Palanquins of the Ancient Maya (in Russian) (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Middle Palaeolithic of Altai: Variability and Evolution (In Russian)
The Gorny Altai is a unique territory in Northern Asia for density of known Palaeolithic localities. So far, the Gorny Altai is the only region in Eurasia with proved and well-documented gradual transformation of Middle Palaeolithic industries into Upper Paleolithic ones. The present article is devoted to identifying the processes involved into the evolution of middle Palaeolithic cultures of the region. It is proved that all stratified Middle Palaeolithic sites of the region are characterized by a combination of the same flaking methods, tool types (including rare types) and similar methods of secondary treatment. Analysis of distribution of the main technical and typological ratios has demonstrated the lack of remarkable differences between lithic industries, which were earlier described as belonging presumably to different variants (facies) of the local Middle Palaeolithic. The identified variability of lithic industries was influenced by different factors, such as raw material procurement, functional purpose of a certain site and chronological position within the Middle Palaeolithic sequence. It is clear that the Middle Palaeolithic of Altai was not a still structure. The available data make it possible to claim that the rate of changes increased during the Kargian stage of the Upper Neo-Pleistocene (OIS 3). Those changes led to the formation of Initial Upper Palaeolithic complexes of a similar appearance.
Палайский язык [Palaic language]
2013
Grammar sketch of the Palaic language for the Russian linguistic encyclopaedia: Languages of the World: Relict Indo-European languages of Western and Central Asia. Yuri B. Koryakov and Andrej A. Kibrik (eds.). ― Moscow: Academia, 2013. ― 512 pp. In Russian
Kiosak D. , Pistruil I. Late Stone Age / Поздний каменный век [In Russian]
In I.V. Bruyako and T.L. Samoilova (eds.) Ancient cultures of North-Western Pontic Area - Древние культуры Северо-западного Причерноморья. - Одесса, 2013.
The Mesolithic and Neolithic of North-Western Pontic Area is treated in a synthetic way. The outline of archaeological record is presented. Sites of Recent Mesolithic exhibit early pressure flaking and "blade and trapeze" technique. The Neolithic sites of Bug-Dniester, Linearbandkeramik, Cris cultures and "steppe Neolithic" are discussed in comparation.
St. Paisius (Velichkovsky) and Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (in Russian)
An attempt to reject the popular scholarly myth that Starec Paisius of Neamţ in 1739 leaved Kyiv-Mohyla Academy due to its “masonic” curriculum. Analysis of his library in Neamţ helps to reassess the relations of St. Paisius with his Alma Mater. Dozens of interesting manuscripts with the works (or commemorations) of St. Demetrius (Tuptalo) of Rostov, St. Arsenios (Maceevych), St. Theodosius of Chernihiv and other alumni of the Academy prove sincere respect of "scuola paisiana" towards the sound theological traditions of Kyiv.
Палеоаплизины Башкирских Шиханов (Palaeoaplysina of Bashkirian Shikhans)
Geologicheskii vestnik
Обобщены литературные данные о таксономическом положении палеоаплизин. На основе анализа литературы авторы принимают классификацию, согласно которой палеоаплизины относятся к классу Hydrozoa. Приводится характеристика местонахождений палеоаплизин на Башкирских шиханах. В основу работы положен материал, полученный авторами при полевых исследованиях 2022 г. на шиханах Куштау Юрактау, и Торатау, а также изучении керна скважин, пробуренных на массиве Куштау. The literature data on the taxonomic position of Paleoaplysina Krotov, 1888 are summarized. Based on the analysis of the literature, the authors attribute them to Class Hydrozoa. The characteristic of the occurrences of Palaeoaplysina in the Bashkirian shikhans is given. The work is based on the material obtained by the authors during field research in 2022 in Kushtau, Yuraktau and Toratau shikhans, as well as the study of the well cores from drilling in Kushtau massif.
The reviewer examines the methodical and source aspects of the study a costume of the early medieval nomadic population of the Middle Volga region, reflected in the book. The research issue is considered by the authors of the book, A.V. Bogachev and D.A. Frantsuzov, on the basis of written, pictorial and archaeological data. However, the information of narrative sources to be analyzed as a whole occures insufficient to describe costume of the nomads, and in particular does not say anything about the clothing of the early medieval Bulgarians of the Middle Volga. The pictorial sources are more informative, but the authors did not get their entirety, many important materials were ignored. Signficant body of the archaeological data was also ignored and the analysis of available ones was made very superficial and careless. The author of the review considers this research as rather secondary, based on earlier A.V.Bogachev’s studies repeating his mistakes and errors that have already received a negative evaluation by specialists. The assignment of most archaeological monuments discussed in the book to the Proto–Bulgarians (Bulgarians) is subjective and has no arguments. The reviewer concludes that the study undertaken by A.V. Bogachev and D.A. Frantsuzov has been fulfilled on a low methodical level, insufficient to consider the monograph as a qualitative research. В рецензии анализируются методические и источниковедческие аспекты отраженного в книге исследования костюма раннесредневекового скотоводческого населения Среднего Поволжья. Исследовательская проблема рассматривается авторами книги, А.В. Богачевым и Д.А. Французовым, на базе письменных, изобразительных и вещественных данных. Однако, информация привлеченных к анализу письменных источников в целом оказалась недостаточной для характеристики кочевнического костюма, а в частности ничего не сообщает об одежде раннесредневековых болгар Среднего Поволжья. Изобразительные источники более информативны, но авторы не воспользовались всей их совокупностью, проигнорировав многие важные материалы. Так же авторами книги был отброшен и значительный массив археологических данных, а анализ имевшихся в их распоряжении был сделан весьма поверхностно и небрежно. Рассматриваемое исследование во многом вторично, основано на более ранних работах А.В. Богачева, в нем повторяются его ошибки и заблуждения, уже получившие негативную оценку специалистами. Отнесение большинства рассмотренных в книге археологических памятников к праболгарам (болгарам) является субъективным и ничем не аргументировано. Автор рецензии приходит к выводу, что предпринятое А.В. Богачевым и Д.А. Французовым исследование было выполнено на невысоком методическом уровне, недостаточном, чтобы счесть рассматриваемую монографию качественной научной работой.