extended abstracts - Geomorphic Processes and Geoarchaeology

Recommendations

Info

Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeology cross through 100 with superfluous has appeared years quite in a good condition unless inscriptions became less distinct. The cross on Krøossoya, most likely, could carry out some functions. First of all it was worshiping cross and at the same time - navigating, but it also could serve and as land-surveying sign, i.e. to be as an application column on the given trade territory. Besides it is not excluded that under a stone bookmark in the basis of a cross which didn't understand, there can be a burial or burials. On Spitsbergen secondary burial places in the basis of the big crosses, as a rule, in the form of separate skulls, not a rarity. As an example it is possible to result burial places of 10 skulls in the cross basis on settlement Skoltneset; finds of several skulls are found out in bottom of crosses on anchor parking «Sofia» in Wood-fiord (Lifdebay) and in Bettibukte in Storfjorden. After V.Karlhejm-Gjullensheld's island Krøossoya the Big Russian where has put the camp on a place standing there has gone on island there is no time the large Russian settlement consisting of set of log huts and the big cross which, by the time of arrival on island of Swedes, field men – possibly have disassembled, Norwegian. According to skipper Pedersen «Russians lived here within 36 years, and earlier Russians vessels could come directly into a lagoon, but in 1898 the Swedish boat at small water often took the ground» [3]. Having left the Big Russian island, Swedes have gone on Northern Russian, on pomors settlement which scale enough excavation has made. In 200 meters from a twoprivate log hut there was a high 5-meter cross. Inscriptions on it weren't (probably, hasn't remained), but in the bottom part of the basic vertical rack there was scratched figure 1798, possibly, not connected with founders of the cross, i.e. pomors, but indirectly specifying that (and settlement) will erect a cross here before this date. Another, destroyed, the cross stood on a high rock near to a log hut. Its vertical rack on height from 3 to 4 meters has been scratched by the bear claws. Cross-section boards of a cross haven't remained. During excavation of Karlhejm-Gjullensheld tried to define design features of Russian dwelling, having made many interesting supervision. In limits pomor houses and out of it rather rich collection of individual finds has been revealed, a mass ceramic material, subjects of spiritual culture, etc. It is possible to tell without exaggeration that in Murchison-fiord he spent to saving excavation and thus marked vandalism traces on a monument. Northern Russian island which has visited in 2000 Swede Urban Uorberg who has photographed a cross and the rests of wooden construction, also has paid attention to traces of barbarous destructions of the settlement [4]. The settlement in Murchisonfjorden didn't represent large for long-term dwelling становища, as for example, Trjughamna, Habenihtbukta, Russekejla, etc., widely extended across Spitsbergen in XVIII century But it was quite sound seasonal settlement on which from continent field men went in June, and came back in August. About one of these islands (Krossøya, Russøya and Northern Russian), most likely, went speech at polls pomor. Industrialists informed that «most northern to the north the point which they reached, is the small islet lying in the northeast where they are forwarded sometimes from Lovely harbor on small boats», and some from pomors visited also nearby the located North East land [5]. If islands in the Murchisonfjorden, formed in Quaternary the period, are one of most far away on archipelago the archaeological complexes located on them should be 253
Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeology considered as the most northern pomor (and not only pomor) monuments in Arctic regions. Geological and archaeological researches, certainly, supplement each other, therefore their further continuation is represented perspective enough in business of more detailed studying of monuments of Murchisonfjorden. The work supported by a grant of the Russian Federation (grant N 11. G 34.310025). References 1. Sharin V.V, Arslanov H.A. 2011. New radio carbon datеs of sea terraces of Nordauslandet (archipelago Spitsbergen). the Bulletin of the St.-Petersburg University. Spb, Sulfurs, Vol. 7, Is. 2., P. 129-134. 2. Blake W. 1961. Russian settlement and rise in Nordaustlandet, Spitsbergen. Journal of the Arctic Institute of North America, Vol. 14, No 2, P. 101-111. 3. Starkov V. 2011. The first archaelogical excavations in the Spitsbergen archipelago, Moscow, 40 p. 4. Wråkberg U. 2006. In the days of pioneers and amateurs. Spitsbergen in the history research works, Moscow, 75 p. 5. Interrogations of Russian industrialists about Spitsbergen. Spirit of magazines. 1818, No. 21, P. 636-637. TYPES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONUMENTS OF THE SAMARQAND SOGHD Shishkina G.V., Inevatkina O.N. The State Museum of Oriental Art, Moscow, Russia, olinevat@rambler.ru Typological classifications of archaeological monuments offered in the article are based on the materials received during the archaeological exploration of the town site Durmen (ancient Istiskat) and surveys conducted from this stationary base by the Central Asian Archaeological Expedition of the State Museum of Oriental Art in 1986-1991 in the Pastdargom region of the Samarqand Province of the Republic of Uzbekistan. We also took into consideration the data on the distance analysis received during the recent years on a much broader territory. The classification offered here is not meant to be allembracing and is based exclusively on morphological properties of the sites. Yet the morphology of surviving ruins allows one to identify the following categories of monuments: А – dwelling complexes; Б – military architecture; В – religious buildings; Г –burial structures; Д – irrigation constructions; Е – agricultural lands; Ж – mines. Each category consists of subdivisions containing typologically related objects. Such subdivision permits categorization based on secondary properties, on properties of the third grade and further down on lower grade properties. While the properties used to distinguish the type of a monument are purely formal, the name assigned to each type reflects the function of the monument. Altogether we distinguish twenty two types of archaeological monuments. In process of work on the principles and the main properties used in this typological classification of archaeological monuments, authors had to pose and address various questions, the social organization of the Soghd in historical prospective being one of them. 254
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: Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeo
Page 91: Geomorphic processes and geoarchaeo
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
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?