Archaeological sites 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 surface of the earth, in the earth's interior and under water, requiring the use of archaeological methods to identify and study.
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 activities;
- an archaeological monument is an object identified and studied by archaeological methods and having documentary fixation of information obtained in the process of identification and study;
- an archaeological object is a remnant recovered during scientific excavations or in the process of economic and other activities, as well as found by chance and having undergone primary attribution and identification with respect to other similar objects;
- remnant is an object that reflects human activity, 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.
Archaeological heritage is a part of material culture, the main information about which can be obtained by archaeological methods. The heritage includes all traces of human habitation and consists of places that record all manifestations of human activity, including abandoned buildings and ruins of all kinds (including underground and underwater), along 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 layers.
“Monuments of material culture,” wrote L.N. Gumilyov, - clearly mark the periods of prosperity and decline of peoples and lend themselves to 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 preservation of the archaeological heritage and correctly apply in practice the legislation on the protection of historical monuments, it is necessary directly in a special law (its concept will be discussed below) to reflect the main legal provisions (conceptual apparatus) of concepts and definitions used in practical archeology.
The most important legal concept that has not only scientific but also practical significance is the cultural layer.
We will not find the definition of the cultural layer in normative acts, therefore, we will turn to special literature. This is what the author often has to do when analyzing cultural heritage objects. The most flawed in this regard is the legislation on the protection of archaeological monuments, since a lot of issues are not regulated by normative means. First of all, the legal apparatus of this institution is not developed, there are no definitions of archaeological objects in the legal acts, no classification of archaeological monuments is provided.
So, the cultural layer is the upper layer of the earth's interior, formed in the process of anthropogenic activity and is a combination of material remains and recycled in the process of economic activity of the earth's layers. The cultural layer of archaeological territories as a place of preservation in natural conditions of archaeological objects and material remains is subject to protection and is excluded from the number of territories for conducting economic activities. The cultural layer is usually darker in color than the surrounding land. The cultural stratum reflects the real historical process, all the uniqueness 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 strata are the result of human activity and that is why they are called the cultural layer. It takes a long time to form.
Thus, the cultural layer consists of two inextricably linked components:
- remnants of structures;
- layering, reflecting the main direction of the economic life of this section of the settlement.
Let's continue the analysis of the concepts that need to be introduced into the law “On the protection of the archaeological heritage” initiated by the author.
The bowels of the earth (in archeology) are subsurface strata of recent geological eras, affected by human activity and retaining traces or material remnants of such activity in the form of real objects or their reflections (imprints) in the immediately adjacent layers.
Archaeological document - information about objects of archaeological heritage, their complexes and constituent elements, captured 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.
The sites are places of life and economic activity of people of the Stone and Bronze Ages. (Since the sites do not have external signs, they can be detected only in the presence of a cultural layer, which stands out in a darker color among the surrounding geological rocks.)
Villages are the remnants of settlements whose inhabitants were engaged in agricultural activities.
The settlement is the remains of ancient fortifications of settlements, which were once small fortresses surrounded by earthen ramparts and ditches.
Monuments are also ancient burials, represented by ground and burial mounds.
Burial mounds are artificial earth mounds over ancient burials, hemispherical in shape, round in plan. There are mounds in the form of a truncated cone. Mounds are single, but more often they are grouped in two or three, or even several dozen, forming mound burial grounds.
If we talk about the threats and risks that await monuments of archeology, then two problems can be distinguished:
- potential destruction during excavation and construction works;
- danger of extinction as a result of illegal excavations.
until 2001, the state bodies for the protection of monuments did not organize a single expedition to control the state of archaeological monuments in Belarus. At the same time, the destruction of archaeological sites is ongoing. Monuments perish during the period of excavation and construction work. Archaeological sites are often destroyed in preparation for important events.
Other countries face a similar problem.
