Good mood to you, dear readers of our blog.
I was prompted to write this note by another article on the Internet, on a well-worn topic – how diggers (lovers of instrument squeaks) destroy the archaeological heritage of our Motherland with their unprofessional activities. If anyone is interested, follow the link to read the original.
In short and to the point, there’s nothing new. Another attempt to prove not so much to the public as to oneself that the coins and crosses scattered across the plowed fields are the most valuable scientific material and its removal from its places of occurrence is a terrible crime and irreparable destruction. In general, barbarism. Therefore, I decided to collect a little of my thoughts on the topic and respond constructively.
To begin with, I want to dot all the “e”s. And, to clarify. I understand that archaeologists, like diggers, are different people. There are archaeologists who, when they come on TV with some kind of piece of iron in their hands, can talk about it in such a way that the viewer’s ears roll up with delight. But, there are other archaeologists. Such that during the entire field season they would unearth a couple of rusty nails and the sole of a boot. And then, at the exhibition, where three visitors and one journalist pass off this garbage as the greatest and grandiose discovery for all of humanity. So, oddly enough, it is from archaeologists in the last category that constant aggression towards diggers comes. This is understandable, but let’s get to the point.
The first argument. Everything that diggers dig is of great value for science, society, culture, and further along the list of socially significant definitions .
I answer.The fact that diggers dig in plowed fields has no scientific value and is of no use to anyone except themselves and possible collectors. Don’t believe me? Ask about this from those diggers who, at least once, of their own free will and in a fit of spiritual well-being, donated their finds to the museum. 99.99% of finds handed over to museums from diggers simply go into storage facilities. And it is unlikely that they will ever be exhibited or used for scientific activities.
Yes, what are the diggers? It’s been three years since the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation prohibited museums from accepting objects that do not have cultural or historical value from official archaeologists. And this is 99.99% of what archaeologists used to hand over to museums in buckets and bags like garbage. Of course, I read the archaeologists’ response to the museum workers’ claims. That is true, rusty nails, shards of ceramics and rotten pieces of wood carry scientific information. And, to preserve such archaeological objects, it is necessary to build a special storage facility.
A little humor about the storage facility. If anyone is not aware, the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences has been promoting, promoting, but in no way being able to promote the idea of building a special fund into which archaeologists will be able to donate archaeological objects of no value to museums for more than ten years. And, there is money for construction, and there is a project, and tens of thousands of items for rent have already accumulated in apartments and offices, however, they cannot build a storage facility. None of the regions of the Russian Federation wants to take this establishment on its balance sheet. And why would this be???
The second argument. For non-professionals it is not clear: – “What monument can be destroyed on a flat, plowed field?”
I answer.I’ll move away from the topic of non-professionals, maybe we’ll discuss it another time. For now, a question to answer a question. Do you know why in Soviet times only those areas of plowed fields where it was possible to establish a cultural layer undamaged by plowing ? Probably because Soviet archaeologists knew well that fields were fertilized with manure. And, with this same manure, broken shards of ceramics and other objects end up in one place or another. The value of such items as a source of scientific information is zero. I’m not even talking about the tradition among Russian peasants, with the first handful of grain in the sowing season, to throw a small coin into the damp ground.
The issue can be discussed separately on the topic of ACR. And why is there not a single object in the Soviet AKR older than 300 years??? Probably because Soviet archaeological science was engaged and interested only in historical periods for which there were few or no written sources.< /p>
Yes, there are coins. Let’s look at a more interesting example. The history of that very Yuriev-Polish treasure. A digger found in an open field a treasure of specific Vladimir scales, about 2 thousand pieces. The man was lucky, but then they arrested him, during interrogation he showed the place where he found the treasure, archaeologists came to that place, dug a pit, and found another 500 coins. At the same time, during the excavations, no traces of any object were found at the site, but shards from the broken pot itself were passed off as signs of a cultural layer.
Subsequently, archaeologists stated to the press that these coins had become a most valuable scientific discovery. Because they helped to learn more about the economy of that period. Yes, precisely the most valuable scientific discovery and nothing else. Honestly, I will be very grateful to the archaeologist who can explain what is so scientific and valuable for history that can be squeezed out of an ordinary treasure???
The third argument. Information about the location of a particular coin is very important.
I answer.To whom??? To whom is it important??? What coins??? Here in the Volgograd region, for three years no one needed an entire Scythian burial ground. We wrote about this in a post earlier. In short, a simple resident of a Volgograd farm decided to build a garage and while digging a hole he found bones. It turned out that he had excavated a Scythian burial. Called archaeologists. Archaeologists set a price tag for their work according to the estimate for the work of 248 thousand rubles. And until he pays, they won’t dig. For THREE years a man collected certificates proving that he did not have that kind of money. I wrote letters to the Institute of Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences with a request to dig up the mound. Then to the Ministry of Finance and the Tax Service with a request to confirm that he does not have that kind of money. For three years, not a single archaeologist, who tells the public and ordinary people about the importance of preserving historical heritage, came to that burial ground and carried out excavations. So far this matter has not reached the media.
Why didn’t archaeologists rush there? Yes, because even such ancient burials have no scientific value for the archaeologists themselves. This is a waste of time and resources for them. Over the 170 years of Russian archeology, everything that could be discovered in the field of archeology has long been discovered, studied, systematized and described. There are no more than three dozen arch objects left throughout the Russian Federation that can still be studied. Objects that can still provide some interesting and hitherto unknown information. Therefore, objectively, everything else — it’s just useless historical garbage.
Maybe I’m wrong, but the citation ranking of scientific papers in the field of archeology is good proof of my point of view. If anyone doesn’t know, in the modern world the importance of a particular scientific work or discovery is assessed by the citation rating of this work in the works of other scientists. So, a third of the modern works of our archaeologists have a citation rating of 0. And I ask you to take into account that only works published in the journal “Russian Archeology” are included in the rating. And this is less than 10% of what archaeologists generally write. So, the scale of unnecessary scientific work based on unnecessary archaeological excavations is not difficult to calculate.
Thank you for your attention, and I will be glad to have a constructive discussion. Although, as practice has shown, few archaeologists are ready to openly discuss.
