2019/4(19)
Heritage Development
The diversity of the composition of the sights of Russia. Part 1: Central Federal District of the Russian Federation
Using the historical and cultural potential of the territory in the organization of thematic historical parks
Underwater cultural heritage
Submarine No. 2: the history of creation and loss, the prospects for gaining
Museum of the History of Russian Submarine Forces. A.I. Marinesko and his role in the social and cultural space of the Kalininsky district of St. Petersburg
Patriotic heritage abroad
Miklukho-Maclay and Russian names on the map of Papua New Guinea
Historical research
Soviet constructivism
Applied Research
On the role of decoration in the attribution of bronze bells
Russian production
Innovative competencies in educational strategies for professional development
Archive
Zagorulko A.V.
Location as an archaeological heritage site
Among the types of archaeological sites, there are objects that do not have a cultural layer (or it is largely redeposited), first of all, these are rock carvings, on which the presence of a layer is not supposed due to their specificity. Another type of monuments, which is not included in the lists of legally fixed objects of archaeological heritage, but is widely represented in the archaeological literature and textbooks, is the location. Although the term "location of rock paintings" is found - in the Chita region, near the Sukhota sites.
The fixedness of this term in the scientific literature is reflected in the list of protected monuments of history and culture - based on the materials of the site http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru/ containing a very incomplete list of monuments - among the archaeological monuments there are 113 locations belonging to different eras of human history. 6 - Republic of Karelia, 1 - Mari El, 1 - Altai Territory, 2 - Astrakhan Region, 17 - Belgorod Region, 51 - Kemerovo Region, 1 - Kostroma Region, 4 - Rostov Region, 1 - Sverdlovsk Region, 3 - Tomsk Region, 3 - Chelyabinsk region, 2 - Tyumen region, 1 - Republic of Altai, 5 - Republic of Bashkortostan, 6 - Republic of Dagestan. Regional lists are more meaningful - only in one Krasnodar Territory - 48 locations. Although monuments of this type may be absent in some regional lists, for example, in the Stavropol Territory.
Despite the fact that this category of monuments is not mentioned in legislative acts on the protection and use. From the very beginning, with the "Project of Measures for the Preservation of Ancient Monuments", provided by A.S. Uvarov at the first archaeological congress in 1869, containing the first classification of monuments of history and culture, immovable monuments of archeology, artificial (mounds, mounds and burial mounds) were classified as architecture. In the future, such a legislative definition of archeological monuments remained until 1948, when the decree “On Cultural Monuments” was adopted, where archeological monuments were singled out in a separate category - “archaeological monuments: ancient mounds, settlements, pile buildings, remains of ancient sites and settlements , the remains of ancient cities, earthen ramparts, ditches, traces of irrigation canals and roads, cemeteries, burial grounds, graves, ancient tomb structures, dolmens, menhirs, cromlechs, stone women, etc., ancient drawings and inscriptions carved on stones and rocks, places finds of bones of fossil animals, as well as ancient objects. Then, with minor changes, the list of types of archaeological monuments was duplicated in the law "On the protection and use of monuments of history and culture" of 1978, in the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 16, 1982 "On approval of the Regulations on the protection and use of monuments of history and culture" ( No. 865). In Federal Law No. 73 “On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” dated July 25, 2002, the content of the term archeological monument was not disclosed, but the definitions of categories of cultural heritage objects (monuments, ensembles, places of interest) made it possible to refer almost all types of archeological monuments are included in protected objects, especially in the category of “sightseeing places”, which were defined as: “...objects created by man or joint creations of man and nature, including places of existence of folk art crafts; centers of historical settlements or fragments of urban planning and development; memorable places, cultural and natural landscapes associated with the history of the formation of peoples and other ethnic communities on the territory of the Russian Federation, historical events, the life of prominent historical figures; cultural layers, remains of buildings of ancient cities, settlements, parking lots, places of religious rites”. The location itself is quite suitable for the definition of “remains of buildings of ancient cities, settlements, parking lots, places of religious rites”, even if the cultural layer is absent.
The term location has been used in Russian science since the end of the 19th century and was associated mainly with the natural sciences. At that time, primitive archeology developed in close connection with the natural sciences - geology, paleontology, geography, biology, zoology, in ancient and medieval archeology, terms were used to define random finds - the actual finds, remains, antiquities, monuments, etc.
In the natural sciences, the term locality was used in relation to finds related to them as the main subject of study, i.e. the point where a particular plant or animal is found or observed. For example, at Chersky - both places of localization of fossils of ancient animals, and an accumulation of archaeological material. This understanding of the term location has been preserved by paleontologists to this day. They consider the location not only as a discovery of fossils on the surface, in an outcrop, but also as a localization of fossils in the thickness of layers, and sometimes as a separate layer. In palentology, the processes that form localities are considered, and various types of localities are classified.
K.S. Merezhkovsky considers three open sites in the Crimea, which he distinguished from cave monuments, which he called caves. Under the open deposits, the location of the lifting material was meant. The amount of material found at one location reached 1000 specimens. He interpreted such a monument as a "factory". (Merezhkovsky 1880, p. 120)
Actually the term "location" is possibly a Russian translation from the German Fossil - Lagerstatteh, (English location, locality; French localite).
Although Russian archaeologists used the term “lestation” when publishing their works in French (Formozov 1982, p. 17; I. M. Bukhtoyarova 2014). The literal translation of this word is pip" is also still used today. Sometimes the term “point of location” was encountered (Tretyakov 1937, p. 227; Korobkov 1971, p. 62).
In Russian archeology of the late 19th - early 20th century. the term “monument” meant a find, an artifact (Uvarov 1881) and A.S. Uvarov's localization of finds (monuments) is called "location". V.A. Gorodtsov further divides the monuments into simple ones - artifacts proper and collective - sites, villages, cities (Gorodtsov 1925). Thus, the term "location" was used to indicate the localization of a find or complex, which was later identified as a certain type of monument (parking lot, mound, settlement), and if it was not determined, it remained a location.
In scientific reports and publications, the term "localities" has sometimes been used to refer to the location of the discovery of artifacts, mostly from the Stone Age.
This understanding of the location was reflected in the textbook by D.A. Avdusin “Fundamentals of Archeology”: “Paleolithic sites are divided according to the conditions of occurrence into non-redeposited, that is, those that have come down to us in an unchanged state, as they were left by the people who lived on them, and redeposited, which, as a result of geological processes (movements of the earth’s crust, volcanic phenomena , the action of water flows, etc.) were displaced from their places and deposited in others, nearby or at considerable distances. In this case, these are no longer parking lots, but locations. They have no dwellings, no bonfires, no cultural layer itself.” , Location is also interpreted in later textbooks, where the authors try to define the term location, for example, N.I. Petrov “As a result of various geological, hydrological and other natural processes, the cultural layers of many settlements of the Stone Age (especially the Paleolithic period) were destroyed. The clothing complex of such camps turned out to be, so to speak, “reposted”. Sometimes, being in a state of secondary occurrence, stone objects still occupy a certain position in the geological stratigraphy of a given area. In other situations, the remains of destroyed sites turned out to be on the modern day surface - such sites are recorded only on the basis of finds of stone tools, the geological reference of which, as a rule, is impossible. In all these cases, archaeologists use the term location to designate such objects.
Since this situation is most often found on the monuments of the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, therefore, this type of monuments was considered characteristic of these periods. For Paleolithic monuments, "a cultural layer is" a complex geological body that arose as a result of a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors and underwent significant changes. The concept of "undisturbed" (occurring in situ) cultural layer in relation to the Paleolithic bears a significant share of conventionality" (Derevyanko, Markin, Vasiliev 1994). At Paleolithic sites, a “filler” is distinguished, which is mainly Quaternary sedimentary deposits, reflecting the geomorphological processes that accompany the post-depositional stage of the evolution of the cultural layer. In principle, the complete destruction of the cultural layer is also one of such processes. The study of these processes is an integral part of the interpretation of Paleolithic sites with complex stratigraphy, in particular the Upper Paleolithic and Lower Paleolithic sites of Eastern Siberia (most of which are called localities), G.P. Medvedev and S.A. Nesmeyanov singled out several types of concentration of archaeological material, the disturbed cultural layer included “reburied” - horizontally displaced, “redeposited” - vertically displaced and “exposed” - lying on the surface (Medvedev, Nesmeyanov 1988). The relevance of the systematization of monuments with a disturbed cultural layer was caused by their large number in this region. Despite the presence of a redeposited cultural layer and a large amount of archaeological material, they are called localities, for example, Georgievskoye (Rogovskoy 2008, p. 74). In addition, the definition of "geoarchaeological location" and the corresponding research methodology - the selection of elements of the "filler" and the identification of the structure of the altered cultural layer (Aleksandrova 1990, p. 7) - have entered the scientific circulation.
The methodology for examining Paleolithic sites, where the material lay on the surface, was developed by I.I. Korobkov on the example of the Yashtukh locality, the surface of the sites was divided into squares and the finds were fixed on the plan, which made it possible to more accurately distinguish groups of accumulations and specialized areas. The analysis of the material included the correlation of the morphology of the products and their appearance (patina, ferruginization and roundness). Also, accurate spatial fixation of material accumulation points with the help of JPS was applied in the Gobi desert by Novosibirsk archaeologists.
Locations of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic, depending on the region, can be confined to different landscape elements.
Paleolithic monuments in arid and semi-arid regions are located on the platforms and slopes of erosional terraces, sometimes on alluvial cones, foothill plumes. In general, where erosion processes prevailed over sedimentation, archaeological material could remain in the same place where it was left in antiquity or change its location horizontally. Although often the archaeological remains could be covered by sediments, which were then eroded, which contributed to the exposure of archaeological finds on the surface. In places of active coastal erosion, for example, in the Krasnoyarsk reservoir, the monuments are destroyed, and the archaeological material is exhibited on the socle terraces and shallows - in this case, we can talk about a series of locations (Derbinsk locations) .
Mesolithic localities, in particular, the outwash zone of the European part, have their own specifics. Due to the way of life of the Mesolithic population - itinerant hunter-gatherers - the sites themselves are monuments with a very weak cultural layer, lying close to the surface, with no traces of structures. Due to soil processes in the overburden, artifacts are often brought to the surface. In the outwash zone of Eastern Europe, the Mesolithic material is found in the turf, and the open Mesolithic sites of the Middle Don are confined to more mobile alluvial and alluvial-proluvial layers.