For example, contrary to the requirements of the law, the Akimat of Zhezkazgan city allocated a land plot for a production corporation for the construction of engineering communications to the Zhaman-Aibat mine. Meanwhile, there are 4 historical and cultural monuments on the territory of the deposit development - sites of the Neolithic period, sites-workshops of the Paleolithic era, sites-workshops of Kazbek, places of copper mining of the Bronze Age. The Bronze Age burial ground, which consists of more than 20 burial 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, irreplaceable damage to the 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, and unearth burial grounds. The main purpose of illegal treasure hunting is the extraction of antiquities, including bone remains of the buried (skulls) for private collections.
Among the reasons for illegal excavations are imperfect legislation, the availability of search equipment, an increase in the number of wealthy people interested in ancient objects and, oddly enough, an increased interest in Russian 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 archaeological monuments are in the exclusive ownership 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 chosen thing is taken out of context. Every year treasure hunters intensify their activities, especially when the ground is wet, loose, favorable for work. As a rule, this happens in autumn and spring, which chronologically coincides with the traditional period of archaeological research carried out 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, "black archeologists" on the night of February 2 to 3, 2002, to the territory of the state historical and archaeological reserve "Olvia", which on January 17, 2002 by the decree of the President of Ukraine was assigned the status of the National, brought the equipment terrain, dug over 300 ancient graves overnight, looted 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 of Mogilev and Gomel regions. Burial mounds of the X-XIII centuries have been preserved here. Many of them have been destroyed. Archaeological sites are being excavated by "treasure hunters" even in the contaminated area. In June 2004, in the Mogilev region, police officers detained a “black digger” with the prospect of bringing him to justice. Around Minsk, almost all the kurgans that are in plain sight have been uncovered during illegal excavations.
In recent years, the commercial turnover of archaeological items, previously based on the activities of a limited number of professional archaeologists, has become a multidisciplinary business. However, prosecution for illegal excavations of archaeological sites is a rarity in the practice of both law enforcement and regulatory agencies.
It seems that the legislator can take the path of amending the criminal law that establishes responsibility for the destruction, destruction or damage of a cultural monument (meaning Article 344 of the Criminal Code of Belarus). This may be an independent part of this article, which provides as a qualifying feature responsibility for actions that led to the destruction, destruction or damage of a monument, committed in order to search for archaeological objects or remains of a military burial. Stricter responsibility should arise in the event of the commission of the same actions by an official whose powers include the implementation of professional expeditionary activities to study the archaeological heritage or perpetuate the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland and victims of war.
As a result of Art. 344 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus will be supplemented with two new parts of the following content (in an initiative version):
“The actions provided for in the first or second part of this article, committed with the aim of searching for archaeological objects or the real remains of military graves, are punished. ..
The actions provided for by part one or two 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 the historical and cultural heritage, to protect the monuments of history and culture.
The main normative legal act that currently regulates the issue of preserving the historical and cultural heritage on the territory of the Russian Federation is Federal Law of June 25, 2002 N 73-FZ "On cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter - Law on OKN).
In Art. 3 of the above Law defines an object of cultural heritage, including an object of archaeological heritage - "partially or completely hidden in the ground or under water traces of human existence in past eras (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, fortifications, barrows, earthen burial grounds, ancient burials, settlements, parking lots, stone statues, steles, rock carvings, remains of ancient fortifications, industries, canals, ships, roads, places of ancient religious rituals, 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 zones of protection is not given. It is pointed out that "in order to ensure the preservation of a cultural heritage object in its historical environment, zones of protection of a cultural heritage object are established in the adjacent territory: a security zone, a zone for regulating development and economic activity, a zone for a protected natural landscape."
It should be noted that this provision was borrowed from Art. 33 of the Law of the RSFSR of 12/15/1978 "On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments", which was also duplicated in clause 30 of the Regulations on the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments, approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated September 16, 1982 N 865 and p. 40 of the Instructions on the procedure for recording, ensuring the preservation, maintenance, use and restoration of immovable monuments of history and culture, approved by Order of the USSR Ministry of Culture dated 05.13.1986 N 203. These norms contained similar wording and a listing of the same protection zones (with minor changes to the names.
