1

RESCUE ARCHAEOLOGY IN RUSSIA

A.V. Engovatova

Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (engov@mail.ru)

Keywords: rescue excavations, methods of investigation, practice and legislation of the

protection of archaeological resources.

Lately the rôle of rescue excavations and archaeological/cultural resourse

management in archaeology and preservation of cultural heritage has been discussed most

vividly both in Russia and Europe (Quality Management in Archaeology… 2007; Report

on the situation of urban archaeology in Europe 1999). In this paper we are seeking to

trace the actual results of rescue investigations as well as the whole complex of

methodological and practical issues faced by Russian rescue archaeology in recent

decades.

Preventive investigations on the sites of future development have been carried out

in Russia for a long time. As early as in the late 19th

century archaeological excavations

sometimes preceded construction (Vinogradov 1947, p .34). Yet the integral system of

preventive investigations and excavations began to take shape in the Soviet Union in the

late 1920s – early 1930s. It was mainly due to large-scale development (the Volga–Don

Canal, the Dnieper, Baksan and Perm hydroelectric power stations, the Moscow

underground railway et al.) and special stress on planned economy.

A decree of the All-Russian Executive Committee and Council of People’s

Comissars “On the preservation of historical monuments” was published in 1934. It stated

the main principles of work, prescribed rescue excavations of sites threatened by

construction, and specified the way of funding rescue investigations. The “Special

Committee for Works of the Academy of Sciences on Sites of Construction” was created by

the Order 726 of October 16 1932 of the State Academy of the History of Material Culture.

The “Directions for recording and preservation of monuments of material culture on sites of

construction” called to involve in the search for archaeological sites not only specialists but

general public including ‘socially conscious citizens’ interested in their country’s history.

Dozens of expeditions were sent by the Academy of Sciences to Central Russia, the

Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia to fulfil these requirements. Museums and universities

were taking part in rescue excavations, too.

In the 1940s – 1960s the efficiency of the system of Soviet rescue archaeology

varied. Its successes and problems have been described in a number of papers (Munchaev

2004; Smirnov 2004; Engovatova 2009).

Since the 1970s the volume of rescue excavations has been gradually increasing as

testified by the number of permits to carry out archaeological excavations: more than fifty

per year (Sorokina 2008, F i g .36). To improve co-operation t h e Section of Construction

Expeditions was created on the basis of the then existing expeditions at the Institute of

Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1972. In 1984 it was renamed the

Section of Rescue Excavations and in 1988 – the Department of Rescue Excavations

(Munchaev 2004; Smirnov 2004). The expeditions of the Department have carried out

large-scale investigations on the sites of construction of the Great Stavropol Canal, the

Cheboksary hydroelectric power station, the amelioration, drainage and irrigation structures,

etc. Their work has actually created a new corpus of the archaeological record for

previously unexplored territories providing the basis for many a fundamental archaeological

study.In 1982–1984 the Department organized from 20 to 22 rescue expeditions per year

(Afanasyev, Alexandrova 1986, p.123).

It sould be noted that during the last decade specialized rescue departments were

created at the Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of

Sciences in St. Petersburg and at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the

Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Novosibirsk. This in itself is

testimony to the requirement for this field of research in the framework of the Academy.

Significantly, the share of rescue excavations carried out by the Russian Academy of

Sciences remains relatively stable over last years while that of museums and universities

reduces [Fig.1, 6]. This is scarcely surprising since the Academy includes specialized

sections that have proved to be more resilient to the economic situation of the 1990s. They

have succeeded in preserving and developing rescue archaeology and have repeatedly

supported various scholarly and administrative institutions in their efforts at managing

cultural resources.

Fig.1. The ratio of institutions carrying out rescue excavations in 2010– 2011:

Voluntary organizations, Administrative institutions, Museums, Non-governmental

enterprises, Universities, The Academy of Sciences institutions.

To assess the work of the Department of Rescue Excavations of the Institute of

Archaeology and formulate its long-term aims it is necessary to evaluate the current

situation of rescue archaeology in Russia.

The share of rescue excavations has increased during the last decade. While in

1999–2001 it amounted, on the average, to 60 per cent of archaeological activities, in 2008–

2011 it exceeeded 70 per cent [Fig. 2]. The statistics are based on the number of permits to

conduct achaeological works. The figures are not quite accurate since sometimes a single

permit enables the excavator to conduct investigations on several sites and some permits are

not used.

3

Fig.2. The share of rescue excavations in the volume of archaeological fieldwork in

1999–2011.

During the last decade the share of rescue excavations in the volume of

archaeological investigations in Russia has approached that of European countries.

According to the data of the European Archaeological Association (ЕАА) the share of

rescue excavations in the Netherlands makes up about 70 per cent (van den Dries 2011); in

Romania – 76–87 per cent (Bors 2011); in Poland –70–80 per cent (Filipowicz 2011).