The methodology for surveying such sites is basically the same as the Paleolithic ones, planigraphic analysis, reconstruction of soil processes in a given specific location, and typological analysis of the finds of each cluster. The difference is that in most Paleolithic sites, the materials on the surface are parts of the destroyed cultural layer, which could still be preserved in the thickness of the lithological layers, on the Mesolithic sites, the layer, as a rule, is completely destroyed. In addition, in the case of Mesolithic monuments, their interpretation is more subjective - to call a monument a site or a location completely depends on the discoverer, moreover, Mesolithic locations are exclusively monuments where the material is located on the surface.
But as a type of site, the term locality was used not only in relation to Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites, but to identify finds from other periods.
In the Neolithic, when landscapes were comparable to modern ones, settlements become more stationary, due to a change in hunting strategy, due to constant routes of movement from the accumulation of one food resource to another, which of course does not exclude the presence of short-term stops. Such a way of life is, of course, characteristic of the Neolithic population of the temperate equatorial zones; in the centers of agriculture, the settlements were completely stationary. Monuments of the Neolithic, as well as in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic, were also exposed to natural destructive factors - erosion, displacement of lithological layers. But due to the greater stationarity of residence and, accordingly, a more powerful cultural layer, as well as a not so long period of influence (after all, 5 thousand years is not 30-40), the number of settlements with an in-situ cultural layer has increased significantly. Accordingly, the Neolithic sites are not as numerous as the Mesolithic, in relation to other types of settlements and the total number of sites.
During the period of formation of large settlements of settlements and settlements (Bronze, Iron Age, early Middle Ages), the interpretation and understanding of the locations changes dramatically. They are no longer associated with such a type of settlement as a camp, but they provide a lot of options for explaining the reasons for such a spatial distribution (treasure, abandoned things, random finds). Although the influence of geomorphological processes (coastal abrasion, etc.) remains.
A common sign of location in these definitions, in addition to a precisely fixed location, is redeposition, change or absence of a cultural layer, and also, as a manifestation of these processes, the presence of exclusively uplifted material.
In some regions, following the local tradition of describing sites based on the prevailing types of archaeological sites, concentrations of archaeological material of varying degrees of dispersion on the surface or at the foot of slope or coastal outcrops can be called localities.
Often they are also called points, spots, and other terms borrowed from geomorphology and soil science.
In general, the definition of a monument - location or site depends on the archaeological context of a particular area, on the prevailing types of sites, if most of them are simply places of concentration of archaeological material - then a site with a more or less preserved section of the cultural layer could be interpreted as a site..
However, in the presence of precisely stratified sites (even the cultural layer was disturbed), which are considered as reference and the presence of a large amount of materials from these sites, it is possible to build chronological schemes of a certain era. For example, the locations of Igetei, Georgievskoe. Then the location can be considered not as a place where a few recovered material was found, but as a completely independent archaeological source. In addition, if there is a set of methods and joint research with geomorphologists, palynologists and soil scientists, any deposits can be considered an archaeological source.
L.S. Klein tried to generalize the concept of “location”: “Meanwhile, field archeology also needs a term that would cover all sorts of separately discovered antiquities - both one object and several objects discovered together far from others, but not reliably connected into a single complex (i.e. e. not a monument), and a monument. After all, all these are points on the archaeological map that have something in common in terms of field archeology: these are the results of exploration that provide information about the past (for example, about the population of the region) and are subject to further study, possibly through excavations. Therefore, a general term is needed. In Russian terminology, the term "location" (in English - site) is used for this. Later, he concretizes this concept - "Location" - any monument or collection of closely adjacent territorial monuments, associated with a certain place and noticeably separated territorially from other specific archaeological objects by a significant distance (free space) - so as to deserve to be marked with a separate icon (as a separate dot) on the archaeological map.
Thus, L.S. Klein contrasts the complex and location. Also, V.S. Bochkarev, clarifying the content of the term complex, considers the functional connection of artifacts to be one of its properties, and the fact that they are found in one place (locus) is not enough.
E.N. Kolpakov uses the term location in a broader sense - and relates it to such a concept as "archaeological universe", archaeological reality. Thus, this is a set of artifacts that have only one property - they are found in one place.
Any place where the material is found can be called a location - the identification and assignment of a monument to any type occurs after the interpretation of the material and the situation of its occurrence.
Uncertainty in interpretation and knowledge (only recovered material) was also reflected in the Regulations on the procedure for conducting archaeological field work and compiling scientific reporting documentation, the fundamental document for archaeological work. Even in the new edition of 2015, the term location was retained - although it is not in the basic concepts: "For locations identified by lifting material (without excavation), eye survey is allowed. 3.5 (c)".
Thus, the location, on the one hand, is a type of archaeological site with a redeposited or missing cultural layer, on the other hand, it is simply the location, the concentration of archaeological finds, its spatial and qualitative (finds) characteristics that still need to be interpreted. Basically, in this sense, this term was used in the scientific literature. Also in the field archaeological reports, this was the name given to accumulations of a few finds on the surface, which were difficult to attribute to any closed complex, where there is a clearly expressed functional and chronological relationship between the elements. Since the closed complex, even exposed on the surface, retains the functional connection of the elements, such Stone Age sites were often called sites, medieval ones - treasures or simply finds. In most cases, the interpretation was based on the finds and remains of structures (hearths), their cultural affiliation, and spatial relationships between the discovered artifacts. While the analysis of the features of post-depositional natural processes is more complex and requires the involvement of geomorphologists. Open complexes are more difficult to interpret, finds may not be related either chronologically or functionally.
In archaeological studies, the sites are usually never the reference sites whose materials form the basis of the analysis, whether it is the chronology of the region or the characteristics of the archaeological culture (with the exception of Paleolithic sites). Often they are a background, the main features of which, material and spatial binding characterize the temporal and spatial boundaries of the distribution of a particular culture. They are deprived of an archaeological context as a monument of archeology, but are an integral archaeological part of the surrounding landscape. Thus, they need to be recorded and described, since they are the same objects of archaeological heritage as any other monument of archeology. Accordingly, they represent a certain part of the database that must be saved.
LITERATURE
Avdusin D.A. Fundamentals of archeology. - M., 1989. - S. 25.
Alexandrova M.V. Some remarks on the theory of the Paleolithic cultural layer // KSIA. - 1990. - No. 202. - P. 4–8.
Coastal N.A. Paleolithic locations of the USSR: 1958-1970 - L .: Nauka, 1984.
Bochkarev V.S. To the question of the system of basic archaeological concepts // Subject and object of archeology and questions of methods of archaeological research. - L., 1975. - S. 34-42.
Bukhtoyarova I.M. S.N. Zamyatin and the discovery of the first Paleolithic dwelling in the USSR / Upper Paleolithic of Northern Eurasia and America: monuments, cultures, traditions. - St. Petersburg., 2014. - S.74-77
Vasiliev S.A. The most ancient past of mankind: the search for Russian scientists. - SPb., 2008. - S. 77-79
Gorodtsov V.A. Archeology. Stone period. T.1. - M.-L., 1925.
Derevyanko A.P. Paleolithic studies: introduction and basics / Derevianko A.P., S.V. Markin, S.A. Vasiliev. - Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1994.
Derevyanko A.P. Archaeological research of the Russian-Mongolian-American expedition in Mongolia in 1995 / Derevianko A.P., Olsen D., Tsevendorzh D. - Novosibirsk: IAEt SO RAN, 1996.
Efremov I.A. Taphonomy and the geological record. Book: 1. Burial of terrestrial faunas in the Paleozoic. Proceedings of the Paleontological Institute. T. 24. - M .: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950.
Classification in archeology. - St. Petersburg: IIMK RAN, 2013. - P. 12.
Klein L.S. archaeological sources. - L. Publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1978.
Klein L.S. Archaeological typology. - L., 1991.
Korobkov II On the problem of studying the Lower Paleolithic settlements of an open type with a destroyed cultural layer // MIA. - 1971. - No. 173. - P. 61–99.
Kulakov S.A. On one industrial feature of the Early and Middle Paleolithic of the northwestern Caucasus // First Abkhaz International Archaeological Conference. - Sukhum, 2006. - S. 225-230.
Medvedev G. I., Nesmeyanov S. A. Typification of “cultural deposits” and sites of the Stone Age // Methodical problems of archeology of Siberia. - Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1988. S. 113-142.
Merezhkovsky K.S. Report on preliminary studies of the Stone Age in the Crimea // Izvestiya IRGO. T. 16. - St. Petersburg, 1880. - P. 120
Protection of the cultural heritage of Russia in the 17th-10th centuries: Reader. - M., 2000.
Patrushev V.S. Ethnocultural processes in European Russia in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic eras. Problems of the history of Russia. Issue. 5. Ekaterinburg, 2003. - S. 21-49.
Petrov N.I. Archeology. Tutorial. - St. Petersburg, 2008.
Rogovskoy E. O. Results of studies of the locality of Georgievskoe I in the southern Angara region // Bulletin of NGU. T. 7. Issue. 3. - 2008. - S. 63-71.
Sorokin A.N. Mesolithic Oka. The problem of cultural differences. - M., 2006.
Sorokin A.N. Essays on the source study of the Stone Age. – M.: IA RAN, 2016. – P. 41.
Sosnovsky G.P. New Paleolithic localities of Southern Siberia. Brief reports on the reports and field research of the Institute of the History of Material Culture. Issue. VII. - M.-L.: Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1940.
Sosnovsky G.P. Paleolithic sites in the valley of the river. Kachi near the city of Krasnoyarsk / / SA. - 1948. - X. - S. 75-84.
Paleolithic sites of the Derbinsk archaeological region: Krasnoyarsk reservoir / Stasyuk I. V., E. V. Akimova, E. A. Tomilova, S. A. Laukhin, A. F. Sanko, M. Yu. Tikhomirov, Yu. M. Makhlaeva // Bulletin of archeology, anthropology and ethnography. - 2002. - No. 4. - S. 17-24.
Tretyakov P.N. Expedition to study the "Arctic Paleolithic" // SA. - 1937. - No. 2. - S. 227.
Tretyakov P.N. Kaluga expedition of the State Academy of the History of Material Culture. N.Ya. Marra 1936 // SA. - 1937. - No. 4. – S. 328–330.
Uvarov A.S. Archeology of Russia: Stone period. - M., 1881.