Due to the fact that the composition of protection zones and their regime are developed and approved by the draft 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 objects. And given that the financing of this event is entrusted primarily to state and municipal bodies, 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 on the territory of the Russian Federation, very little has been established (exact summary data are not available even in the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation). Thus, most of the cultural heritage sites today, without these zones, are in fact poorly protected from possible negative impacts as a result of new economic development of adjacent land plots, as well as active urban planning activities.
In order to somehow remedy this situation, some constituent entities of the Russian Federation (for example, the Krasnodar Territory), without waiting for the resolution of the issue at the federal level, by their own laws, back in 2003, introduced the concept of "temporary security zones" with the establishment of their size and action only until the development and approval of projects of protection zones.
And now, having analyzed the current situation, as well as the practice of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in 2016 the Federal Law of 05.04.2016 N 95-FZ "On Amendments to the Federal Law" On Cultural Heritage Objects (Historical and Cultural Monuments) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation "was adopted and Article 15 of the Federal Law "On the State Real Estate Cadastre", according to which Article 34.1 "Protective zones of cultural heritage objects" was introduced into the Law on OKN. Part 1 of this article defines the protection zone of a cultural heritage object - territories that are adjacent to the included in the register of monuments and ensembles and within the boundaries of which, in order to ensure the preservation of cultural heritage objects and compositional-specific connections (panoramas), it is prohibited to build capital construction objects 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. total zones. These protection zones are introduced temporarily until the development and approval of projects of protection zones, i.e. in fact, they have to 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, after a careful reading of Article 34.1 of the Law on OKN, it turns out that no protection zones are established for objects of archaeological heritage. Logical questions arise - why and how to be?
We begin to study this issue and turn for an answer, first of all, to 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 boils down to the fact that protection zones are not needed for archaeological heritage sites in principle.
So, in the letters of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2014 N 3726-12-06 and of June 29, 2015 N 2736-12-06 on the refusal to approve the project of protection zones for the archaeological monument "Semikarakorskoye Gorodishche" (Rostov Region) 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 state protection of objects hidden in the ground archaeological heritage, ensuring their preservation, 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. "
The specified interpretation is given by the Ministry exclusively from the reading of Art. 34 of the Law on OKN. At the same time, of course, this article does not say anything directly about the fact that no protection zones are established for objects of archaeological heritage or objects hidden underground. Nor is it said about this in the current Regulations on the Protection Zones of Cultural Heritage Objects (Historical and Cultural Monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation. Those. the ministry's interpretation is purely subjective.
If we turn to the practice of resolving this issue in the USSR, then everything in the already mentioned Regulations on the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments clearly stated that protection zones are established to ensure the safety, including of archaeological monuments.
This position is also absolutely logical from the point of view of practice. So, if we refuse protection zones for archaeological heritage objects, it turns out that work of any nature (especially earth and construction) can be carried out right close 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 identified and was not included in the territory of the monument, damage by tractors, bulldozers and other heavy construction equipment, storage of soil (dumps), etc. also, in addition, it is necessary to take into account the complexity of the unambiguous definition of the territory of the monument for objects of archaeological heritage. After all, not for every archaeological monument, depending on its type, is possible without full-fledged excavations. So, for example, the main method of defining the boundaries of the territory of an archaeological monument is by pits. At the same time, in accordance with the Regulations on the Procedure for Conducting Archaeological Field Work and Compiling Scientific Reporting Documentation, the conduct of pits on archaeological monuments - barrows - is strictly prohibited. And given that the mounds of mounds under the influence of time (weathering, plowing, etc.) float and stretch, and may also have ditches and grooves located around the embankment (at different distances), as well as the inter-mound space (between the mounds in one mound group), it is not always possible to establish the exact boundary of the monument. And the absence of protection zones will actually lead to their possible damage. In a similar way, this can apply to both the fortified settlement and the ground burial ground. And 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 "hidden underground", then how to define it - many fortresses and settlements are actually earthen ramparts with elements of ruins that go out. Whether it is hidden underground or not is again an exclusively subjective opinion. But they need protection from economic activities no less than architectural monuments.
