The Problem of Forming a Sample for Bioarchaeological Research (Based on the Results of the Study of Paleoanthropological Materials of the Lower Volga Region)

IF 0.1 Q3 HISTORY
Mariya Balabanova
{"title":"The Problem of Forming a Sample for Bioarchaeological Research (Based on the Results of the Study of Paleoanthropological Materials of the Lower Volga Region)","authors":"Mariya Balabanova","doi":"10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.4.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The problem of studying the ethnogenesis and ethnic history of ancient and medieval peoples appeared immediately after the formation of archaeology as a science. At first, archaeologists tried to identify the bearers of archaeological cultures with specific ethnic groups, and then they began to determine cultural-historical communities and color them ethnically. In the anthropological context, cultural-historical communities exist in the form of paleopopulations or samples. The question of the relationship between the materials of the monument and the sample is legitimate since often the archaeological and anthropological contexts do not coincide. Methods and materials. The work is based on a comparison of data from an anthropological sample (paleopopulation) and cultural and chronological definitions of archaeological complexes from where the material originated. For this, both the results of studies published by the author and new data, which were studied by the methods of simple and multivariate statistics, were used. Analysis and discussion. Comparative analysis of the Sauromat-Sarmatian materials shows that the series of previous and subsequent cultures often show great similarity, which can be explained not only by the continuity of the population but also by the fact that the chronological groups are members of the same paleopopulation. In addition, there are a number of complexes of the transitional period that are culturally defined by different archaeologists in different ways. Another aspect, which is considered in the article, is connected with the materials of the same burial ground or even a mound-cemetery of the Middle and Late Bronze Age. With the relative synchronism of the burials, a different cultural interpretation (variant, culture) is given, which leads to significant difficulties in the study of anthropological materials, the results of which also allow us to assume that all individuals belong to the same population. Conclusions. The problem associated with the procedure of sampling for bioarchaeological research has a long history, and it needs to be solved in the context of the archaeological source being studied. It is necessary to constantly compare the monument data with the results of the sample study, rethink, revise, and test them, and determine how reliable they are and whether they fall into the confidence interval.","PeriodicalId":42917,"journal":{"name":"Volgogradskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet-Vestnik-Seriya 4-Istoriya Regionovedenie Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volgogradskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet-Vestnik-Seriya 4-Istoriya Regionovedenie Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.4.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. The problem of studying the ethnogenesis and ethnic history of ancient and medieval peoples appeared immediately after the formation of archaeology as a science. At first, archaeologists tried to identify the bearers of archaeological cultures with specific ethnic groups, and then they began to determine cultural-historical communities and color them ethnically. In the anthropological context, cultural-historical communities exist in the form of paleopopulations or samples. The question of the relationship between the materials of the monument and the sample is legitimate since often the archaeological and anthropological contexts do not coincide. Methods and materials. The work is based on a comparison of data from an anthropological sample (paleopopulation) and cultural and chronological definitions of archaeological complexes from where the material originated. For this, both the results of studies published by the author and new data, which were studied by the methods of simple and multivariate statistics, were used. Analysis and discussion. Comparative analysis of the Sauromat-Sarmatian materials shows that the series of previous and subsequent cultures often show great similarity, which can be explained not only by the continuity of the population but also by the fact that the chronological groups are members of the same paleopopulation. In addition, there are a number of complexes of the transitional period that are culturally defined by different archaeologists in different ways. Another aspect, which is considered in the article, is connected with the materials of the same burial ground or even a mound-cemetery of the Middle and Late Bronze Age. With the relative synchronism of the burials, a different cultural interpretation (variant, culture) is given, which leads to significant difficulties in the study of anthropological materials, the results of which also allow us to assume that all individuals belong to the same population. Conclusions. The problem associated with the procedure of sampling for bioarchaeological research has a long history, and it needs to be solved in the context of the archaeological source being studied. It is necessary to constantly compare the monument data with the results of the sample study, rethink, revise, and test them, and determine how reliable they are and whether they fall into the confidence interval.
生物考古研究样本的形成问题(基于伏尔加河下游地区古人类材料的研究结果)
介绍。在考古学作为一门科学形成之后,研究古代和中世纪民族的民族发生和民族历史的问题立即出现了。起初,考古学家试图将考古文化的承载者与特定的民族联系起来,然后他们开始确定文化历史共同体,并给它们涂上民族色彩。在人类学语境中,文化历史共同体以古人类或样本的形式存在。关于纪念碑材料和样本之间关系的问题是合理的,因为考古学和人类学的背景往往不一致。方法和材料。这项工作是基于对来自人类学样本(古人类)的数据和材料来源的考古复合体的文化和时间定义的比较。为此,既使用了作者发表的研究结果,也使用了通过简单统计和多元统计方法研究的新数据。分析和讨论。对萨尔马泰龙材料的比较分析表明,之前和之后的一系列文化往往表现出很大的相似性,这不仅可以用人口的连续性来解释,而且可以用这样一个事实来解释,即按年代顺序排列的群体是同一古人口的成员。此外,还有许多过渡时期的建筑群,由不同的考古学家以不同的方式在文化上定义。文章中考虑的另一个方面与青铜时代中晚期的同一墓地甚至土丘墓地的材料有关。由于墓葬的相对同时性,人们给出了不同的文化解释(变体,文化),这给人类学材料的研究带来了重大困难,其结果也使我们能够假设所有个体都属于同一种群。结论。生物考古研究的抽样程序问题由来已久,需要在研究考古来源的背景下加以解决。需要不断地将丰碑数据与样本研究的结果进行比较,重新思考、修正、检验,确定其可靠性如何,是否处于置信区间内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信