Fedyunin I.V. Mesolithic monuments of the Middle Don. - Voronezh, 2007.
Formozov A.A. Essays on the history of Russian archeology. - M., 1961
Formozov A.A. The problem of ancient man in the Russian press // SA. - 1982. - No. 1. - P. 5-20.
Conference "Civilization Path of Russia: Cultural and Historical Heritage and Development Strategy" was held in Moscow
On May 15-16, Moscow hosted the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference “The Civilizational Path of Russia: Cultural and Historical Heritage and Development Strategy”, organized by the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after V.I. D.S. Likhachev and the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation.
Archaeological objects are the most important source of information about the past.
Archaeological heritage is a set of material objects that have arisen as a result of human activity, preserved in natural conditions on the ground surface, in the bowels of the earth and under water, requiring the use of archaeological methods to identify and study.
The composition of the archaeological heritage:
- archaeological territory - a piece of land that includes an archaeological object (complex of objects) and adjacent lands that ensured its functioning in the past and are necessary for preservation in the present and future;
- archaeological territories are a collection of material remains that preserve traces of human activity and contain explicit or latent information about such activity;
- an archaeological monument is an object that has been identified and studied by archaeological methods and has a documentary fixation of information obtained in the process of discovery and study;
- an archaeological object is a real remains extracted during scientific excavations or in the course of economic and other activities, as well as found by chance and passed primary attribution and identification with respect to other homogeneous objects;
- a real remains is an object that reflects the life of a person, associated with an archaeological object and identified in the process of studying the object or found outside the object and suitable for obtaining information about the past.
The archaeological heritage is part of the material culture, the main information about which can be obtained by archaeological methods. The heritage includes all traces of human habitation and consists of sites that record all manifestations of human activity, including abandoned buildings and ruins of all kinds (including underground and underwater), together with all movable cultural material.
The study of settlements of past eras provides the most complete and important information about the development of society and culture. All this information is drawn from the study of things found in the ground, excavated structures, interconnected by a special kind of stratification.
“Monuments of material culture,” wrote L.N. Gumilyov - clearly mark the periods of prosperity and decline of peoples and lend themselves to a clear dating. Things found in the ground, or ancient graves, do not seek to mislead the researcher or distort the facts.
In order to ensure the safety of the archaeological heritage and to correctly apply the legislation on the protection of historical monuments in practice, it is necessary directly in a special law (its concept will be discussed below) to reflect the basic legal provisions (conceptual apparatus) of concepts and definitions used in practical archeology.
The most important legal concept, which has not only scientific, but also practical significance, is the cultural layer.
We will not find the definition of the cultural layer in the regulations, so we turn to the specialized literature. This is what the author often has to do when analyzing objects of cultural heritage. The most detrimental in this regard is the legislation on the protection of archaeological monuments, since a lot of issues have not been regulated normatively. First of all, the legal apparatus of this institution is not developed, there are no definitions of archaeological sites in legal acts, and no classification of archeological monuments is given.
So, the cultural layer is the upper layer of the earth's interior, formed in the process of anthropogenic activity and representing a combination of material remains and earth layers processed in the course of economic activity. The cultural layer of archaeological territories as a place of preservation in natural conditions of archaeological objects and property remains is subject to protection and is excluded from the number of territories for conducting economic activities. The cultural layer usually has a darker color than the surrounding land. The composition of the cultural layer reflected the real historical process, all the originality of the material life of society. That is why the study of the cultural layer is a means of studying the historical process. The value of the cultural layer lies in the historical conclusions that can be drawn from its study.
The subject of archaeological excavations is the study of the placement of immovable objects and movable objects that are underground in anthropogenic or natural sediments (deposits) and are called cultural strata (layers, layers). All these layers are the result of human activity and that is why they are called the cultural layer. It develops over a long period of time.
Thus, the cultural layer consists of two inextricably linked components:
- remnants of buildings;
- stratifications reflecting the main direction of the economic life of this section of the settlement.
Let us continue the analysis of the concepts that need to be included in the law “On the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage”, initiated by the author.
The earth's interior (in archeology) is the subsurface strata of the last geological epochs affected by human activity and preserving traces or material remains of such activity in the form of real objects or their reflections (imprints) in immediately adjacent layers.
Archaeological document - information about objects of archaeological heritage, their complexes and constituent elements, imprinted on material carriers (regardless of their form) and suitable for use in the process of cognition of the corresponding object, complex of objects or constituent elements.
Parking lots are places of life and economic activity of people of the Stone and Bronze Ages. (Since the sites have no external signs, they can only be detected if there is a cultural layer that stands out in a darker color from the surrounding geological rocks.)
Settlements are the remains of settlements whose inhabitants were engaged in agricultural activities.
Settlement - the remains of the ancient fortifications of the settlements, which once represented small fortresses surrounded by earthen ramparts and ditches.
Monuments are also ancient burials, represented by soil and burial mounds.
Mounds are artificial earth mounds over ancient graves, having a hemispherical shape, round in plan. There are mounds in the form of a truncated cone. Mounds are single, but more often they are grouped by two or three, or even several dozen, forming burial mounds.
If we talk about the threats and risks that archeological monuments expect, then two problems can be distinguished:
- the potential for destruction during excavation and construction work;
- danger of disappearance as a result of illegal excavations.
up to 2001, the state authorities for the protection of monuments did not organize a single expedition to control the state of archeological monuments in Belarus. At the same time, the destruction of archeological monuments is ongoing. Monuments perish during excavation and construction works. Often, archaeological sites are destroyed in preparation for important events.
Other countries are also facing a similar problem.
For example, contrary to the requirements of the law, the akimat of the city of Zhezkazgan allocated a land plot to a production corporation for the construction of engineering communications to the Zhaman-Aibat mine. Meanwhile, on the territory of the development of the deposit there are 4 monuments of history and culture - sites of the Neolithic period, sites-workshops of the Paleolithic era, sites-workshops of Kazbek, copper mining sites of the Bronze Age. The burial ground of the Bronze Age, which consists of more than 20 grave structures, was destroyed in the western part during the construction of the Waitas-Aidos-Zhezkazgan water pipeline.
This list can be continued, but I would like to propose some measures to criminalize relations in the field of illegal excavations of both archaeological sites and military graves. After all, irreparable damage to cultural heritage is caused by the so-called "black archaeologists", the fight against which is difficult for a number of reasons. Illegal treasure hunters open archeological monuments, military graves, dig up burial grounds. The main purpose of illegal treasure hunting is the extraction of antiques, including the bone remains of the buried (skulls) for private collections.
Among the reasons for illegal excavations are the imperfection of legislation, the availability of search equipment, the increase in the number of wealthy people who are interested in ancient objects and, oddly enough, the increased interest in national history. An important role was also played by the fact that the treasure-hunting movement developed on the basis of collectors' clubs, initially using their organizational structures and extensive connections.
The study of this problem shows that Belarusian archaeological finds are in special demand not only in Western Europe, but also in the capital cities of the CIS. In certain circles, it has become fashionable to have home museums of antiquities, in which archaeological objects (and these are mainly household utensils, household items, coins, etc.) take pride of place. Such a private "museum", consisting of archaeological finds, is in principle illegal, since archeological monuments are the exclusive property of the state, and the recovered items are subject to scientific research.
For an illegal treasure hunter, an archaeological site is a means of profit. The selected item is taken out of context. Every year, treasure hunters intensify their activities, especially when the ground is wet, loose, and favorable for work. As a rule, this happens in autumn and spring, which chronologically coincides with the traditional period of archaeological research conducted by research institutions.
Illegal excavations of archaeological sites are carried out both with the use of the latest metal detectors and with the help of construction equipment.
For example, on the night of February 2 to 3, 2002, “black archaeologists” brought equipment to the territory of the Olvia State Historical and Archaeological Reserve, which on January 17, 2002 by decree of the President of Ukraine, brought equipment and, guided by an exact plan with reference to area, overnight excavated more than 300 ancient graves, plundered about 600 graves and two dozen crypts.
Practice shows that illegal treasure hunting is widespread in virtually all regions of Belarus, but priority is given to ancient burials in Mogilev and Gomel regions. Burial mounds of the 10th-13th centuries have been preserved here. Many of them are destroyed. Archaeological monuments are dug up by "treasure hunters" even in the contaminated zone. In June 2004, in the Mogilev region, police officers detained a "black digger" with the prospect of bringing him to justice. Around the city of Minsk, almost all the mounds that stand in sight were uncovered during illegal excavations.
In recent years, the commercial circulation of archeological objects, previously based on the activities of a limited circle of professional archaeologists, has acquired the scale of a diversified business. However, bringing to justice for illegal excavations of archaeological sites is a rarity in the practice of both law enforcement and regulatory authorities.
It seems that the legislator can take the path of amending the criminal law norm establishing responsibility for the destruction, destruction or damage of a cultural monument (meaning Article 344 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus). This may be an independent part of this article, which, as a qualifying feature, provides for liability for actions that led to the destruction, destruction or damage of the monument, committed in order to search for archaeological objects or the remains of a military burial. Stricter liability should arise in the event of the commission of the same actions by an official whose authority includes the implementation of professional expeditionary activities to study the archaeological heritage or perpetuate the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland and victims of wars.
As a result, Art. 344 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus will be supplemented with two new parts of the following content (in the initiative version):
“Actions provided for by part one or two of this article, committed with the aim of searching for archaeological objects or real remains of military graves, are punished. ..
The actions provided for by the first or second part of this article, committed by an official using his official position, ... ".
Thus, a barrier will be created on the way of illegal archaeological excavations, illegal treasure hunting and unauthorized excavations of military graves.
In accordance with Art. 44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has equal access to cultural values, is obliged to take care of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, to protect historical and cultural monuments.
The main legal act currently regulating the issue of preserving historical and cultural heritage on the territory of the Russian Federation is the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 N 73-FZ "On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter - OKN Law).
In Art. 3 of the above Law defines an object of cultural heritage, including an object of archaeological heritage - "traces of human existence in past eras partially or completely hidden in the ground or under water (including all archaeological objects and cultural layers associated with such traces), the main or one of the main sources of information about which are archaeological excavations or finds.The objects of archaeological heritage are, among other things, settlements, mounds, ground burials, ancient burials, settlements, parking lots, stone sculptures, steles, rock carvings, remains of ancient fortifications, industries, canals, ships, roads, places of ancient religious rites, cultural layers classified as objects of archaeological heritage.
