce clearly manifested his distaste for the effort of various scholars to introduce observation and experiment into historical studies, openly declaring himself anti-evolutionary. Nevertheless, just the typical evolutionistic and scientific, character of the prehistoric research in the XIX century, led by scholars known aboard, like Pigorini, Colini and Boni, was the key of its excellent acquisitions and of its high professional standard (Desittere 1984; Guidi 1988a, b; Perono 1992).

After the Second World War, even a large number of left-wing intellectuals, following the example of the Italian Communist Party intelligentzia, had made Croce's categories own, in an original synthesis. This fact may explain the tenacious opposition, in prehistoric studies, to an anthropological approach - with them important exception of Salvatore Puglisi's book, La civita appenninica (Puglisi 1959), on pastoral economy in middle bronze age Central Italy - and the even stronger opposition to any attempt to introduce research models and procedures akin to those of the experimental science into prehistory.

In the late Sixties the generation change marked in the Anglo-Saxon world by the advent of the New Archaeology, in France by that of Scnapp, Cleziou and Demoule, in the Soviet Union by Klein and by the other young students who undertook the systematic, criticism of the academic establishment, come about in Italy in classical archaeology circles, particularly in the left-wing group called Dialoghi di Arheologia, formed in 1966 on the initiative of a great scholar, Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli.

Prehistorians formed a minority in this circle and were mostly represented by protohistory specialists. It is to one of these latest, Renato Peroni, that in 1969, in the first article on Italian Prehistory to constitute a clear example of exploitation (not only description) of archaeological data, aimed at the reconstruction of the economic and social organization of the protohistoric communities in Central and Southern Italy (Peroni 1969).

In the early seventies, while few specialists who make explicit reference to the New Archaeology methods, like Francesco Fedele and Maurizio Tosi, work in marginal areas or abroad it's a British "New Archaeologist", Graeme Barker, who publishes the first processual analysis of Italian prehistory, dedicated to the economy of Bronze Age

 

ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ НАУКИ

 

А. Стальсберг. Норвежская археология: организация и финансирование

A. Stalsberg. Norwegian archaeology: organization and finances

The main tasks of archaeology are interwoven: research, academic education, popularization and protection of cultural heritage. Earlier these tasks were taken care of by the archaeological museums and the Riksantikvar. Today it is more complicated.

The oldest Norwegian museum dates back to 1760, the Riksantikvar-institution to 1912. There are ca. 200 archaeologists in Norway, ca. 150 of them work in scientific positions, the remaining in the administration or other institutions.

Research. Archaeology is carried out at an academic level at the universities of Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim and Tromso, at the archaeological museum of Stavanger, at the Riksantikvar's expeditions excavating the medieval towns and cities, and at the Bryggen Museum in Bergen. All these institutions are state institutions, except for Bryggens Museum which is a foundation.

The Riksantikvar's expeditions and Bryggens Museum specialize on medieval towns, but the other institutions do not have any defined research profile. It depends on the specialization of the archaeologists working there. The cultural heritage act of 1905 defined the geographical regions of each museum. Therefore, the archaeologists mainly works with the archaeology of their region at the same time as they do research in their special field (e.g. in Trondheim two archaeologists cooperate with the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State University). Norwegian archaeology is orientated towards Anglo-lingual archaeology. As knowledge of languages is narrowing, fewer work with archaeology in French and German. Russian is rare.

The state finances the main works of the state institutions, and the Norwegian research council funds projects and give scholarships to talented young researchers and established scholars. Besides, other administrative bodies and private companies pay for a larger part of the research, mainly field works (on an average for approximately 25 million kroner a year). According to Norwegian law companies and persons planning to develop an area have to pay for archaeological research made necessary by the projects.

Education. Archaeology is taught at an academic level at the universities of Oslo, Bergen and Tromso (in Trondheim possibly from 1994). The higher levels of archaeology are candidates philologiae and doctor artium. The old doctor philosophiae may also be defended.

The admittance to archaeology is limited. During the autumn of 1992 there are 124 students in Oslo, 72 in Bergen an 37 in Tromso (all levels included).