Interestingly, the majority of the former socialist countries have followed the same

path. Thus, the percentage of archaeological investigations conducted in the framework of

scholarly programmes in Romania has diminished; while in 2000 it made up more than 90

per cent of fieldwork, in the last five years it amounts to no more than 20 per [Fig. 3]. In

Russia this process has begun earlier and has been more prolonged. In 1984 70 per cent of

archaeological investigations were funded by the government while in 2009 these amounted

to 26 per cent.

Fig.3. Changes in the ratio of rescue excavations to scholarly excavations

(percentage). А – Russia, 1983–2010; B – Romania, 2000–2010.

The increase of the share of rescue excavations is related, on the one hand, with the

reduction of federal financing of the fundamental research on the humanities and with the

increase in construction and, consequently, in the number of rescue archaeological projects,

on the other.

Significantly, the number of permits in 1995 г. was 744 while in 2007, the year of

economic growth and construction activity – 1524, i.e. nearly twice higher. From the graph

it appears that the number of studies funded by scholarly projects and grants has been

relatively stable since 1995 ranging from 226 to 242. The growth has been mainly due to

fieldwork related to construction. In 1995 there were 216 permits to conduct rescue excavations

while in 2007 – 611. The number of permits to carry out archaeological surveys related to

5

construction projects has been growing as fast as that to excavate [Fig. 4]. The volume of rescue

surveys and excavations is directly related to the economic situation both in Europe (Report on the

situation of urban archaeology in Europe, 1999) and in Russia (Engovatova 2010).

Fig.4. The number

of permits to

conduct

archaeological

fieldwork issued in

1994–2009.

a – form 1;

b – form 2;

c – form 3;

d – form 4.

Where in Russia are rescue excavations most widespread? Let us analyze the

number of permits to rescue excavations for each region [Fig. 5].

Fig.5. Regions

having obtained the

highest number of

permits to conduct

rescue surveys and

excavations in

2006–2008 and in

2009–2011.

It would be natural to assume that rescue excavations correlate to the volume of

construction, yet it is only partially true. Significantly, the Tver area, which is not among thirty

regions most succesful in construction, has been the leader in the field of rescue excavations for

many years. Rescue excavations are prominent in the Irkutsk and Nizhny Nivgorod

Regions. On the other hand, in some areas rescue investigations are negligible in spite of

flourishing construction, e. g. in the Kaluga Region.

The analysis shows that archaeological resourse management depends primarily on

the activity and professionalism of the relevant local agencies. According to the law, these

decide the fate of archaeological sites implementing rescue investigations, changes of

construction projects and methods of site management.

Local economic development also influences the scale of rescue excavations but

only if the system of archaeological resource management works properly. In this

connection the case of the Moscow, Rostov and Krasnodar Regions and the Khanty-Mansi

Autonomous District is particularly instructive.

Who has carried out rescue excavations in Russia in the last decade and what is the rôle of

the Academy of Sciences institutes in this process?

In the 1990s rescue excavations were conducted by the Academy of Sciences

institutesm universities, museums and cultural resourse management agencies. The then

existing non-governmental institutions did not play a significant rôle having conducted less

than five per cent of the volume of [Fig. 6]. T h e m a i n t r e n d of the two last decades is

the increase of the share of non-governmental firms practicing rescue archaeology. It can

be traced owing to the analysis of granting permits to carry out rescue excavations. The

share of non-governmental institutions increased more than three-fold, from 10 to 33 per

cent [Fig. 7].

Fig.6. Percentage of institutions conducting rescue surveys and excavations in

Russia in 1992–2011.

7

Fig. 7. Percentage of archaeological fieldwork conducted by Russian non-

governmental institutions in 1992–2011.

What is the reason for drastic increase in the number of non-governmental

institutions? The fact is that presently state-owned and private scholarly entreprises are not

enjoying equal rights with regard to taxation and book-keeping. The work of government-

funded institutions has been hampered by the Federal Law-94 of 21.07.2005 “On the

ordering of goods and hiring professional services for federal and municipal needs.” The

law obliges government agencies to invite tenders for rescue excavation contracts. As a

result non-government institutions that can reduce the price of work owing to tax reliefs

successfully compete with their governmental counterparts.

Non-governmental institutions can be divided into two groups. The first group consists

of firms founded by professional archaeologists in order to avoid bureaucratic hassle. Their

work meets all the requirements of archaeological science.

The second group has been focusing solely on making profit. Its members often act

as simple middlemen. Their low-quality work – or its imitation – results in destruction of

sites, scandals and lawsuits widely discussed in mass-media (Belovranin 2012).