In Art. 34 of the same Law also refers to protection zones for cultural heritage sites. At the same time, as such, the concept of protection zones is not given. It is pointed out that "in order to ensure the safety of a cultural heritage object in its historical environment, zones of protection of a cultural heritage object are established on the territory adjacent to it: a buffer zone, a zone for regulating development and economic activity, a zone of protected natural landscape."
It should be noted that this provision was borrowed from Art. 33 of the Law of the RSFSR of December 15, 1978 "On the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments", which was also duplicated in paragraph 30 of the Regulations on the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments, approved by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 16, 1982 N 865 and clause 40 of the Instruction on the procedure for accounting, ensuring the preservation, maintenance, use and restoration of immovable monuments of history and culture, approved by Order of the USSR Ministry of Culture of 05/13/1986 N 203. These norms contained similar wording and a listing of the same protection zones (with minor changes in names.
Due to the fact that the composition of protection zones and their regime is developed and approved by the project of protection zones, and the procedure for the development and approval of such was first approved by the Government of the Russian Federation only in 2008, for a long time no protection zones were established for cultural heritage sites. And given that the financing of this event is entrusted primarily to state and municipal authorities, and, only if desired, to individuals and legal entities, so far such projects of protection zones, and, accordingly, the protection zones themselves for cultural heritage sites very few have been established on the territory of the Russian Federation (precise summary data are not available even in the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation). Thus, most cultural heritage sites today, without these zones, are actually poorly protected from possible negative impact as a result of new economic development of adjacent land plots, as well as active urban development.
In order to somehow correct this situation, some constituent entities of the Russian Federation (for example, the Krasnodar Territory), without waiting for the issue to be resolved at the federal level, independently introduced the concept of "temporary buffer zones" by their own laws back in 2003 with the establishment of their sizes and the effect only until development and approval of projects of protection zones.
And so, after analyzing the current situation, as well as the practice of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in 2016, the Federal Law of 04/05/2016 N 95-ФЗ "On Amendments to the Federal Law" On Cultural Heritage Objects (Monuments of History and Culture) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation " and Article 15 of the Federal Law "On the State Real Estate Cadastre", according to which Article 34.1 "Protection zones of cultural heritage objects" was introduced into the Law on OKN. Part 1 of this article defines the protective zone of a cultural heritage object - territories that are adjacent to the included in the register of monuments and ensembles and within whose boundaries, in order to ensure the safety of cultural heritage sites and compositional-view relationships (panoramas), the construction of capital construction facilities and their reconstruction associated with a change in their parameters (height, number of floors, area), with the exception of construction and reconstruction of linear objects. IT zones. These protection zones are introduced temporarily until the development and approval of projects for protection zones, i.e. in fact, they must solve the acute problem described above of the development of territories adjacent to cultural heritage sites, and causing harm to the latter as a result.
However, with the adoption of this Law, a number of problems arise. Within the framework of this article, only the aspect related to the objects of archaeological heritage will be considered.
So, upon careful reading of Article 34.1 of the Law on CHO, it turns out that protection zones are not established for archaeological heritage sites. There are logical questions - why and how to be?
We are starting to study this issue and we are asking for an answer, first of all, the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, which was the initiator of the adoption of the above-mentioned Law. And we are surprised to learn that the position of the said Ministry comes down to the fact that protection zones are not needed in principle for objects of archaeological heritage.
So, in the letters of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2014 N 3726-12-06 and dated June 29, 2015 N 2736-12-06 on the refusal to agree on the project of protection zones for the archeological monument "Semikarakorskoye settlement" (Rostov region) it is reported that "the design of zones for the protection of historical and cultural monuments is an element of urban planning zoning of the territory, which is primarily aimed at preserving the specific disclosure of historical buildings and structures and preserving the historical environment of cultural heritage objects ... Thus, a set of measures for the state protection of objects hidden in the ground of the archaeological heritage, ensuring their safety, includes the establishment of the boundaries of its territory ... The establishment of protection zones for objects of archaeological heritage hidden in the ground does not seem appropriate.”
This interpretation is given by the Ministry solely from reading Art. 34 of the OKN Law. At the same time, of course, this article does not directly say anything about the fact that protection zones are not established for objects of archaeological heritage or objects hidden underground. This is not mentioned in the current Regulations on the zones of protection of cultural heritage objects (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation. Those. the interpretation of the ministry is purely subjective.
If we turn to the practice of resolving this issue under the USSR, then in the same already mentioned Regulations on the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments, it was clearly stated that protection zones are established to ensure safety, including archeological monuments.
This position is also absolutely logical from the point of view of practice. So, if we refuse protection zones for archaeological heritage sites, it turns out that it will be possible to carry out work of any nature (especially earthworks and construction) right next to the territory of the monument. But such work can lead to its damage: sliding into the pit and collapse, affecting the cultural layer, which was accidentally discovered and was not included in the territory of the monument, damage by tractors, bulldozers and other heavy construction equipment, storage of soil (dumps), etc. Here additionally, it is necessary to take into account the complexity of unambiguously determining the territory of the monument for archaeological heritage sites. After all, not for every monument of archeology, depending on its type, this is possible without full-fledged excavations. So, for example, the main way to determine the boundaries of the territory of an archaeological monument is pitting. At the same time, according to the Regulations on the procedure for conducting archaeological field work and compiling scientific reporting documentation, pitting on archaeological monuments - burial mounds - is strictly prohibited. And given that the mounds of mounds under the influence of time (weathering, plowing, etc.) swim and stretch, and can also have ditches and grooves located around the mound (at different distances), as well as inter-kurgan space (between mounds in one mound group), it is not always possible to establish the exact boundary of the site. And the lack of protection zones will actually lead to their possible damage. Similarly, this may apply to both the settlement and the ground burial ground. In general, the situation with fortresses, which, as a rule, are monuments of archeology, but combine architecture, will be unclear. If in this case the Ministry proceeds from the factor of "hiddenness under the ground", then how to define it - many fortresses and settlements are actually earthen ramparts with elements of ruins that go outside. Whether it is hidden underground or not is again a purely subjective opinion. But they need protection from economic activity no less than architectural monuments.
The main acuteness of the problem under consideration, in general, is given immediately by 3 factors:
Far from all objects of archaeological heritage have a precisely defined territory, and therefore it is not clear what size of the land plot around the archaeological monument should be indicated in the project documentation submitted for approval;
In connection with the cancellation of the PSA-2007, which provided for such a protective measure as archaeological supervision carried out in the area of construction work near the objects of archaeological heritage, now even without protection zones it actually becomes impossible to ensure their safety in general;
Considering that protective zones of a temporary nature have now been introduced at the federal level and it is clearly defined for which objects of cultural heritage they are established, the continued existence of the provision on temporary protective zones in regional laws, including in terms of objects of archaeological heritage, becomes illegal, which leads to their abolition and, consequently, the abandonment of archaeological heritage sites without any protection in this part.
Trying to understand the motives for such an interpretation by the federal authorities, it seems logical to assume that there is no funding for the development and establishment of protection zones for them (after all, all archaeological heritage sites are federal, and their number is overwhelming compared to other cultural heritage sites), as well as the impossibility of establishing restrictions of an arbitrary nature on a sufficiently large number of land plots and, in fact, their withdrawal from circulation (difficult socio-economic situation, discontent of people).
At the same time, we believe that simply eliminating protection zones as a type of measure to ensure the safety of archaeological heritage sites is unacceptable, this will lead to their uncontrolled destruction.
It seems that the introduced protective zones should be extended to archaeological heritage sites with the possibility of their reduction in the development of projects of protection zones on the basis of complex scientific research if such a desire arises from an interested person (the one who intends to develop a nearby land plot that falls into this protective zone) . Or, as an option, establish in the Law on OKN or the newly adopted GOSTs that replaced the PSA-2007, such a preventive security measure as archaeological supervision, if the work is planned to be carried out in the area of the archaeological heritage site. At the same time, the size of the zone can be set according to the example of temporary security zones established in the Krasnodar Territory: depending on the type of archeological monument and its size.
Bibliography:
1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation. Adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993 (subject to amendments made by the Laws of the Russian Federation on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2008 N 6-FKZ, of December 30, 2008 N 7-FKZ, of February 5, 2014 . N 2-FKZ and dated July 21, 2014 N 11-FKZ) // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 1993. Dec 25; Sobr. legislation Ros. Federation. 2014. N 31. Art. 4398.
2. On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation: Federal Law of June 25, 2002 N 73-FZ (as amended on April 5, 2016 N 95-FZ) // Collected. legislation Ros. Federation. 2002. N 26. Art. 2519; 2016. N 15. Art. 2057.
3. On the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments: Law of the RSFSR of December 15, 1978 // Code of Laws of the RSFSR. T. 3. S. 498.
4. Regulations on the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments, approved by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 16, 1982 N 865 // SP USSR. 1982. N 26. Art. 133.
5. Instruction on the procedure for accounting, ensuring the safety, maintenance, use and restoration of immovable monuments of history and culture: Order of the USSR Ministry of Culture of May 13, 1986 N 203 // The text was not officially published. The text is available in the SPS "Garant".
6. On the approval of the Regulations on the zones of protection of cultural heritage objects (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 26, 2008 N 315 (lost force) // Collected. legislation Ros. Federation. 2008. N 18. Art. 2053.
7. On the lands of immovable objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of regional and local significance located on the territory of the Krasnodar Territory, and their protection zones: Law of the Krasnodar Territory of June 6, 2002 N 487-KZ (repealed) // Kuban News . 06/19/2002. N 118 - 119.
8. On Amendments to the Federal Law "On Cultural Heritage Objects (Monuments of History and Culture) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation" and Article 15 of the Federal Law "On the State Real Estate Cadastre": Federal Law of April 5, 2016 N 95-FZ // Collected. legislation Ros. Federation. 2016. N 15. Art. 2057.
9. Letter of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2014 N 3726-12-06 // The text of the document has not been officially published. Correspondence of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Culture of the Rostov Region.
10. Letter of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation dated June 29, 2015 N 2736-12-06 // The text of the document has not been officially published. Correspondence of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Culture of the Rostov Region.
11. On the approval of the Regulations on the zones of protection of cultural heritage objects (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation and on the recognition as invalid of certain provisions of the regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Russian Federation: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 12, 2015 N 972 // Collected. legislation Ros. Federation. 2015. N 38. Art. 5298.
