extended abstracts - Geomorphic Processes and Geoarchaeology

Recommendations

Info

Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeology photography, space imagery, earth remote sensing, etc. are rare, especially as they are not used for the protection of archeological sites [1, 2]. In 1980 s prognostic «red flag models» were successfully used by foreign countries in the system of archaeological monuments’ identification; they were based on the hypothesis of the laws of the location of archaeological sites, depending on environmental and social factors. The probability of finding archeological sites was calculated by a mathematical model that took into account the differences in landscape of areas with and without monuments [3]. Ample opportunities for identifying regularities in the location of archeological monuments and the establishment of prognosis facilities of their identification, the use of mathematical methods and cartography techniques presents historical and cultural potential of Surgut Priob’ye, where more than 3,000 archeological monuments have been revealed. As for geography, this region is located within the taiga zone of the West Siberian Plain. In accordance with the modern administrative-territorial division it occupies the central and eastern part of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug – Yugra. Nature and climate changes that occurred during the Holocene have influenced the modern physical and geographical situation of the territory investigated. Repeated changes of climatic periods in the early and middle Holocene led to the establishment of modern zoning of vegetation, hydrological conditions and landscape development processes of bog formation. These natural and geographical features significantly affected the processes of archaeologisation of objects of human activity; as a result of that, visual fixation of archaeological sites’ micro relief is possible nowadays. As a result of intensive oil and gas exploration in the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug – Yugra in 1960 – 1990, the question on harmonization of land allotment for industrial facilities construction and archaeological monuments preservation arose. In this regard, starting from 1995 so-called cameral system of zoning has developed in the Cultural Heritage Protection system of the region; its essence laid in the allocation of areas with high and low probability of detection of objects of cultural heritage [4]. The procedure included: • analysis of map materials and landscape-topographical situation in terms of favorability of its settlement in ancient times; • analysis of archival material and literature to determine the cultural heritage sites of the area that have already been identified; • analysis of the traditional way of life, the location of housing, economic, religious and other objects of the period of the ethnographic present in the surroundings of the expertized areas; • definition of regularity in the location of objects of cultural heritage, both in the under study area and in adjacent areas with similar landscape and topographical features. Results of cameral zoning took the form of an act of historical and cultural examination of the original documentation with the application of graphic materials; this act was a basis for project coordination of economic activities or a full-scale survey program development, if the projected object fell into the «promising» or «unpromising» zones. Conclusions about the «promising» or «unpromising» area to identify archaeological sites were built on the basis of several criteria: 289
Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeology • the proximity of the ponds, estuarine sections of rivers, the confluence of streams to larger rivers, lakes flow; • the presence of areas evolved from a common landscape: belomoshnye forests, dry valleys Urman and well-drained, not flooded areas of the coastal terraces and mane. In practice, it looked like this. Taking into account these criteria, the borders of «promising» and «unpromising» zones were charted on topographic maps. «Promising» zone was usually between 300 and 500 m from the modern river bed, and «unpromising» was buffered and did not go beyond 300 m. Thus, the area of 1 km from the bed of the river became a major potentially promising in terms of detection objects of archaeological heritage. In such a way, the area of 1 km from the bed of the large river became potentially promising in terms of detection of objects of archaeological heritage. Since the design of the procedure occurred during practical activities, it relied heavily on experience and intuition of researchers. Over time, weaknesses of the system became apparent, specifically the main disadvantage was the lack of clear assessing of «promising» or «unpromising» criteria of a certain area [5, 6]. At the present stage there is necessity in improvement of this procedure, creation of objective methodological framework based on complex analysis and mathematical statistics. Data on the arrangement of the monuments of Surgut Priob’ye allow improving the existing methods of identifying and prediction of the archaeological sites on the unexplored territories. In order to establish the monuments spatial classification has been developed, the basis of which were attributes that reflect the particular location of archaeological sites Surgut Priob’ye. Comprehensive analysis of natural and geographical conditions of the territory and data on the location of archaeological sites of Surgut Priob’ye allowed identifying 15 attributes that best reflect the placement of monuments in the space of five criteria, provisionally titled: hydrography, landscape, vegetation, soil, and distance. As a result, the established laws allowed determining the maximum width of the promising zone from the perspective of the modern river beds. For the right bank of the River Ob promising area must be at least: on Ob river – 8500 m, on the tributaries of the first order – 1500 m, on the second-order tributaries – 3000 m; on the third-order tributaries – 2600 m on the fourth-order tributaries – 700 m, on the fifth order tributaries – 750 m; the numbers for the left bank of Ob river – 8000 m, on the tributaries of the first order – 3000 m, on the second-order tributaries – 1300 m, on the third-order tributaries – 1500 m, at present, data on the tributaries of the fourth and fifth from the left bank of the river is unknown. At the same time exception of their detection in such places is impossible. By analogy with the right bank of the river Ob the same criteria can be applied – 700 m from the river beds 4 and 750 m from the bed of the tributaries of fifth order. During the prognostication of monuments identifying along the shores of lake width of the «promising» area shall be not less than 500 m. Therefore, the laws of the location of archeological sites can serve as a basis for predicting of their detecting at unexplored areas with similar natural and geographical conditions. Creation of maps of resource-evaluative perspective allows using this approach in other areas considering their local circumstances. 290
Page 1 and 2:
GEOMORPHIC PROCESSES AND GEOARCHAEO
Page 3 and 4:
ISBN 978-5-91412-129-9 Geomorphic P
Page 5 and 6:
Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeo
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
A Figure B 2. 3. Zwięczyca Lithic
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78: Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeo
Page 127: Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeo
Page 153 and 154: Ghahroudi Tali M. 13, 102 Giligny F
Page 155: Volokitin A.V. 281 Voronin K.V. 76
show all

extended abstracts - Geomorphic Processes and Geoarchaeology

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?