The main acuteness of the problem under consideration is, in general, given at once by 3 factors:
Not all objects of archaeological heritage have a precisely defined territory, and therefore it is not clear what size of the land plot around the monument of archeology to indicate 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 surveillance carried out in the zone of construction work near objects of archaeological heritage, now it becomes virtually impossible to ensure their preservation in general without protection zones;
Considering that temporary protection zones are now legislatively introduced at the federal level and it is clearly defined for which cultural heritage sites they are established, it becomes illegal for the further existence of the provision on temporary protection zones in regional laws, including in terms of archaeological heritage sites, which leads to to their abolition and, consequently, leaving objects of the archaeological heritage without any protection in this part.
Trying to understand the motives of this interpretation on the part of 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 objects of archaeological heritage are federal, and their number is overwhelming compared to other objects of cultural heritage), as well as the impossibility of establishing arbitrary restrictions on a sufficiently large number of land plots and, in fact, their withdrawal from circulation (difficult socio-economic situation, people's dissatisfaction).
At the same time, we believe that simply eliminating protection zones as a form of measures to ensure the preservation of archaeological heritage sites is unacceptable, this will lead to their uncontrolled destruction.
It seems that the introduced protection zones should be extended to objects of archaeological heritage with the possibility of their reduction when developing projects of protection zones on the basis of comprehensive scientific research when such a desire arises from an interested person (the one who intends to develop a nearby land plot that falls into this protection zone) ... Or, alternatively, to establish in the Law on OKN or the newly adopted GOSTs that replaced the PSA-2007, such a preventive protective measure as archaeological supervision, if work is planned in the area of \u200b\u200ban archaeological heritage site. At the same time, the size of the zone can be set according to the example of temporary protection zones established in the Krasnodar Territory: depending on the type of archaeological monument and its size.
Bibliography:
1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation. Adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993 (taking into account the amendments introduced 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. 1993.25 Dec .; Coll. legislation Ros. Federation. 2014. N 31. Art. 4398.
2. On the objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) 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) // Sobr. legislation Ros. Federation. 2002. N 26. Art. 2519; 2016. N 15. Art. 2057.
3. On the protection and use of monuments of history and culture: 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 monuments of history and culture, approved by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 16, 1982 N 865 // SP USSR. 1982. N 26. Art. 133.
5. Instructions on the procedure for recording, ensuring the preservation, 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 protection zones of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation: Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 26, 2008 N 315 (no longer valid) // Sobr. legislation Ros. Federation. 2008. N 18. Art. 2053.
7. On the lands of immovable objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of regional and local significance located on the territory of the Krasnodar Territory, and the zones of their protection: the Law of the Krasnodar Territory of June 6, 2002 N 487-KZ (expired) // Kubanskie Novosti ... 19.06.2002. N 118 - 119.
8. On amendments to the Federal Law "On Cultural Heritage Objects (Historical and Cultural Monuments) 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 // Sobr. legislation Ros. Federation. 2016. N 15. Art. 2057.
9. Letter of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation of 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 of 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 protection zones of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation and on the recognition as invalid of certain provisions of regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Russian Federation: Resolution 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 carrying out archaeological field work and drawing up 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 - 07.06.2016).
13. Letter of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation of 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 (date of access - 07.06.2016).
14. On the objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation located on the territory of the Krasnodar Territory: the Law of the Krasnodar Territory of July 23, 2015 N 3223-KZ // Official website of the Krasnodar Territory Administration. URL .: http://admkrai.krasnodar.ru (date of access - 07.06.2016).
References (transliterated):
1. Konstitutsiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Prinyata vsenarodnym golosovaniem 12 dekabrya 1993 g. (s uchetom popravok, vnesennykh Zakonami Rossiiskoi Federatsii o popravkakh k Konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 30 dekabrya 2008 g. N 6-FKZ, ot 30 dekabrya 2008 g. N 7-FKZ, ot 5 i ot 2-FKZ 2014 g. iyulya 2014 g. N 11-FKZ) // Rossiiskaya gazeta. 1993.25 dek .; Sobr. zakonodatel "stva Ros. Federatsii. 2014. No. 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. N 15. St. 2057.