12. Regulations on the procedure for conducting archaeological field work and compiling scientific reporting documentation: Resolution of the Bureau of the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences of November 27, 2013 N 85 // Posted on the official website of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. URL: http://www.archaeolog.ru (date of access - 06/07/2016).
13. Letter of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation dated August 27, 2015 N 280-01-39-GP // Posted on the official website of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. URL: http://mkrf.ru (accessed 06/07/2016).
14. On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation located on the territory of the Krasnodar Territory: Law of the Krasnodar Territory of July 23, 2015 N 3223-KZ // Official website of the Administration of the Krasnodar Territory. URL: http://admkrai.krasnodar.ru (accessed 06/07/2016).
References (transliterated):
1. Konstitutsiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Prinyata vsenarodnym golosovaniem December 12, 1993 (s uchetom popravok, vnesennykh Zakonami Rossiiskoi Federatsii o popravkakh k Konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii dated December 30, 2008 N 6-FKZ, dated December 30, 2008 N 7-FKZ, dated February 5, 2014 N 2-FKZ i ot 21 iyulya 2014 g. N 11-FKZ) // Rossiiskaya gazeta. Dec. 25, 1993; sobr. zakonodatel "stva Ros. Federatsii. 2014. N 31. St. 4398.
2. Ob ob "" ektakh kul "turnogo naslediya (pamyatnikakh istorii i kul" tury) narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii: Federal "nyi zakon ot 25 iyunya 2002 goda N 73-FZ (v red. ot 5 aprelya 2016 g. N 95-FZ ) // Sobr. zakonodatel "stva Ros. Federatsii. 2002. No. 26. St. 2519; 2016. No. 15. St. 2057.
3. Ob okhrane i ispol "zovanii pamyatnikov istorii i kul" tury: Zakon RSFSR dated December 15, 1978 goda // Svod zakonov RSFSR. T. 3. S. 498.
4. Polozhenie ob okhrane i ispol "zovanii pamyatnikov istorii i kul" tury, utverzhdennoe Postanovleniem Soveta Ministrov SSSR dated 16 September 1982 N 865 // SP SSSR. 1982. No. 26. St. 133.
5. Instruktsiya o poryadke ucheta, obespecheniya sokhrannosti, soderzhaniya, ispol "zovaniya i restavratsii i restavratsii nedvizhimykh pamyatnikov istorii i kul" tury: Prikaz Minkul "tury SSSR dated May 13, 1986 N 203 // Tekst ofitsial" no opublikovan ne byl. Tekst available v SPS "Garant".
6. Ob utverzhdenii Polozheniya o zonakh okhrany ob""ektov kul"turnogo naslediya (pamyatnikov istorii i kul"tury) narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii: Postanovlenie Pravitel"stva RF ot 26 April 2008 goda N 315 (utratilo silu) // Sobr. zakonodatel" stva Ros. Federatsii. 2008. N 18. St. 2053.
7. O zemlyakh nedvizhimykh ob ""ektov kul" turnogo naslediya (pamyatnikov istorii i kul "tury) regional" nogo i mestnogo znacheniya, raspolozhennykh na territorii Krasnodarskogo kraya, i zonakhikh okhrany: Zakon Krasnodarskogo kraya ot 6 iyunya 2002-goda N 4 KZ (utratil silu) // Kubanskie novosti, June 19, 2002, N 118 - 119.
8. O vnesenii izmenenii v Federal "nyi zakon "Ob ob" "ektakh kul" turnogo naslediya (pamyatnikakh istorii i kul "tury) narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii" i stat "yu 15 Federal" nogo zakona "O gosudarstvennom kadastre nedvizhimosti": Federal" nyi zakon dated April 5, 2016 goda N 95-FZ // Sobr. zakonodatel "stva Ros. Federatsii. 2016. N 15. St. 2057.
9. Pis "mo Ministerstva kul" tury RF dated December 29, 2014 goda N 3726-12-06 // Tekst dokumenta ofitsial "no ne opublikovan. Perepiska Ministerstva kul" tury RF i Ministerstva kul "tury Rostovskoi oblasti.
10. Pis "mo Ministerstva kul" tury RF dated 29 June 2015 goda N 2736-12-06 // Tekst dokumenta ofitsial "no ne opublikovan. Perepiska Ministerstva kul" tury RF i Ministerstva kul "tury Rostovskoi oblasti.
11. Ob utverzhdenii Polozheniya o zonakh okhrany ob""ektov kul"turnogo naslediya (pamyatnikov istorii i kul"tury) narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii i o priznanii utrativshimi silu otdel"nykh polozhenii normativnykh povykh aktov Pravitel"stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii": September 12, 2015 goda N 972 // Sobr. zakonodatel "stva Ros. Federatsii. 2015. N 38. St. 5298.
12. Polozhenie o poryadke provedeniya arkheologicheskikh polevykh rabot i sostavleniya nauchnoi otchetnoi dokumentatsii: Postanovlenie Byuro otdeleniya istoriko-filologicheskikh nauk Rossiiskoi akademii nauk ot 11/27/2013 N 85 // Razmeshcheno na ofitsial" URL www RAN. .archaeolog.ru (data obrashcheniya - 06/07/2016).
13. Pis "mo Ministerstva kul" tury RF ot 27 August 2015 goda N 280-01-39-GP // Razmeshcheno na ofitsial "nom saite Ministerstva kul" tury RF. URL: http://mkrf.ru (data obrashcheniya - 06/07/2016).
14. Ob ob ""ektakh kul" turnogo naslediya (pamyatnikakh istorii i kul" tury) narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii, raspolozhennykh na territorii Krasnodarskogo kraya: Zakon Krasnodarskogo kraya ot 23 iyulya 2015 goda N 3223-KZ // Ofitsial "nyi sait administratsii Krasya URL: http://admkrai.krasnodar.ru (data obrashcheniya - 06/07/2016).
Graduate student
Humanitarian University, Yekaterinburg
Archaeological monuments as objects of cultural heritage (axiological aspect)
The opposition in the title of the article of two close concepts applied to historical and cultural objects of the past is not accidental. In studies of the Soviet period, very often cultural heritage (at least its material part) was understood almost as a synonym for the term "monument". As interchangeable categories, “monument” and “cultural heritage” are also considered in Russian legislation in the field of culture. However, at present, researchers are purposefully diluting these concepts. So, as he notes, “the definition of “monument”, first of all, focuses on the preservation of memory, memories; the heritage is what the ancestors passed on to us, but they handed it over not just for preservation, but for interpretation and multiplication.
Continuing such reasoning, one can see that the separation of the two indicated concepts is a matter of attitude to history in the current culture. The inclusion or non-inclusion of samples of the past in the modern space is, first of all, the problem of their value for the current generation. Of course, the assessment of cultural heritage only as a development resource cannot be considered as the main one, since the mosaic-pulsing nature of inheritance (the uneven use of individual heritage sites by different social groups at different times) serves as reliable evidence of the perpetual (that is, absolute) value of the entire cultural heritage. However, the question of the irrelevant significance of the monuments of the past is more a field of theory than practice. The solution of one of the fundamental issues of our time, related to the preservation of cultural heritage, is possible today only against the background of society's awareness of the actual value of cultural objects of the past.
In this regard, it is more promising to understand the value of cultural heritage today, first of all, not as a characteristic of the object itself, but as a fact of attitude towards it (value as an object that is significant for the subject and satisfies his needs). Sharing within the framework of this article the concepts of "heritage" and "monument", we emphasize the existence of two types of value of objects of the past, conditionally separating "significant" and "not significant". Considering archaeological sites as objects of cultural heritage, we thereby pose the problem of determining the specifics of archaeological antiquities as a spiritual, artistic or other value in modern Russian society, identifying the relationship between their potential significance and the fact of their real perception and evaluation.
Turning to the definition of the boundaries of the value of archaeological remains in the modern cultural environment, it is necessary first to dwell on the definition of the object in question. Today in Russia, the concept of "archaeological monument" (or "monument of archeology") is more of a unit of scientific analysis or accounting, rather than a category of culture. The use of the term “heritage” in relation to archeological materials, on the contrary, is used in the context of the practice of including artifacts of the distant past as values in the current cultural environment. As an example (in fact, the only one) here we can cite the functioning of the section "Archaeological heritage in the modern cultural process" within the framework of the 1st and 2nd Northern Archaeological Congresses (Khanty-Mansiysk, 2002 and 2006). On the other hand, the concept of "heritage" is often used in relation to archeology and in a sense synonymous with the concept of "monument". This takes place both in the legislative and scientific spheres.
Using in the framework of this work both the concept of "monument" and the concept of "heritage", we will also dwell on the relevance of both definitions. According to the current legislation, an archaeological monument (object of archaeological heritage) is understood as “traces of human existence partially or completely hidden in the ground or under water, including all movable objects related to them, the main or one of the main sources of information about which are archaeological excavations or finds." Considering that such an interpretation is also used within the framework of archaeological science, it can be noted that the attribution of the object of the past to the archaeological heritage / monument is in no way associated with the content of the object itself. Monuments of architecture, fine arts, literature, objects of religious worship, etc. - absolutely all cultural artifacts can be considered as an archaeological heritage only by the fact of their being in the ground or under water. In fact, only the so-called intangible cultural heritage cannot be included in the archaeological heritage. From this point of view, one can assert the absolute conventionality and unviability of distinguishing the archaeological group of heritage or monuments, which in many respects is of a purely legal nature.
The artificiality of highlighting the archaeological heritage is also reflected in the identification of its potential value, significance in the current cultural environment. The point is that it is practically impossible to single out specific value characteristics inherent only in objects of archeology.
Thus, we can talk about the potential value of the archaeological heritage in modern Russian and world culture due to the following characteristics. First, it is worth noting the status of "antiquity" inherent in almost all archaeological objects (with the exception of some monuments of modern times). At the level of mass culture, the significant age of archaeological remains most often causes feelings of surprise, less often admiration, and sometimes distrust. As the author's personal experience in archaeological expeditions in the Urals testifies, most people think when they find out that where they now live, a person has existed for thousands of years, the same effect is produced by showing finds that are several thousand years old.
It is interesting to note that, according to A. Rigla, the phenomenon of the value of the age of artifacts in its finished form (the concept of historical value, tradition existed before) does not appear before the 20th century. In a 21st century society focused on innovation, "old" retains and even strengthens its magical status. It is characteristic that today the attitude to things that have a solid age does not depend on either the social, or professional, or any other affiliation of the individual. The very fact of antiquity makes any thing worthy of note. As a result, one can observe a massive and a priori recognition of the value and interest of archaeological heritage sites.
