No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
A Female Burial with Gold Jewellery from the Ust’-Al’ma Necropolis (Crimea) Dating from the 1st Century AD
Abstract
This is the publication of a female burial in Catacomb No. 1119 of the Ust’-Al’ma necropolis situated on the south-western shore of the Crimea. In it were found items of personal jewellery (gold earrings, amphora-shaped pendants, beads of a necklace and plaques originally sewn on to garments) as well as grave goods (gold leaves from a funerary wreath, gold eye-pieces, two hand-moulded ceramic incense-burners, a ceramic jug, an iron knife, a ceramic unguentarium of the bulbous type, a ceramic red-slip bowl and two ceramic spindle whorls). The grave might have belonged to a representative of the social élite and it dates from the first half of the 1st century AD .
... 2015: 230, 231). Половозрастная структура населения крымских предгорий римского времени пока изучена очень слабо, специальных исследований по этой теме нет, выделялись лишь отдельные гендерные признаки в рамках анализа некоторых категорий инвентаря (Стоянова 2011а; 2021а; Труфанов 2019; 2020; Храпунов 2010) или публикаций отдельных погребений (Стоянова 2012;Храпунов 2006а;2006б;2007а;2007б;Trufanov, Mordvintseva 2019). Поиск маркеров, позволяющих выделить различные гендерные группы людей, оставивших позднескифскую и нейзацкую культуры предгорного Крыма, является целью данной работы. ...
This paper makes an attempt to identify the markers of various gender groups among those buried in the cemetery of Opushki, which is located in the central part of the Crimean foothill area. A total of 266 burials (167 child, 59 female, and 40 male graves) dating from the first to fourth century AD have been analysed. All these monuments belong to the Late Scythian and the Neizats archaeological cultures. The analysis undertaken indicates that neither grave construction, nor funeral rite had gender specificity. In this perspective, the composition of grave goods was more expressive. The exclusively female and child accessories were mirrors, spindle whorls, and bells; moreover, graves of children usually received only fragments of mirrors, though women’s burials got complete artefacts. Scythian arrowheads, faience amulets, and pendants made of coins and mollusc shells were predominantly children’s attributes. The finds of weapons, horse harness, and iron rod-shaped artefacts and flints, probably used to make fire, were associated with male graves only. The buckles were also concentrated mostly in male graves. Although the brooches, ornaments, vessels, knives, and whetstones appeared in the burials of all sex-and-age groups, gender specificity might be observed in minor details, i.e. quantity, frequency of occurrence, ways of usage, and so on. It is especially pronounced with the ornaments, mainly in case of the beads.
On 26 October 2021, The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam confirmed that the Crimean antiquities loaned by Crimean Museums will be returned to Kyiv rather than Crimea. This dispute concerned a collection of archaeological gold objects that were sent on loan by four Crimean museums to the Allard Pierson Museum for an exhibition in February 2014. After Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the treasures were reclaimed by the Ukraine central government and the four Crimean museums. The exhibition closed in late August 2014, but the collection was not sent back to the Crimean museums. The Allard Pierson Museum decided to keep the collection items until the ownership dispute was decided in court. While Ukraine celebrated the decision, the culture ministry in Moscow declared that the decision “grossly violates the principles of international exchanges between museums and the right of the people of Crimea to have access to their own cultural heritage”. Is this case law affirming the doctrinal principle of cultural nationalism? This commentary highlights that international and domestic law on the restitution and return of cultural heritage provides very few reliable indicators on whether objects must be returned to the national government of their countries of origin, or to indigenous and cultural minorities.
On 26 October 2021, The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam confirmed that the Crimean antiquities loaned by Crimean Museums will be returned to Kyiv rather than Crimea. This dispute concerned a collection of archaeological gold objects that were sent on loan by four Crimean museums to the Allard Pierson Museum for an exhibition in February 2014. After Russia’s an¬nexation of Crimea in March 2014, the treasures were reclaimed by the Ukraine central government and the four Crimean museums. The exhibition closed in late August 2014, but the collection was not sent back to the Crimean museums. The Allard Pierson Museum decided to keep the collection items until the ownership dispute was decided in court. While Ukraine celebrated the decision, the culture ministry in Moscow declared that the decision “grossly violates the principles of international exchanges between museums and the right of the people of Crimea to have access to their own cultural heritage”. Is this case law affirming the doctrinal principle of cultural nationalism? This commentary highlights that international and domestic law on the restitution and return of cultural heritage provides very few reliable indicators on whether objects must be returned to the national government of their countries of origin, or to indigenous and cultural minorities.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.