The teachers teach all periods for lower grades students, but in their speciality for higher degree students. Thus, in Bergen (here is competence in African archaeology, the main competence in Saami archaeology is in Tromso, in Trondheim marine archaeology and archaeology of eastern relations including Russian, are being planned.

The education is organized differently. In Tromso the education is fully separated from the museum, in Bergen it is part of the museum (some teachers have museum responsibilities), in Oslo one of the departments alongside the museum, of a large institute of archaeology, numismatics and art history. In Trondheim education is plans as an integrated part of the museum.

University education is free of charge, but. the students have to pay for books, housing, food, if has become harder to get cheap loans and scholarships, and Norway is threatened by a lack of scholarly qualified researchers (in very many fields).

Popularization. Norwegian archaeology has always been connected with museums, and popularization is therefore an integrated part of the archaeologists. All five archaeological museum are state museum; four are university museum (not the Archaeological museum in Stavanger).

Protection of cultural heritage. Only in 1905 did Norway get the first cultural heritage act. The present law was passed in 1978. Finds older than the reformation in 1537 are the property of the state and are to be handed over to the museum in charge of the region where it was found. Finds and cultural objects older than 100 years cannot be exported.

The finder may get a money reward, or photo of tie find and a diploma (the latter is usually preferred). For finds of gold the metal value plus 10% is paid.

All monuments older than 1537 are automatically and without exception protected by the law and no one, owner or other, may destroy or damage them. No compensation is usually paid the landowner.

According to the law those who plan development, building etc. have to make sure that monuments are not damaged etc. From the reorganization in 1990 plans are checked by the fylke-authorities (not state institutions). Permission to remove a monument can be granted only by the five archaeological museum and the Riksantikvar. The highest body is the Riksantikvar, the Directorate for the protection of historical monuments. 40-50 archaeologists work in the administration of Norways's 19 fylke. Many archaeologists are the archaeological museums work with rescue archaeology.

In a couple of year the work with the cultural heritage will be reorganized again, but it is not yet settled now.

Protection of Saami cultural heritage. There are two ancient ethnic group in Norway; the Saami and Norwegians. The main competence in Saami culture is found in Tromso because of their character, Saami monuments and cultural objects older than 100 years are protected by the law. No matter of what age, they may not be exported. Tromso Museum with there regional offices is responsible for the protection. However, only the archaeological museum and the Riksantikvar may allow Saami monuments to be removed. It not always easy to determine the ethnicity of monuments.

There are several fora for archaeological cooperation: for educational matters (university level), for the protection of finds and monuments, and for museum matters. The archaeologists themselves meet once a year for discussing common questions and symposia. Persons with a higher degree in archaeology or who work in an archaeological institution are eligible as members. On a whole, cooperation between archaeological institutions are archaeologists is good in Norway.

 

СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО ВОСТОК-ЗАПАД

 

А. Альслебен, Л.-К. Кенигссон, Х. Кролль, М. Мюллер-Вилле, Е. Н. Носов, Т. Хаммер, И. Янссон. Международные палеоботанические исследования в Новгородской земле (400 - 1200 гг. н.э.)

A. Alsleben, L. -K. Koningsson, H. Kroll, M. Muller-Wille, E. N. Nosov, T. Hammer, I. Jansson. International palaeobotanical studies on the Novgorod Land c. 400-1200 A.D.

In June and July 1993, botanists from Sweden and Germany for the first time took a variety of samples from early medieval settlements around Novgorod and in the town itself for pollenanalysis and the macroanalysis of plant remains. This work was made possible through an invitation by the Novgorod Region Archaeological Expedition of the Institute of the History of Material Culture (St. Petersburg) in cooperation with the Novgorod Archaeological Centre. We also wish to thank the Swedish and German Research Councils as well as the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden, the Academy of Science and Literature at Mainz and the Institute of the History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Sciences for their financial support.