When exploitation involves predesign as is the case with infrastructural projects,

such asroads, railways, pipelines, etc., it is possible to conduct surveys from the earliest

stages of planning and avoid impact on archaeological monuments and sites. In recent

decades this practice has been widely used by the Department of Rescue Excavations of

the Institute of archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Smirnov 1990;

Engovatova 2009), which enabled us to save many an archaeological site. It is worth noting

that even in the course of planning of such a complex project as the Cheboksary Hydro the

suggestions of archaeologists about the construction of special dams for the protection of

major archaeological monuments were adopted. The project of the road leading to

Olympic constructions in the city of Sochi was modified as well. A Byzantine temple

found near the Veseloe village in the Imeretinskaia Valley was preserved in situ and its in-

place preservation and site management ensured (Armarchuk, Mimochod 2012). However,

such protective measures actually depend on the free-will of designers who are by no

means eager to modify otherwise convenient projects.

Unfortunately, for lack of funds there has been a tendency to economise on

archaeological investigations lately. As a result instead of involving archaeologists at the

stage of predesign designers often confine themselves to an archival certificate issued by a

cultural resourse management institution. It is yet another negative impact of

commercialization. A system of site preservation under conditions of large-scale

construction can only be elaborated on legislative level.

What should be the attitude towards the increase of the number of non-governmental

archaeological institutions?

On the one hand, large percentage of non-governmental institutions involved in

rescue archaeology is typical of certain European countries such as Poland or Great Britain.

On the other hand, archaeologists have vividly criticised the negative impact of

commercialization (Demoule 2007, 2010; Filipowicz 2011).

To summarise, it can be seen that a system of rescue archaeology involving

institutions of the Academy of Sciences took shape in Russia in the 20th

century. The rôle of

these institutions remains crucial even with the emergence of market economy. The graph of

the volume of rescue research in recent years shows that they carry out about a quarter of

fieldwork [Fig. 6].

We hold that a great advantage of Russian rescue archaeology is its close links with

academia. The general system of scientific regulations, i.e. the obligatory applying for

permits to conduct archaeological investigations and mandatory scientific reports on them,

valid for the whole country, ensures unified methods of investigating archaeological sites

and making reports. It applies to rescue archaeology as well. There are no simplified

methods for it. A system of surveillance is only permissible for the study of late mixed

deposits (Regulation … 2007).

The mandatory submission of scientific reports to the Scholarly Fieldwork Council

to be subsequently filed in the State Archives makes the information on all the surveys and

excavations in Russia available to scholars. Unfortunately, the percentage of published

materials is negligible owing primarily to the high cost of publishing, hence the suggestion

of elecytonic publication of excavation reports. It is particularly justified with regard to

fully explored sites not threatened by possible looting after the appearance of the relevant

information in the media. In order to ensure prompt publication of the results of rescue

excavations the Institute of Archaeology founded a series “Materials of rescue

archaeological excavations” whose 18th

volume is now in press. Transactions of the

scientific seminar “The Archaeology of the Moscow Region” mainly dealing with the

results of rescue excavations are published annually.

What are nowadays the immediate tasks of the Department of Rescue Excavations?

These are methodical and practical issues and improvement of legislation.

Complex areal approach to archaeological heritage management in situ in their

environment becomes increasingly important. We hold that the creation of protected areas

for archaeological sites and objects. Researchers from the Department of Rescue Excavations

participated in creating such zones in the town of Zvenigorod, on the Rostislavl and

Vshchizh habitation sites, on a series of sites on the Volgo Lake, et al. The Department also

took part in the town-planning of the towns of Klin, Volokolamsk and Orekhovo-Zuevo. To

multiply such examples, legislative support is necessary.

It is important to ensure complex character and large-scale investigations while

carrying out rescue excavations of archaeological sites threatened by construction. Such

works are conducted on large areas maintaining high standards of field methods and involve

specialists from varios branches of scholarship. Archaeologists are aware that besides

artifacts and and structure, i.e. pits, burialsm walls, etc., occupation deposits contain

biological remains, i.e. bones, scales, insects, grains, etc., which can only be properly

studied by specialists in the relevant fields. The analysis of organic matters can provide

additional information for the understanding of an archaeological object.

9

Therefore only complex investigations produce adequate information on

archaeological sites and their early inhabitants. As examples we can cite rescue excavations

on such standard sites as the early medieval cemetery of Mamisondon (Albegova,

Vereschinsky-Babailov 2010), Zolotoi and Panitskoe barrow cemeteries (Mimochod 2009),

the Miakinino complex of sites (Engovatova, Koval 2007), occupation deposits of the cities

of Yaroslavl (Archeology of ancient Yaroslavl… 2012), Rostov (Samoilovich 2007), Vladimir

et al.

Thus, both world and national experience shows that rescue archaeology is an important

part of archaeological activity. Scientific research requires financing while, given the economic

situation in Russia, archaeologists have few opportunities, besides rescue excavations, to carry out

large-scale investigations. The existing system of grants enables us to study the most important sites.