3. Ob okhrane i ispol "zovanii pamyatnikov istorii i kul" tury: Zakon RSFSR ot 15 dekabrya 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 ot 16 sentyabrya 1982 g. N 865 // SP SSSR. 1982. No. 26. St. 133.
5. Instruktsiya o poryadke ucheta, obespecheniya sokhrannosti, soderzhaniya, ispol "zovaniya i restavratsii nedvizhimykh pamyatnikov istorii i kul" tury: Prikaz Minkul "tury SSSR ot 13 maya 1986 g. N 203 // Tekanstal. Tekst dostupen 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 aprelyak 2008 goda N 315 (utratilo" silu. 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 zonakhoda ikh okhrana 7- Zonodars KZ (utratil silu) // Kubanskie novosti. 19.06.2002. 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 naslediya nyi zakon ot 5 aprelya 2016 goda N 95-FZ // Sobr. zakonodatel "stva Ros. Federatsii. 2016. No. 15. St. 2057.
9. Pis "mo Ministerstva kul" tury RF ot 29 dekabrya 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 ot 29 iyunya 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 io priznanii utrativshimi silu otdel "nykh polozheni Prava st. Prava st. 12 sentyabrya 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 Ratiiskoi // akademii nauk ot 11/27/2013 Nom. .archaeolog.ru (data obrashcheniya - 07.06.2016).
13. Pis "mo Ministerstva kul" tury RF ot 27 avgusta 2015 goda N 280-01-39-GP // Razmeshcheno na ofitsial "nom saite Ministerstva kul" tury RF. URL .: http://mkrf.ru (data obrashcheniya - 07.06.2016).
14.Ob ob "" ektakh kul "turnogo naslediya (pamyatnikakh istorii i kul" tury) narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii, raspolozhennykh na territorii Krasnodarskogo kraya: Zakon Krasnodarskogo kraya kraya // 23 iyulya adminisiala 2015 g Krasnodarskogo kraya ot 23 iyulya 2015 g Noda 3223-naratsy . URL .: http://admkrai.krasnodar.ru (data obrashcheniya - 07.06.2016).
Graduate student
Humanitarian University, Yekaterinburg
Archaeological sites 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 the studies of the Soviet period, cultural heritage (at least, its material part) was very often understood almost as a synonym for the term “monument”. “Monument” and “cultural heritage” are also considered interchangeable categories in Russian legislation in the field of culture. Nevertheless, researchers are currently deliberately divorcing these concepts. Thus, as he notes, “the definition of“ monument ”is primarily focused on the preservation of memory, recollection; heritage is what our ancestors passed on to us, but they passed on not just for preservation, but for interpretation and augmentation. "
Continuing this reasoning, it can be noted that the separation of these two concepts is a matter of attitude to history in contemporary 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-pulsating nature of inheritance (uneven use of individual heritage objects by different social groups at different times) serves as a reliable proof of the unlimited (that is, absolute) value of the entire cultural heritage. However, the question of the irrelevant importance of monuments of the past is more a field of theory than practice. The solution of one of the fundamental issues of our time, associated with 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, the value of cultural heritage is more promising to understand today, first of all, not as a characteristic of the object itself, but as a fact of attitude towards it (value as an object significant for the subject and satisfying his needs). Separating 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 monuments as objects of cultural heritage, we thereby pose the problem of defining the specifics of archaeological antiquities as spiritual, artistic or other value in modern Russian society, identifying the correlation of their potential significance with the fact of their real perception and assessment.
Moving on to determining 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 site" (or "archaeological site") is more a unit of scientific analysis or accounting than a category of culture. The use of the term “heritage” in relation to the materials of archeology, on the contrary, is used in the context of the practices of including artifacts of the distant past as values \u200b\u200bin the current cultural environment. As an example (in fact, the only one), we can cite the functioning within the framework of the 1st and 2nd Northern Archaeological Congresses (Khanty-Mansiysk, 2002 and 2006) of the section “Archaeological heritage in the modern cultural process”. On the other hand, the concept of "heritage" is often used in relation to archeology and in the sense synonymous with the concept of "monument". This is the case in both the legislative and scientific fields.