The areas around Lake Il'men' and the river Volchov show a remarkable development in the second half of the first millennium AD, leading to intensified settlement, urbanization and the formation of an early state. The development is connected with the immigration of Slavs (from the south and west?) and the appearance of Scandinavians (mainly from Central Sweden) in the area which was earlier dominated by Finno-Ugric tribes. In our modern agricultural areas, the Iron Age (ending c. 400 AD) was followed by several hundred years without archaeologically known settlements. Typical settlements and graves of farmers preceding the 8th century have not been traced. This period is followed by the Sopka culture, and the first trading settlements and towns appear at the same time: Staraja Ladoga (750's) in an area with little agriculture at the lower Volchov, and Gorodishche ("Ryurik Gorodishche", noddle of 9th century) and Novgorod (second quarter of 10th century) situated at the junction of the water routes and centrally in the agricultural areas around where Lake Il'men' drains into the Volchov. There is no clear continuity between the Iron Age and the medieval activities in the forest areas either. However, remains of a sparse settlements of the Long-Barrow culture can be traced from the 6th century onwards. The economy of this culture is believed to have been complex, based on some sort of extensive farming, cattle breeding, fishing and hunting. The Sopki and the Long-Barrow cultures were followed by a single culture which began to form around 1000 AD, the Ancient Russian culture which was connected with the Christian Russian state.

So far, the economic development of the Novgorod Land has been almost exclusively studied from archaeological and historical points of view. The material involved, however, yields little information about the basic subsistence of the population. A programme has therefore been launched to collect palaeobotanical material to elucidate and, if possible, solve a number of problems defined in the archaeological investigations. The results will then be compared with the development in other areas around the Baltic Sea, i.e. in Central Sweden and the Slavonic, areas south of the Baltic. The problems defined are:

1. What did the natural and cultural landscapes look like during the different periods between c. 400 and 1200 AD, and what climatic changes within this period might be identified?

2. Was the long and archaeologically findless period between the Iron Age and the Sopka culture in the present, agricultural areas due to a lack of settlements? The same problem is presented by the gap between the Iron Age and the Long-Barrow culture.

3. What kind of changes in the economy and the use of laud can be traced?

4. Can chronological or spatial differences in the techniques of land-use be traced?

5. Is it possible to distinguish between land-use serving nutrition and land-use serving other purposes?

6. What sorts of crop were cultivated and were there differences in economy and nutrition between rural settlements and urban centres?

Palynological investigations, (airing was performed with a Dutch polder corer, which turned out to be the only equipment possible to operate in the very hard, clay-rich deposits of the seasonally flooded river banks. Sampling was performed through a continuous collection of all material throughout, each core (with 1 or 0,5 cm samples). Additionally, material from dug archaeological sections were collected for special purposes. During the field campaign all in all more than 1400 samples were collected for palynological investigations.

One fen site was selected in which peat and gyttja formations are present. These deposits will allow the establishment of a palynological standard profile for the Il'men' area. There have also been collected 25 "brick" samples from one of the actual excavations within the city of Novgorod and from the excavations at Gorodishche. The following sites have been studied in the field: Novgorod (Troitskij site); Ryurik Gorodishche; Cholopij Gorodok; fortified settlement Georgij; from a fen near Radbelik; Ryshevo (cemetery); Kamenka (from a fen near a settlement and a cemetery); Niznij Perelesok (a fen near a settlement and a cemetery); Voron'ja Gora (a fen near a settlement and a cemetery); Plakun, Staraja Ladoga.

The establishment of a standard pollen diagram for the Il'men' area will be of priority Then the study of the other cores will follow. Palynological analysis of samples from cultural layers and plough marks will be made for the assessment of prehistoric environmental situations. The "brick series" from Novgorod and Gorodishche macro remains which will be made in Kiel. These series will be analyses for insect remains, coleoptera in particular, and pollen samples will be collected simultaneously from them for chronological and palaeoenvironmental studies.

Macroanalysis of plant remains. Carbonized and uncarbonized plant remains retrieved from archaeologically excavated settlement layers and features can give information on the economy of these settlements. Such information mainly concerns farming and gathering but also gardening, the growing of fruit and nuts and, if mainly in small but regular numbers, on the import of food as luxury goods.

Our planned studies will focus on rural settlements near early medieval centres on Slavonic territory. We known much about, the archaeobotany of European urban centres in the developed High Medieval Period but there is little we known about the economy of their rural surroundings. We also known little about the predecessors of the medieval home economics, which vary considerably from region to region and which may mirror ethnic identity and different landscapes. An overview of the modern state of research concerning archaeobotany in the Old World was published (van Zeist et al. 1991).