Due to their age, archeological monuments also turn out to be a significant worldview symbol, since through their perception an understanding of the duration, complexity of the cultural path of mankind and the true multi-layeredness of culture itself is formed. Here you can quote the words that gave a cultural justification for the concept of "cultural and historical heritage" as a socio-cultural phenomenon. In "Conversations about Russian Culture" he emphasizes that: "Culture is memory. Therefore, it is always connected with history, always implies the continuity of the moral, intellectual, spiritual life of a person, society and mankind. And therefore, when we talk about our modern culture, we, perhaps without suspecting it ourselves, are talking about the huge path that this culture has traveled. This path spans millennia, crosses the boundaries of historical eras, national cultures and immerses us in one culture - the culture of mankind. . In this sense, the archaeological heritage, like no other, meets the function of culture to be, in the expression, "the non-hereditary memory of mankind", destroying the boundaries of the spatio-temporal localization of human experience.
However, recognizing "age" and, so to speak, its diversity as a factor of value, we cannot attribute its effect only to archeological monuments. A similar impact will have any "old" things that had the opportunity to exist for a long time without falling out of the cultural environment, without going through the process of archeology. In this case, the results of surveys, for example, by archaeographers or ethnographers, will be of no less interest.
Secondly, we can talk about the potential value of the archaeological heritage as an opportunity to learn about societies and cultures that are significantly different from the actual reality. A significant chronological interval separating the present from the past recorded in archaeological sources, however strange it may sound, largely determines the relevance of the archaeological heritage in the current situation.
This makes it possible to effectively use the cultural potential of the past to reflect the current situation (which is extremely in demand today in the era of forced, fundamental changes). Archeology, in fact, sets a situation of socio-cultural “outside location” that is extremely productive for perception and reflection. As he notes, “cultures whose memory is mainly saturated with texts created by them are most often characterized by gradual and slow development, while cultures whose memory is periodically subjected to massive saturation with texts developed in a different tradition tend to “accelerated development”.
So, for example, the specificity of the modern chronotope (“emergency” pace of modern life against the background of the destruction of space) can be perceived through the study and comparison with the chronotope of traditional societies (this is how the vast majority of archaeological cultures studied by researchers can be classified). Considering that the modern spatio-temporal "orders" have a largely negative impact on the human psyche, the sensations of "stable time and space" of the societies of the Past can act as a therapeutic "stabilizing" remedy. Also, through the attitude of people of archaeological cultures to the material space surrounding them (the world of individual things that have history and spirituality), one can understand the specifics of the impact on modern man of the industrial production of the material world (mass “dead” things without history and value, the cult of the “new”). The same situation can be observed in relation to nature, to ourselves and the world. In the face of the archaeological heritage, we have access to a kind of field that is sharply different from modern sensations, knowledge, values.
The demand for such sensations of a different cultural reality is reflected today in the development of archaeological tourism and archeoparks (archeodromes) in Europe and partly in Russia, when visitors are given the opportunity to personally join the life and worldview of a person of the distant past.
Considering the significance of the experience of communication with archaeological cultures, however, it is important to emphasize that the archaeological heritage also has no unique value in this aspect. No less valuable for current societies is interaction with surviving ethnographic societies (values of the same traditional culture) or acquaintance with the works of classical historians. Comprehending the ancient past as another country (or rather, many countries), another material, spiritual, artistic culture against the backdrop of the rapid development of international and domestic tourism also does not look like a specific value of archaeological materials.
Thirdly, we can talk about the aesthetic value of the artifacts of the past. Archaeological heritage is a culture presented in a stunning variety of material forms, created according to the plan of millions of authors of the past. In addition, it is worth noting the fact of the inseparability of the artistic and material and everyday spheres both in the creation of most things of the past and their modern interpretation (when we admire knife handles, skillfully made stone tools, etc.), which expresses the specificity of the perception of ancient artifacts. Noting the demand for artistic examples of the past, which can be confirmed by the retro style, which is of great importance in modern design, however, we certainly cannot consider this valuable characteristic inherent in the archaeological heritage as an exceptional phenomenon.
Finally, we can single out such a characteristic feature of archaeological objects as their belonging to the sphere of human everyday life. Archaeological collections are dominated by things related to typical problems of everyday life and regular life support, which, therefore, are directly related to us. Of course, this “attachment” to the ordinary viewer adds relevance and vitality to the archaeological heritage, however, in this case, we cannot speak of the absence of analogues of similar significance. In particular, we are talking about “competition” in value from ethnographic materials.
Thus, we can conclude that the value of the archaeological heritage is not manifested in individual characteristics inherent only to it. Archaeological objects and the history consisting of them, in terms of cognitive interest (“intellectual goodies”) and cognitive, aesthetic value, are not unique. In a certain sense, it can be argued that the value attitude towards archaeological sources lies on the same plane with the attitude towards the "archival" culture as a whole and with the development of intercultural dialogue. In this regard, in this case, it is more correct to speak of specificity as an individual intersection of common features. It is the combination of the status of "antiquity", aesthetic diversity, a situation of significant cultural otherness and, at the same time, belonging to the sphere of everyday life that determines the nature of the value of archaeological antiquities in the modern socio-cultural environment.
The analysis presented above, which is more theoretical than empirical, certainly does not give a complete picture of the value of the archaeological heritage. The potential value of cultural monuments should objectively diverge from the real perception of their significance. Moving on to a further presentation of the material, we also note that the very fact of visiting ancient monuments, viewing archaeological expositions cannot be considered as evidence of value. In this regard, it is more appropriate, when analyzing the demand, to focus not on the practices of “using”, “popularizing” or “updating” the heritage, but on the very attitude of an ordinary non-specialized viewer to archaeological antiquities.
As the most important condition for the formation of value perception, one can consider knowledge about the object of the relation and the subject's ideas about it. Considering that the elementary lack of information about the archaeological heritage is a factor blocking any value attitude towards it, we note that the population of, for example, the Ural region reflects the fact of the presence of numerous archaeological sites in a seemingly known area very poorly. It is worth noting that “failures” in archaeological education are also typical for academic audiences. Most representatives of the humanities, including historians, are unlikely to be able to name even 10 archeological monuments in their region. The archaeological heritage remains "terra incognita". As an objective reason for this situation, one can name the almost complete absence of materials on archaeological sites in school and university curricula. In connection with these circumstances, archaeological education can be considered as an extremely relevant factor in shaping the value of archaeological antiquities for a non-specialized audience.
Of great importance for the value perception of the archaeological heritage is also the established image of the archeological science itself and the figure of the archaeologist. In the mass consciousness of Russian citizens, quite definite themes are associated with archaeologists. "Are you looking for gold?" and “are you looking for mammoths?” - these are the two most common questions asked by anyone who introduces himself as an archaeologist. It is interesting that such a myth also appears in domestic works of art. So, for example, the idea that an archaeologist is a person looking for mammoths appears in V. Tokareva’s story “I rode a Greek” and then sounds in V. Fokin’s TV play based on her motives “Between Heaven and Earth” (1977). A similar situation is observed abroad. According to a study conducted in 2002 in Canada, 21% of respondents associated the bones of dinosaurs with the concept of archeology, in the USA, according to studies in 1999, 80% of respondents to the question whether archaeologists study dinosaurs answered in the affirmative.
Such ideas, distorting the image of the archaeological science itself and its field of activity, at the same time have a positive impact on the level of significance of the entire archaeological heritage for the average viewer. With the general popularity of the mammoth theme, archaeological science actually appropriates the interest of the cultural visitor, which should rightfully belong to paleontologists.
Another "distortion" associated with the image of archeology stems from its association with the process of excavation. As European and American studies show, the very image of an archaeologist is associated in the mass consciousness not at all with history and heritage sites. According to the SAA Research Center (American Society of Archaeology), the vast majority of respondents associate the word archeology with the word "dig" in various forms (59%). This association was also in first place according to other studies conducted in Canada, Sweden, and the USA. In Russia, similar measurements were not carried out, but it is quite possible to assume that their result will be similar.
The theme of excavations is also tightly combined with the motive of searching for treasures, which has a significant impact on the image of archaeological science in the mass consciousness. The concept of a treasure, which is a significant cultural archetype of an international nature, has a powerful motivational effect on attitudes towards the entire field of archaeological heritage.
Treasure as a combination of mystery, value (understood not only materially), and danger partly forms the image of the treasure hunter himself, which we have clear confirmation in the form of sociological research materials. According to K. Holtorf, in Europe the work of an archaeologist is firmly associated in the public mind with three main ideas:
o Adventurism and adventure,
o Detective search,
o Sensational (significant) discoveries.
Here one can also cite the definition of archeology from the book “Gods, Tombs, Scientists” by K. Kerram, widely known in the West: “... a science in which adventures and diligence, romantic discoveries and spiritual self-denial are intertwined, epoch, nor within the framework of this or that country ... It is unlikely that there are more exciting adventures in the world ... ”.
Thus, archaeological science and the results of its activities are closely connected with such mythologems that are significant for a person, such as “mystery”, “dangerous road / search”, “treasure / treasure”. From this point of view, the archaeological heritage stands out significantly against the background of all historical science and its creators. While the work of a historian is more likely associated with “papers” and an office (the well-known definition of “archival rat” can be cited as confirmation), archeology is more likely to be perceived as a field researcher’s activity full of romanticism (if history is dates, then archeology is treasures). Despite the fact that "treasures" and significant values can be found with equal probability in archaeological and archival research, at the level of mass consciousness, priority is clearly given to the first area.
However, it remains an open question whether the presence of significant cognitive motivation for archaeological research is a factor in the value of the archaeological heritage itself. For many, archeology is rather a spectacular form of acquaintance with the past, often completely replacing the content of this process. In many ways, interest in archeology is purely hedonistic in nature, which is reflected in the typical question familiar to every archaeologist: “Did you find anything interesting?”. The distant past is of interest to the mass consciousness in many respects only as "entertaining" and "curious". Archeology turns out to be a very suitable product for satisfying our interest in secrets, riddles and sensations.