Using both the concept of “monument” and the concept of “heritage” in the framework of this work, let us also dwell on the relevance of both definitions. According to the current legislation, an archaeological monument (an object of archaeological heritage) means “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 a similar 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 connected with the content of the object itself. Monuments of architecture, fine arts, writing, religious objects, etc. - absolutely all cultural artifacts can be considered as 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, it is possible to assert the absolute conventionality and nonviability of the allocation of the very archaeological group of heritage or monuments, which in many respects is of a purely legal nature.
The artificiality of identifying 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 almost impossible to single out the specific value characteristics inherent only to archaeological objects.
So, we can talk about the potential value of the archaeological heritage in modern Russian and world culture due to its following characteristics. First, it is worth noting the status of "antiquity" inherent in almost all archaeological sites (with the exception of some of the monuments of recent times). At the level of mass culture, the considerable age of the archaeological remains most often evokes feelings of surprise, less often admiration, and sometimes even 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, people have 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. Rigl, the phenomenon of the value of the age of artifacts in its finished form (the concept of historical value, tradition existed before) is manifested not earlier than the XX century. In the society of the XXI century, aimed at innovation, "antiquity" retains and even strengthens its magical status. It is characteristic that today the attitude towards things of a considerable age does not depend either on the social, or on the professional, or on any other belonging of the individual. The very fact of antiquity makes any a thing worthy of attention. As a result, one can observe massive and a priori recognition of the value and interest of archaeological heritage sites.
Due to their age, archaeological monuments also turn out to be a significant world outlook 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 cite the words that gave the culturological substantiation of the concept of "cultural and historical heritage" as a socio-cultural phenomenon. In Conversations on Russian Culture, he emphasizes that: “Culture is memory. Therefore, it is always associated with history, always implies the continuity of the moral, intellectual, spiritual life of a person, society and humanity. 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 has thousands of years, crosses the boundaries of historical eras, national cultures and immerses us in one culture - the culture of humanity. " . In this sense, archaeological heritage, like no other, meets the function of culture to be, in the expression, “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 archaeological monuments. 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 archeologization will have a similar impact. In this case, no less interesting will be the results of research, for example, archaeographers or ethnographers.
Secondly, we can talk about the potential value of the archaeological heritage as an opportunity for learning about societies and cultures that are significantly different from current reality. A significant chronological interval separating the present from the past, recorded in archaeological sources, strange as it may sound, largely determines the relevance of the archaeological heritage in the modern situation.
This makes it possible to effectively use the cultural potential of the past to reflect on the current situation (which is in great demand today in the era of forced, fundamental changes). Archeology, in fact, sets a situation of socio-cultural “out-of-accessibility” that is extremely effective for perception and reflection. As noted, “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 massively saturated with texts developed in a different tradition tend to“ accelerated development ”.
So, for example, the specificity of the modern chronotope (the “emergency” pace of modern life against the background of the destruction of space) can be perceived through 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 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" means. Also, through the attitude of people of archaeological cultures to the material space surrounding them (the world of individual things with history and spirituality), one can understand the specificity 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, ourselves and the world. In the face of the archaeological heritage, we have access to a kind of field that sharply differs from modern sensations, knowledge, and values.
The demand for such sensations of a different cultural reality is reflected today in the development in Europe and partly in Russia of archaeological tourism and archaeological parks (archaeodromes), when visitors are given the opportunity to personally become familiar with the life and worldview of a person of the distant past.
