Translated material
Open appeal
Director of the Institute of History
material culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
E.A. Nosov
Dear Evgeniy Nikolaevich!
The reason for contacting you was the publication on the Internet of the audio protocol of the meeting of the “Advisory Council at the IHMC RAS on the problems of researching the archaeological monuments of Cape Okhta”, held on October 21, 2010 ( http://durnowo.livejournal.com/108088.html ). In the statements of a number of leaders of the expedition N.V. Solovyova, who carried out excavations on the cape at the mouth of the river. Okhta, supported by some involved natural science specialists and employees of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the opinion was voiced that in the excavations of N.V. Solovyova and P.N. Sorokin, it was not a Neolithic settlement that was explored, but a seabed containing Neo-Chalcolithic artifacts in redeposited form. From this conclusion followed the conclusion of N.V. Solovyova that excavations of layers containing Neo-Chalcolithic materials on Okhta (and not just on the area of its excavation) are not of scientific interest and are not an archaeological monument, which is subject to full archaeological study through excavations before the start of construction work in this place.
In November 2008, P. N. Sorokin and T. M. Gusentsova gave me the opportunity to familiarize myself with the sections and excavation sites containing Neolithic materials (the Okhta I settlement). In addition, I became acquainted with a large series of Neo-Chalcolithic finds found by the expedition of P. N. Sorokin during the excavations of the settlement of Okhta I. The invitation to me to familiarize myself with the results of research at Okhta was apparently due to the fact that during the excavations numerous finds were found that had analogies at the Chalcolithic monuments of Karelia, based on the materials of which I defended my PhD thesis, and I have been excavating Chalcolithic sites in Karelia for more than 25 years.
Based on the results of a visual inspection of finds and excavations, as well as familiarization with preliminary publications on the results of excavations at Okhta, I can draw the following conclusions:
1. Neo-Chalcolithic ceramics from the excavations of P. N. Sorokin are represented by large fragments that do not have traces of rounding, common for those fragments of vessels that I encountered at eroded sites. As for porous and asbestos ceramics, which were found in significant numbers in the excavations of P. N. Sorokin, they poorly withstand even small movements (plowing of a layer or its erosion). The ceramics presented in the excavations of P. N. Sorokin were found in a condition typical of the layer of Chalcolithic settlements of Karelia, which were not subject to erosion.
2. When examining sections and clearing fragments of layers containing Neo-Chalcolithic finds, traces of a shallow artificial pit were clearly visible, which, apparently, was quickly washed out by sand sediments, because There were no obvious traces of buried soil in the section. The presence of preserved spots of an uneroded layer of the Neo-Chalcolithic settlement in P.N. Sorokin’s excavations is evidenced by spots of fireplaces and hearths made of stones with calcined bones between them. The fact that this territory was at times relatively high above the level of the reservoir is also evidenced by an Eneolithic burial with amber jewelry, explored on Okhta by the expedition of P. N. Sorokin. The rows of wooden stakes found in some excavations may be traces of coastal structures of both a fishing and settlement nature (bridges, etc.). The layers containing materials from different periods on Okhta are in some places separated by sterile layers. Studying these layers with the involvement of natural science specialists can shed light on the development of a number of Neo-Chalcolithic cultures in the vast region of Northern Europe, on changes in the paleogeographical situation in this part of the Baltic, etc.
3. The presence on Okhta of products made of organic materials in Neo-Chalcolithic layers, occurring in a stratified layer, makes this monument unique for a number of regions of Northern Europe.
It is obvious that the conclusion about the lack of scientific significance of the Neolithic materials at Okhta, repeatedly voiced by the leaders of the IIMK expedition at the meeting of the Advisory Council, can play a negative role in the fate of this monument. This will clearly have a negative impact on the reputation of not only the institution you head, but also the entire Russian archeology.
In this regard, I ask you to organize a public scientific discussion of the results of excavations on Okhta by the expeditions of N.V. Solovyova and P.N. Sorokin. The materials of these hearings may become the basis for the state historical and cultural examination provided for in this case by federal legislation, which will have to determine the fate of all identified architectural and archaeological objects on Okhta.
With A.M. respect , Zhulnikov,
Ph.D. ist. Sciences, expert of the Russian Conservation of Culture,
Associate Professor, Petrozavodsk State University
03.11.2010
PS The famous Russian archaeologist Sergei Beletsky wrote about the scientific results and importance of the excavations on Okhta in the “Trinity Option” (see TRV No. 40)