Our aim is to provide comparable material which can give us information on differences in the economy and nutrition in the Slavonic region, both in the early towns and trading centres (Novgorod, Staraja Ladoga) and in rural settlements to be compared with western regions (for example Danish, Prankish and Slavonic Schleswig-Holstcin). The differences we look out for may be due to varying landscapes, climate or soils but they may also originate in ethnic and social structures.

Our main task will be to examine materia! from the Russian urban trading centre Novgorod. The material is accessible in the present archaeological excavation at Troickij site and is of a 10th century and later date. We took 25 samples from the western section, which shows 10th-15th-century layers ca. 3 m deep. Additionally we took ten samples from 11th century layers excavated at that time. Naturally, the material from the upper layers and old sections is not in quite the same good condition as that, from freshly dug or deep layers.

Further samples were taken in the regions surrounding Novgorod. Eight of them are from the settlement Ryurik Gorodishche on the eastern bank of Volchov river, a site which is considered to be the predecessor of Novgorod.

Two of the settlements, Georgij and Vasil'evskoe are situated in the old, fertile hinterland of Novgorod Poozer'e, "at the Lake District" between the western shore of lake Il'men' and the fjord-like river Verjazha. Georgij is a 9th – 10th-century fortified settlement, on the border of the ploughlaud at the Verjazha. There only carbonized plant remains are preserved From cultural layers protected of a later bank and from some pits, twelve samples each consisting of more then 50 l of soil were taken. From the neighbouring unfortified settlement Vasil'evskoe, one sample of more than 100 l of soil was retrieved.

A further sample of more than 100 l of soil was taken from the 9th – 10th century cultural layers of the river route control station Cholopij Gorodok near the Volchov north of Novgorod

From settlement layers of the Long-Barrow culture (the second half of the first millennium A.D. ) found under a grave-mound at Ryshevo near the rives- Msta, a random sample was taken, which consisted of about 10 l of soil.

With this material from Novgorod and the surrounding countryside we hope to produce a first and possibly sufficient overview on the early agriculture of the ninth/tenthith century and later.

 

М. Брисбейн, Е.Н. Носов, А.С. Хорошев. Российско-английское сотрудничество в археологическом изучении Новгорода

M. Brisbain, E. N. Nosov, A. S. Khoroshev. Anglo-Russian Collaboration in the Archaeological Study of Novgorod

Following the World Archaeological Congress held in 1986 in Southampton (England), a programme of archaeological collaboration was agreed between Prof. Vadim Masson, Director of the Institute of the History of Material Culture (at that time Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Archaeology Academy of Sciences of the USSR) and Prof. Peter Ucko of the Department of Archaeology, Southampton University. This programme included projects studying differing chronological periods and cultures and stimulated academic contacts and scientific links through expeditions, conferences and joint publications.

One project involved the study of the origin and development of towns in Northwestern Russia, and the similarities and differences between this area, the Baltic and western Europe especially Britain. In the 8th to 11th centuries both northern Russia and England are on the edges of the Viking world and as such share some characteristics which may be defined and examined archaeologically. As well as the examination of this specific research topic through the study of the results of excavations, the collaboration has also been examining excavation and post-excavation techniques and methodology, artifact studies, the preservation of sites and monuments and the analysis and conservation of artifacts.

The main area where this collaboration has had its focus has been Novgorod and its hinterland. This crucially important site, with its unique preservation of timber buildings and streets as well as organic and other finds, has been scientifically and extensively excavated for over 60 years. For this reason and due to its position as the emerging capital of Northern Russia in the medieval period, Novgorod is an ideal subject for this collaborative study of urban origins. Current excavations are jointly organised through the Novgorod Archaeological Research Centre supported by the Department of Archaeology at Moscow State (Lomonosov) University, the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow, the Institute of the History of Material Culture in St. Petersburg and Novgorod State Museum.