Considering the importance of the experience of communication with archaeological cultures, it is nevertheless important to emphasize that the archaeological heritage in this aspect also has no unique value. Interaction with surviving ethnographic societies (values \u200b\u200bof the same traditional culture) or acquaintance with the works of classical historians is of no less value for contemporary societies. Comprehension of the ancient past as another country (or, more precisely, many countries), another material, spiritual, artistic culture against the background 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 artifacts of the past. The archaeological heritage is a culture presented in an amazing variety of material forms, created according to the intentions of millions of authors of the past. In addition, it is worth noting the fact of the indivisibility of the artistic and material-everyday spheres, both in the creation of most things of the past and in their modern reading (when we admire the handles of knives, skillfully made stone tools, etc.), which expresses the specificity of the perception of artifacts of antiquity. Noting the relevance of artistic samples of the past, as evidenced by the retro style, which is of great importance in modern design, however, we certainly cannot consider this value 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. In archaeological collections dominated by things related to typical problems of everyday life and regular life support, which are therefore directly related to ourselves. Undoubtedly, this “attachment” to the ordinary viewer adds relevance and vitality to the archaeological heritage, but even in this case we cannot speak of the absence of analogs with similar significance. In particular, we are talking about "competition" in value on the part of ethnographic materials.
Thus, we can conclude that the value of the archaeological heritage is manifested not in individual characteristics inherent only to it. Archaeological objects and the history, consisting of them, from the point of view of cognitive interest ("intellectual goodies") and cognitive, aesthetic value, are not unique. In a sense, it can be argued that the value attitude towards archaeological sources lies in the same plane with the attitude towards the "archival" culture in general and with the development intercultural dialogue. In this regard, in this case it is more correct to speak of specificity as an individual intersection of common traits. 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 significance of cultural monuments should objectively diverge from the real perception of their significance. Moving on to the further presentation of the material, we also note that the very fact of visiting ancient monuments, viewing archaeological exhibits cannot be considered as evidence of value. In this regard, when analyzing the relevance, it is more expedient to dwell not on the practices of “using”, “popularizing” or “actualizing” 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 relationship 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, for example, of the Ural region, very poorly reflects the fact of the presence of numerous archaeological monuments in a seemingly known area. It should be noted that "failures" in archaeological education are also typical for the academic audience. Most representatives humanities , including historians, will hardly be able to name 10 archaeological sites in his region. The archaeological heritage remains “terra incognita”. The objective reason for this situation is the almost complete absence of materials on archaeological sites in school and university curricula ... In connection with these circumstances, archaeological education can be viewed 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 archaeological science itself and the figure of an archaeologist. In the mass consciousness of Russian citizens, certain topics are associated with archaeologists. "Are you looking for gold?" and "are you looking for mammoths?" are two of the most common questions asked by anyone who introduces themselves as an archaeologist. Interestingly, this myth also appears in Russian works of art. For example, the idea that an archaeologist is a person looking for mammoths appears in V. Tokareva's story "Rode the Greek" and then sounds in V. Fokin's television 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 associate dinosaur bones with the concept of archeology, in the United States, according to a 1999 study, 80% of respondents when asked 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 ordinary viewer. With the general popularity of the mammoth theme, archaeological science actually arrogates to itself the interest of the cultural visitor, which by right should belong to paleontologists.
Another "distortion" associated with the image of archeology stems from its association with the excavation process. As European and American studies show, the very image of an archaeologist is associated in the mass consciousness not with history and heritage objects. According to the SAA Research Center (American Society of Archeology), the vast majority of respondents associate the word archeology with the word "dig" in various forms (59%). This association was in first place according to other studies carried out 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 the same.
The topic of excavations is also closely 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 hoard, which is a significant cultural archetype of an international character, has a powerful motivational impact on attitudes towards the entire sphere of archaeological heritage.
The treasure as a combination of mystery, value (understood not only materially), danger forms partly the image of the treasure hunter himself, to which we have a clear confirmation in the form of materials sociological research ... According to K. Holtorf, in Europe, the work of an archaeologist is firmly associated in the public consciousness with three main ideas:
o Adventurism and adventure,
o Detective search,
o Sensational (significant) discoveries.