The factors that aggravate the transformation of an archaeological site into a heritage can also include the situation of absolute "isolation" of the archaeological past from modern societies. So, for example, on the basis of the Ural material, one can speak of the impossibility of determining the ethnicity of monuments earlier than 1-2 thousand BC. e. In addition, the ethnic "bindings" of objects of later eras (up to the beginning of the 2nd millennium AD) are often conditional and variable. This is due to the specifics of the source, which represents the past to us exclusively in things. Unfortunately, the problems of the correlation of the typological series of objects of material and spiritual culture with socio-cultural groups (the most important typological unit of archeology - "archaeological culture" - is, in fact, the typological unity of material material) still remain unresolved. As a result, archaeologists in most cases cannot link the objects they study to any modern ethnic group (the situation is also complicated by the numerous processes of migration and socio-cultural assimilation that took place in antiquity).
All this makes it possible to classify the archaeological heritage as "archival", "torn out" from the context of the history of actual societies and cultures. Thus, any actualization, revitalization and inclusion of the archaeological heritage in the modern environment will have a taste of artificiality and simulation. In this regard, it can be noted that today most of the clubs of historical reconstruction, actively including the archaeological heritage in current practices, do not go beyond the end of the 1st - 2nd millennium AD. e. (from Kievan Rus and the Middle Ages to the XX century). The rest of the eras remain beyond their attention, largely due to the lack of understanding of the ethnic, semantic and value connection of the monuments of earlier eras with the modern situation (the revival of the traditions of Kievan Rus or even the modeling of Viking weapons, in comparison with the restoration of everyday life, for example, the Kozlov culture looks much more understandable, meaningful and valuable).
Thus, the past, presented in archaeological sources, turns out to be both an object that has potential and real value for actual societies, but at the same time does not have a unique semantic meaning for them. In this regard, we can no longer call archaeological antiquities monuments, but it is also impossible to define them in terms of heritage. At the same time, it can be argued that interest in archeological objects, even based on their perception in the style of the “adventure” genre, can act as a basis for their popularization, development, and, as a result, preservation.
Note
See, for example, Federal Law No. 73-FZ of January 1, 2001 “On Cultural Heritage Objects (Monuments of History and Culture) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation”.
Mironov, natural and cultural heritage as an imperative of the cultural policy of a post-industrial society: dis. ... cand. cultural sciences: 24.00.01. M., 2000. P.77.
As mentioned above, the “archeological monument” in Russian legislation is completely synonymous with the “object of archaeological heritage”. The same situation is observed in international law (we are talking about the "International Charter for the Protection and Use of the Archaeological Heritage", approved in Lausanne in 1990).
See, for example, Pryakhin, and the archaeological heritage. Voronezh, 1995.
Riegl, A. The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin , Foster, K. W. and Ghirardo, D. in Monument/Memory and the Mortality of Architecture. Oppositions 25, 1982: 21-51.
See, for example, Lowenthal, D. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985; Shils, E. Tradition. London: Faber and Faber, 1981.
Lotman, about Russian culture: Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII - early XIX century). SPb., 1994. S. 8.
Kagan, M.S. And again about the essence of man // Alienation of man in the perspective of globalization of the world. Sat. articles. Issue I / Ed. Markova B.V., St. Petersburg, 2001. P.67.
Kagan, culture. SPb. Petropolis. 1996. S. 274.
Lotman, in culturological coverage // Lotman articles. T. 1. - Tallinn, 1992. S. 200-202.
Similar methods of compensating for the negative impact of the modern socio-cultural and technogenic environment are proposed to be used, in particular, by the American researcher E. Toffler (see, for example, Toffler, E. Future shock: translated from English / E. Toffler. - M .: ACT ", 2002).
It is worth noting that in the emerging post-industrial society there is a return to the values of a hand-made individual product, when the “hand-made” label becomes a sign of the value of a thing and the taste of its owner.
The “green” movement, which is gaining momentum, actively appeals, in particular, to the ancient practices of caring for nature. Domestic archaeologists also write about this in their works - see, for example, Kosarev of the pagan world outlook: Based on Siberian archaeological and ethnographic materials /. - M., 2003.
Here we can cite the fact that in the libraries of Russia for many years the works of Russian classics have been standing uncut.
Pokotylo, D. Public Opinion and Canadian Archaeological Heritage: A National Perspective. Canadian Journal of Archeology 26, 2002, pp. 88-129.
Ramos, M., Duganne, D. Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Archaeology. Report by HarrisInteractive on behalf of the Society for American Archeology, 2000. Accessed at: http://www. saa. org/pubedu/nrptdraft4.pdf (accessed 28 September 2004). R. 31.
Ramos, M., Duganne, D. Op. cit. Access method: http://www. saa. org/pubedu/nrptdraft4.pdf (accessed 28 September 2004). R. 25.
In our opinion, for the Russian audience, if there was an appropriate study, we would get a similar image of an archaeologist and archeology.
Holtorf, C. Monumental Past: The Life-histories of Megalithic Monuments in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). electronic monograph. University of Toronto (): Center for Instructional Technology Development. Access method: http://hdl. /1807/245.
Kerram, K. Gods, tombs, scientists. SPb., 1994. S. 5-6.
It can be noted that one of the projects aimed at using the archaeological heritage in the framework of tourism programs in the Urals (presented at the competition of the Governor of the Sverdlovsk Region among university students studying in the specialty "Social and cultural service and tourism" in 2007) also used the idea search. The concept of the archaeological tour was based on the movement of geocaching ("treasure search" using the achievements of technical progress in the field of satellite GPS navigation (global positioning system)).
UDC 130.2 (470 BBK 87
A.B. Shukhobodsky
object of archaeological heritage as a separate phenomenon of cultural values
The features of archeological monuments as heritage objects, the differences between the objects of archaeological heritage are characterized. objects of cultural heritage, monuments of history and culture in relation to protection procedures.
Keywords:
cultural value, object of archaeological heritage, object of cultural heritage, monument of history, monument of culture.
Currently, archeological monuments belong to one of the types of cultural heritage objects (monuments of history and culture). At the same time, the legislation constantly has to introduce separate clauses relating to objects of archaeological heritage, which indirectly indicates their non-identity with other objects of cultural heritage.
In the Law of the Russian Federation of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on OKN), “objects of archaeological heritage” are highlighted. This is due to the fact that they are objects of cultural heritage of a special kind. They and related objects of material culture belong to a separate category. Like other "historical and cultural monuments", archeological monuments can be represented as separate objects, ensembles and places of interest. At the same time, archaeological heritage sites have a number of features that distinguish them from a number of other cultural heritage sites. Thus, all archeological monuments in terms of historical and cultural value belong to objects of federal significance and at the same time are recognized as an integral part of the world cultural heritage and receive the status of identified objects of cultural heritage from the day they are discovered.
Considering the differences between archeological monuments and monuments of history and culture, it is necessary to consider their inherent distinctive features.
The first distinguishing feature of an object of archaeological heritage is that, despite the direct provision of the Law that objects of cultural heritage are immovable property, objects of archaeological heritage can be both immovable and movable cultural property, which makes them a very special
group of historical and cultural monuments. At the same time, movable archaeological values are mainly discovered during excavations at immovable archaeological heritage sites.
The second sign is that, unlike the integral arts and crafts, painting and sculpture, which are inextricably linked with the monument of history and culture and remain in it, movable objects of the archaeological heritage are removed from the excavation. Within three years from the date of the archaeological work, all discovered cultural values (including anthropogenic, anthropological, paleozoological, paleobotanical and other objects of historical and cultural value) must be transferred for permanent storage to the state part of the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation. Thus, in relation to objects of archaeological heritage, unlike other objects of cultural heritage, the issue of museumification of movable cultural property is legally fixed.
Thirdly, in contrast to the purposeful work carried out to identify new "monuments of history and culture", with the aim of protecting them and preserving them in their locations, in relation to archaeological heritage objects, only in exceptional cases, rescue archaeological field work is allowed, with full or partial withdrawal archaeological finds from excavations. That is, systematic work to identify archeological monuments in accordance with the Law on OKN should not be carried out. This sharply narrowed the possibility of conducting a scientific study of archeological monuments, reducing all possibilities solely to measures to preserve these objects during construction and other earthworks, and not the possibility of conducting other studies. Such a limitation
is undoubtedly erroneous regarding this phenomenon, which has a long history of purely scientific excavations, which have greatly expanded the understanding of world history and made it possible to clarify the chronology of historical and prehistoric events. And in this case, one can disagree with Sigmund Freud, who said: “archaeological interests are quite commendable, but excavations are not carried out if the dwellings of living people are undermined by this, so that these dwellings collapse and bury people under their ruins.”
The fourth sign is that often the economic value of archaeological heritage objects can be significantly lower than the value of other cultural values due to the fact that any evidence of the existence of past generations is recognized as archaeological values, since they carry information of a scientific and historical nature. Thus, they may be of interest only to researchers, complementing the picture of the events of the distant past, having no value as a work of art.
Fifth - "field archaeological research (excavations and reconnaissance) can be carried out only for scientific, security and accounting purposes by specialized scientific and scientific restoration institutions, higher educational institutions, museums and state bodies for the protection of historical and cultural monuments" . Moreover, work to identify and study objects of archaeological heritage is carried out on the basis of a permit (open sheet) issued for a period of not more than one year for the right to conduct a certain type of such work. An open list is issued not to an institution, but to a specific researcher who has the appropriate training and qualifications. The report on archaeological field work and all field documentation within three years from the date of expiration of the open sheet must be transferred for storage to the Archival Fund of the Russian Federation in accordance with the Federal Law of October 22, 2004 No. 125-FZ "On Archival Affairs in the Russian Federation".
The sixth sign - paragraph 3 of Article 49 of the Law on OKN establishes that the archeological monument is exclusively in state ownership, and paragraph 1 of Article 50 establishes the impossibility of alienating an object of archaeological heritage from the state
noah property . In addition, land plots or sections of a water body, within which archeological monuments are located, are limited in circulation - according to the Land Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Land Code of the Russian Federation), they are not provided for private ownership.
It is also specific that an archeological monument and a land plot or a section of a water body within which it is located are in civil circulation separately. At the same time, land plots or sections of a water body within the boundaries of an archaeological heritage site, in accordance with Article 99 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, are classified as historical and cultural lands, the legal regime on which is regulated by the Law on OKN, the Land Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with him.