In 1989 and 1990, British archaeologists (J. Oxley and M. Brisbane) visited medieval sites including Staraya Ladoga, sites of the Lake Il'men area and Novgorod, Torzhok, Suzdal, and Vladimir. They were immediately struck by the enormous amount of post-excavation work on the recent excavations in Novgorod and its surrounding area that was already completed. It was apparent how important this research was to European medieval archaeology, since Novgorod's archaeology is known in the West due largely to the book compiled and published by M. Thompson (Thompson 1967). This book was based mostly on the work done in the 1950's and needed updating. The book by B. A. Kolchin published recently in Oxford deals only with wooden artifacts from Novgorod and does not reflects the general picture of recent results (Kolchin 1989).

That is why in 1992 a new monograph was published in England, edited by M. Brisbane, and supported by the Society for Medieval Archaeology. This volume includes chapters by Prof. V. Yanin on the history and archaeology of Novgorod, by E. Nosov on Ryurik Gorodishche and the settlements to the North of Lake Il'men, by A. Khoroshev and A. Sorokin on the buildings and properties, of the Lyudin End of Novgorod, by E. Rybina on the recent finds together with a separate chapter on the trade links of Novgorod, and by V. Povetkin on the finds of musical instruments. In addition a bibliography of the main publications on Novgorod from the last 60 years, compiled by P. Gaidukov, is included (Archaeology of Novgorod 1992).

In Russia, in the series known as "The History and Archaeology of Novgorod and Novgorod land" which contains reports on the results of fieldwork undertaken each year, a number of short papers have also been published by Brisbane and Oxely between 1990 and 1993 on the archaeology of Southampton, the preservation and presentation of archaeological sites in Southampton and York and English perspectives on the organisation of rescue archaeology in Novgorod (Брисбейн, Оксли 1990: 114-116; Оксли 1992: 191-196; Брисбейн 1992: 196-200; 1993: 227-231).

In 1993 the project, now fully supported by Bournemouth University, began a joint study of the faunal remains from Novgorod and the surrounding area. The animal bones from a number of the domesticates (mainly cattle, sheep and pig) were studied in the 1950s by V. I. Zalkin (Цалкин 1956) and the fish remains by E. K. Sychevskaya in 1965 (Сычевская 1965: 236-256). However since that time no studies have been carried out, nor has any of the faunal material from the hinterland sites been examined.

The current faunal remains work led by M. Maltby from Bournemouth University and assisted by Sh. Hamilton-Dyer has a number of priorities, agreed and coordinated by the Novgorod Archaeological Research Centre and other project leaders. These are: 1. to instigate a programme of sieving to recover small bones and fish remains; 2. to compile a database of species types and measurements from the early (10th-12th century) deposits at the Troitsky excavation in Novgorod, from the fortified site of Ryurik Gorodishche (9th/10th century) and from the fortified site of Georgii (9th/10th century) about 15 kms to the South-West of Novgorod in the area known as Poozerie; 3. to compare differences between the above sites in the amount and type of wild versus domesticated mammal; 4. to determining age and sex of animals; 5. to assess the role of hunting and fishing; 6. to examine the implications of 2-5 above on human diet; 7. to study the style and traditions of butchery; 8. to examine the relationship between the faunal remains and the use of bone for worked objects. It may also be possible to examine some of these questions over a longer period (i.e. up to the 15th century) by including material from later deposits within the town, such as that recently recovered from the Feodorovsky site. In addition spatial analyses of the faunal remains may indicate different uses of space, eg. comparing house interiors to yard surfaces. A reference collection for the study of animal and fish bone has been started and it is intended to continue to add to this for use by colleagues and students in Novgorod.

This work is being put into a wider perspective by combining it which other analyses currently proceeding which are examining the paleobotanical evidence from Novgorod and its hinterland at the end of the 1st millenium AD. When taken together, this should enable an examination of the area's natural environment and its exploitation during this crucial period of town formation.

The collaboration has also benefitted students from Bournemouth University who have taken part in this project in 1992 and 1993. In September 1993 an additional agreement between Bournemouth University and Russian archaeologists was signed. This will widen the scope of the collaboration to include exchanges of students not only from Bournemouth to Russia, but also for students from the Department of Archaeology at Moscow State Universirty to come to Bournemouth.

The academic and educational value of this collaboration has already been demonstrated, and it will certainly continue to intensify links between Russian and British archaeologists.