Here you can also cite the definition of archeology from K. Kerram's widely known book in the West "Gods, Tombs, Scientists": "... a science in which adventure and hard work, romantic discoveries and spiritual self-denial are intertwined, a science that is not limited by the framework of one or another epoch, not 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 activity are closely connected with such significant myths for a person 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 (as a confirmation, the well-known definition of "archival rat" can be cited), archeology is more likely perceived as a field researcher full of romanticism (if history is a date, then archeology is a treasure). Despite the fact that “treasures” and significant values \u200b\u200bcan be found with equal probability in archaeological and archival research, at the level of mass consciousness, priority is clearly given to the first area.
Nevertheless, it remains an open question whether the presence of a significant cognitive motivation for archaeological research is a factor in the value of the archaeological heritage itself. For many, archeology is rather an effective form of acquaintance with the past, often completely replacing the content of this process. In many ways, interest in archeology is of a purely hedonistic nature, which is reflected in the typical question, familiar to every archaeologist: "Did you find anything interesting?" The distant past interests mass consciousness in many respects only as "entertaining" and "curious". Archeology turns out to be quite a suitable product for satisfying our interest in secrets, riddles and sensations.
The factors that aggravate the transformation of an archaeological monument into a heritage can also be attributed to 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, ethnic "ties" of objects of later eras (up to the beginning of the 2nd millennium AD) are often conditional and variable ... This is due to the specificity of the source, which presents the past to us exclusively in things. Unfortunately, ratio problems typological rows 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 numerous processes of migration and socio-cultural assimilations which took place in antiquity).
All this makes it possible to classify the archaeological heritage as "archival", "taken out" from the context of the history of contemporary societies and cultures. Thus, any actualization, revitalization and incorporation of the archaeological heritage into the modern environment will have a flavor of artificiality and simulation. In this regard, it can be noted that today most of the clubs of historical reconstruction, actively incorporating the archaeological heritage into current practices, do not go beyond the end of the 1st - 2nd millennia AD. e. (from Kievan Rus and the Middle Ages to the 20th century). The rest of the epochs 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 weapons vikings in comparison with the restoration of everyday life, for example, the Kozlov culture looks much more understandable, meaningful and value-based).
Thus, the past, presented in archaeological sources, turns out to be at the same time 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 still impossible to define them in terms of heritage. At the same time, it can be argued that interest in archaeological objects, even based on their perception in the style of the “adventure” genre, can serve as a basis for their popularization, development, and, consequently, preservation.
Note
See, for example, Federal Law of 01.01.01 N 73-FZ "On cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation."
Mironov, natural and cultural heritage as an imperative of the cultural policy of the post-industrial society: dis. ... Cand. cultural sciences: 24.00.01. M., 2000.S. 77.
As mentioned above, "an archaeological monument" in Russian legislation is fully synonymous with an "archaeological heritage site". 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 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, on 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 future globalization the world. Sat. articles. Issue I / Ed. Markova B.V., SPb., 2001.P.67.
Kagan, culture. SPb. Petropolis. 1996.S. 274.
Lotman, in culturological coverage // Articles Lotman. T. 1. - Tallinn, 1992.S. 200-202.
Similar methods of compensation 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. Shock of the Future: 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 \u200b\u200bof a hand-made individual product, when the “hand-made” label becomes a sign of the value of the thing and the taste of its owner.
The growing "green" movement actively appeals, in particular, to the ancient practices of respect for nature. Domestic archaeologists also write about this in their works - see, for example, Kosarev of the pagan worldview: According to Siberian archaeological and ethnographic materials /. - M., 2003.
Here we can cite the fact that for many years the works of Russian classics have not been cut in the libraries of Russia.
Pokotylo, D. Public Opinion and Canadian Archaeological Heritage: A National Perspective. Canadian Journal of Archeology 26, 2002. P. 88-129.
Ramos, M., Duganne, D. Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Archeology. Report by Harris Interactive on behalf of the Society for American Archeology, 2000. Access method: 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 a corresponding 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 within the framework of tourist programs in the Urals (presented at the competition of the Governor of the Sverdlovsk Region among university students studying in the specialty "Socio-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 hunt" with the use of technological advances in the field of GPS satellite navigation (global positioning system)).