Within the lands of historical and cultural purpose, a special legal regime for the use of lands is introduced, prohibiting activities that are incompatible with the main purpose of these lands; in the case of an object of archaeological heritage, the main purpose is its preservation and use. On the lands of historical and cultural purpose, including the lands of archeological monuments subject to research and conservation, according to the Land Code of the Russian Federation, any economic activity may be prohibited. In accordance with Art. 79; 94; Art. 99 of this Code, lands of historical and cultural purpose, if they are not used for their intended purpose, may be withdrawn from the land user.
It is also specific that the objects of archaeological heritage are complex monuments that combine the features of natural and historical and cultural objects. In this regard, the issues of their protection are considered in many legislative acts. A very extensive section is contained in the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation. "... In settlements and territories with historical and cultural monuments, including archeological monuments ..., within which urban planning, economic or other activities that are harmful to objects of historical and cultural heritage are prohibited or restricted" . Regarding natural objects, the issues of their protection are considered in environmental legislation. Due to the fact that archaeological sites
Society
the mints are located on the surface and in the soil layer of modern land, the issues of protection of archaeological sites are considered in land legislation. Archaeological sites lying below the modern soil layer, i.e. in the subsoil, are subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Subsoil".
Given the enormous scientific and cultural value of archeological monuments, as well as the fact that economic activity and construction can cause significant damage to monuments, the legislation provides for a number of special measures to ensure their safety during construction work.
According to the Law on OKN, the features of designing and carrying out land management, excavation, construction, reclamation, economic and other works are carried out only if there is a conclusion of a historical and cultural expertise on the absence of cultural heritage objects on the territory to be developed. In the event that objects of archaeological heritage are found in the territory to be developed, sections on ensuring the safety of the discovered objects must be included in the projects for such work. The Law on OKN prohibits such use of a land plot with objects of archaeological heritage, which may worsen their condition or harm the surrounding historical and cultural environment. The authorities for the protection of cultural heritage objects have the right to suspend construction or other work if in the course of their implementation there is a threat to the existence of an object of archaeological heritage or the measures provided for by law to ensure its safety are not observed. Criminal, administrative and other legal liability is possible for violations of the legislation regarding archeological monuments. Persons who have caused harm to a cultural heritage object are also required to reimburse the cost of the measures necessary to preserve it, which does not relieve these persons from administrative and criminal liability provided for such actions.
The essential difference between an archeological monument and other monuments of history and culture is the way in which the preservation of archaeological heritage objects is ensured. Domestic and foreign practice uses
the following forms and options for ensuring the preservation of archeological monuments in the areas of construction and other earthworks.
a) A complete scientific study of archaeological sites, the integrity of which may be violated during construction. Such a study includes: the identification of monuments through archaeological exploration on the ground; stationary archaeological excavations of monuments, which are carried out, as a rule, manually in compliance with a certain methodology, with the fixation of all the features of the monument and the remains of structures, burials, etc. located on it; cameral processing of clothing and other materials obtained during exploration and excavations, their conservation and restoration, carrying out the necessary special analyzes, scientific description of materials, etc.; preparation of scientific reporting on field and cameral research; transfer of field work materials for permanent storage in museums and other state storage facilities. Scientific research is the most common and universal form of ensuring the safety of archeological monuments in the areas of construction work.
b) Removal (evacuation) of monuments outside the flood zones or construction works. With regard to those objects of archaeological heritage that relate to immovable monuments of history and culture, this form of preservation can be applied to a very limited extent and, as a rule, only applies to individual elements of monuments (individual architectural details, tombs, rock paintings, etc. .).
c) Creation of protective structures that limit the harmful effects of the designed facilities on archaeological sites. It can be recommended during the construction of large reservoirs and only in relation to the most valuable monuments, since the cost of creating protective devices, as a rule, is higher than the cost of a full scientific study of monuments. At the same time, there has recently been a trend towards the creation of demonstration sites during the restoration of buildings and structures, which make it possible to get an idea of the history of the object by conserving individual elements of archaeological monuments at the site of their finds under high-strength glazing.
d) Exclusion of areas of archaeological sites from the areas of
construction work or flood zones (for example, changing the routes of gas and oil pipelines so that they do not affect archaeological sites, changing the location of individual structures, etc.). It can be recommended only if there is a technical possibility of such an exception.
A specific complementary method for ensuring the safety of archaeological sites in construction zones is archaeological supervision. The implementation of this complex of measures for the protection of monuments in the zones of construction work by archaeologists, as practice shows, provides the optimal solution to the following tasks:
1) Control over compliance with all norms of the current legislation on the protection of historical and cultural monuments in the construction area.
2) Control over the completeness and quality of the implementation of measures for the protection of a particular object of archaeological heritage.
3) Monitoring of the archaeological situation throughout the construction area in the process of construction and installation works.
4) Evaluation of the overall results of archaeological protection work in terms of predicting the archaeological situation in the adjacent territory.
Having demonstrated that archeological monuments are significantly different from other objects of cultural heritage, it is necessary to single out objects of archaeological heritage as a separate phenomenon, since they have a dual nature of movable and real estate. Their legal status should be determined by special separate legislation. Moreover, immovable monuments of archeology should have the status of monuments of history and culture (objects of cultural heritage), and movable ones should be museumified, like movable cultural values removed from excavations, and have the status of museum objects.
A lot of problems are caused by the fact that when purchasing or renting a monument, the person carrying out the transaction has no idea about the need, and even more so the cost of carrying out rescue archaeological work. In this connection, the owners and tenants are constantly trying to destroy archeological monuments in order to avoid additional costs. This issue should be resolved at the state and municipal level.
Another unresolved issue is that after the full
philological archaeological excavations, when no cultural property remains in the ground at the site and the site is fully explored from an archaeological point of view, it is not removed from the list of archaeological objects of cultural heritage. In fact, it ceases to be such and is only a mark (reference point) where the object of the archaeological heritage was before the archaeological work.
In this regard, after a full range of archaeological work has been carried out and all cultural values have been removed from the excavation, and in the absence of immovable archeological monuments at a particular site, this site should be removed from the register of archaeological heritage objects as a monument of history and culture and receive the status of a fully explored in the register. object of archaeological heritage with the removal of all encumbrances.
In order to avoid the loss of objects of archaeological heritage, a land plot of potential archaeological value, intended for the construction of buildings and structures that require penetration into the soil layer, cannot be alienated or transferred for construction and other earthworks, either by state bodies or municipalities, without prior carrying out emergency rescue archaeological work. The cost of these works is subsequently added to the cost of selling or renting this land. A similar norm should be legislatively fixed when carrying out repair and other permitted works on such land plots.
A constantly aggravating problem is "black archeology", that is, illegal excavations. The greatest danger lies not so much in the fact that the recovered cultural values end up on the black market, but in the fact that irreparable damage is caused to the archaeological heritage of Russia, and, consequently, to the entire world cultural heritage. As a result of the actions of "black archaeologists", the contextual perception of the artifact is lost, due to the removal of the archaeological heritage object from its natural environment and the loss of the historical information contained in the existing system, the connection between the past and the future is lost. In connection with the growing interest in culture and history, along with the cognitive component, a commercial one was formed, expressed
Society
arts and crafts, painting or sculpture is a common theft, while illegal excavation is of a much more complex legal nature.
It should also be noted that the peculiarity of archeological monuments is that their perception by society is often abstract or mythological. For example, Troy is perceived more in connection with Heinrich Schliemann or a movie than with the city itself. Moreover, although most scholars are of the opinion that Schliemann found exactly Troy, there is no full guarantee of identifying this city with the mythological Troy of Homer. Tutankhamen is perceived as Howard Carter's discovery of his unlooted tomb, and not as the pharaoh of the New Kingdom; The Dovmont sword in Pskov is not related to Dovmont, as it was created 200-300 years later, etc.
Summing up the consideration of archaeological heritage sites, it is important to note that archeological monuments are a separate phenomenon in the cultural system and should be considered as a separate phenomenon in the field of inheritance and preservation of cultural identity.
in the steady demand for archaeological artifacts. Due to the lack of a developed market for trade in cultural property in Russia, this activity is of a criminal nature and has become extremely widespread.
In connection with the development of the Internet, the availability of previously classified information about the possible location of archaeological heritage sites and the availability of modern equipment (metal detectors) that can detect cultural property at a depth of up to two meters have turned this activity into a large illegal business. This issue requires a strict legal solution, otherwise the cultural heritage will be greatly damaged. In particular, one cannot but agree with the proposal of T.R. Sabitov to include in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the article “Illegal appropriation of cultural property that does not have an owner, or whose owner is unknown” . The criminal phenomenon described by us is also a specific feature of archaeological heritage sites. It is not typical for other monuments of history and culture, since the removal of decorative items from cultural heritage sites
bibliography:
Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation. - M.: Eksmo, 2009. - 192 p.
Law of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1997 No. 122-FZ "On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it" // СЗ RF. - 1997, No. 30. - Art. 3594.
Law of the Russian Federation of January 10, 2002 No. No. 7-FZ "On Environmental Protection" // SZ RF. - 2002, No. 32. -St. 133.
Law of the Russian Federation of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation // SZ RF. - 2002, No. 26. - Art. 2519.
Law of the Russian Federation of October 22, 2004 No. 125-FZ "On Archival Affairs in the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. - 2006, No. 43. - Art. 4169.
Regulations on the production of archaeological excavations and reconnaissance and on open sheets. Approved by the Academic Council of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences on February 23, 2001 - M., 2001. - Internet resource. Access mode: http://www.archaeology.rU/ONLINE/Documents/otkr_list.html#top/ (Accessed 05/20/2011).
Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 16, 1982 No. 865 “On approval of the Regulations on the protection and use of monuments of history and culture” // SP USSR. - 1982, No. 26. -St. 133.
Sabitov T.R. Protection of cultural values: criminal law and criminological aspects / Abstract of the thesis. ... cand. legal Sciences. - Omsk. 2002. - 12 p.
Sukhov P.A. Archaeological monuments, their protection, accounting and primary study. - M.-L.: AN SSSR, 1941. - 124 p.
Troyanovsky S. What black diggers hunt for // Novgorod Internet newspaper. - 2010, August 31. - Internet resource. Access mode: http://vnnews.ru/actual/chernokopateli (05/20/2011).
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of June 13, 1996 No. 63-FZ. With comments on recent changes. - M., Eksmo, 2011 - 272 p.
Freud Z. Psychology of the masses and analysis of the human "I" // The future of one illusion / Per. with him. - St. Petersburg: ABC classics, 2009. - S. 158.