Yet funding is limited and cannot ensure multifaceted study. Under the circumstances rescue

archaeology is a source of permanent investment in archaeological science.

The most important task of archaeological heritage management is to encourage the

amendment of legislation pertaining to the protection of archaeological monuments. The

existing laws are not very effective with regard to the protection of cultural heritage and do

not conform to certain articles of international acts adopted by Russia.

It is important to amend the law in order to prevent illicit excavations and looting of

archaeological monuments by the so-called ‘black excavators’ (by analogy with black

market) who have become a virtual plague in recent years.

Reference list

Albegova Z.H., Vereschinsky-Babailov-L.I., 2010. Early medieval burial

Mamisondon. Results of archaeological research in 2007-2008. in the construction zone of

the reservoir Zaramag HPP (Materials of archaeological research, T. 11.). Moscow (in

Russian).

Armarchuk E.A., Mimochod R.A., 2012. Latter-day Christian church sky X-XI

centuries in Russia // The latest discoveries in archeology of the North Caucasus: Research

and interpretation. XXVII Krupnovskie reading. Makhachkala (in Russian).

Archeology of ancient Yaroslavl: puzzles and discoveries (based on Yaroslavl

expedition IA RAS). 2012. Moscow (in Russian).

Afanasyev G.E., Alexandrova M.V., 1986. Sector of preventive excavations in

1982-1984 //KSIA. No. 188. Moscow (in Russian).

Belovranin A., 2012. Archaeological gesheft // "New Newspaper" in St. Petersburg,

№ 35 (http://www. Novayagazeta.spb.ru/2012/35/4).

Vinogradov I.D. 1947. Building and Planning from Revolution Square to Old Square

(on the second track line of the Moscow Metro) // MIA. Number 7 (in Russian).

European Council Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage

(Malta Convention) (ETS № 66), 1970.

Mimochod R.A., 2009. Mounds of the Bronze Age - Early Iron Age in the Saratov

Volga region: characteristics and cultural-chronological attribution of the complexes /Ed.

A.V. Engovatova (The materials of archaeological research, T. 10). Moscow (in Russian).

Munchaev R.M., 2004. Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences and

the development of preventive archeology in Russia (Preface) // 30 years of Department of

preventive excavations (the department of preventive excavation, T. 2). Tula (in Russian).

Regulation of archaeological fieldwork (archaeological excavations and researches)

and the compilation of scientific reporting, 2007. Moscow (in Russian).

Samoilovich N.G., 2007. Konucshenniy excavation in Rostov the Great: The results

of archaeological research 2001-2005 (Vaterials of preventive archaeological research, T.

9). Moscow (in Russian).

Smirnov A.S., 1990. Methodological guidelines for the project archaeological work

in the areas of national economic construction. Moscow (in Russian).

Smirnov A.S., 2004. History of the Department of preventive excavations and its

role in fundamental research // 30 years of Department of preventive excavations (the

department of preventive excavation, T. 2). Tula (in Russian).

Sorokina I.A., 2008. Field archaeological research in Russia in 1946-2006. (on

archival materials and publications.). Tula (in Russian).

Engovatova A.V., 2009. Modern trends in preventive archeology in Moscow region

(Preface) // Archaeology of Moscow Region. No. 5. Moscow (in Russian).

Engovatova A.V., Koval V.Y., 2007. Myakininskiy complex of archaeological

monuments // Archaeology of Moscow Region. No. 3. Moscow (in Russian).

Bors C. Lost in transition: the archaeologist in contemporary

Romania // Abstract. 17th Annual Meeting. Oslo, 2011.

Demoule J.P. Scientific quality control and the general orga- nization of French

archeology // Quality Management in Archaeology / Eds Willem J.H. Willems and Monique

H. van den Dries. Oxford, 2007.

Demoule J.P. The crisis – economic, ideological, and archaeological //

Archaeology and the global economic crisis – multiple impacts, possible solutions /

Eds N. Schlanger, K. Aitchison. Paris, 2010.

Engovatova A.V. The impact of the economic crisis on rescue archaeology in Russia

// Archaeology and the global eco- nomic crisis multiple impacts, possible solutions / Eds N.

Schlanger, K. Aitchison. Paris, 2010.

Filipowicz P. Archaeological profession in contemporary Poland // Abstract. 17th

Annual Meeting. Oslo, 2011.

Quality Management in Archaeology / Eds Willem J.H.Willems, Monique H.

van den Dries. Oxford, 2007.

Report on the situation of urban archaeology in Europe. Council of Europe

Publishing. Germany, 1999.

van den Dries M. Recent developments in the archaeological profession in the

Netherlands // Abstract. 17th Annual Meeting. Oslo, 2011.