Если интересно, вот комментарий Ковалева: "Dear colleagues,
your work is of great interest to world science, and its results will undoubtedly have a great impact on the future. However, it cannot be published in its current form in connection with the foregoing. In your article, you give acknowlegments to us: i.e. D. Erdenebaatar and A.Kovalev for contributing archaeological material to study. However, no one asked permission from us, and did not contact us with questions about the attribution of the results of our excavations. In this regard, in your article we found many errors in the attribution of graves, the bones of which were used. I protest that these materials were so unprofessionally used, I believe that you need to clarify the attribution of materials from our excavations.We are ready to help you with this. Prior to this, we consider it impossible to publish this article.
In addition: you didn't use archaeological numbering of samples. Numbers like AT_000 are numbers given by antropologists of National University. Not all these numbers we can check and it need a some work to compare these numbers with real archaeological sites. All excavated barrows have names and numbering of cemeteries (sites), numbering of excavated kurgans and graves and numbering of burials if more than one burial situated in kurgan. Some burials might be secondary and belong to more later periods.
I can inform you firstly only about some mistakes about barrows excavated by us and used by you without our permission. 1. Sample KUR001 (AT_635) dasn't belong to Afanasievo. It was rectangular barrow in Chemurchek tradition (named Kurgak govi #2) situated nearby Afanasievo kurgan (named Kurgak govi #1). This sample would need to be combined with sample KUM001 AT_628 (Kumdi govi #1 burial 2). It are secondary burials in ritual structures of Chemurchek types. I think now it was mixed group of people with Chemurchek and East Kazakhstan cultural traditions. 2. Sample SBG001 (AT_960) dasn't belong to Munkhkhairkhan culture. This barrow named as Shar gov' 3 excavated by me and Munkhbayar oin Bayan-Ulgii aimag, Tsengel sum in 2014. Construction of this kurgan and burial custom is wery similar to Begazy-Dandybai culture (Late Andronovo) of neighbouring Kazakhstan. This burial dated back to more later period as Munkhkhairkhan culture (to 12 cent BCE). It will be very interesting to compare it with Kazakhstan LBA.
3. Sample ULI003 (AT_680) dasn't belong to Baitag culture. It was burial Uliastai dood denzh, kurgan #5, burial on the former surface in stone cist on the back in stretched position. Newly discovered Baitag culture characterized by burials in small pits in position with knees up. This kurgan belong to same cultural group like ULZ001 (AT_674) (ULastai Zastava (Khudzhirtyn gol) 1, kurgan #2) with similar consrtruction and burial custom. AT_674 mistakely put in spreadsheed yo Sukhbaatar aimag but it is neigbouring cemetery in the South of Khovd aimag.
To Baitag culture really belong only sample ULI004 (AT_672). This burial #7 was excavated by me in Uliastai dund denzh cemetery of newly dicovered Baitag culture!
4. Sample ULI001 (AT_676) have archaeological name Ulastai Zastava (Khudzhirtyn gol) 2, kurgan 1, burial #4 (main burial). This grave belong to Mongun-Taiga type of LBA graves in Mongolia and Tuva (stretched on side in narrow pit covered by stone slabs). It is not clear by now what cultural groups there were in Western Mongolia in this time and this sample need to combine with other LBA samples named in your article incorrectly DSKC (it is not correect name because Mongun-Taiga type of kurgans never connected with deer stones etc.). As regard as "Sagsai" culture we never use this name because Ts.Tubat didn't gave definition of it.
"Dear colleagues,
your work is of great interest to world science, and its results will undoubtedly have a great impact on the future. However, it cannot be published in its current form in connection with the foregoing.
In your article, you give acknowlegments to us: i.e. D. Erdenebaatar and A.Kovalev for contributing archaeological material to study. However, no one asked permission from us, and did not contact us with questions about the attribution of the results of our excavations. In this regard, in your article we found many errors in the attribution of graves, the bones of which were used. I protest that these materials were so unprofessionally used, I believe that you need to clarify the attribution of materials from our excavations.We are ready to help you with this. Prior to this, we consider it impossible to publish this article.
In addition: you didn't use archaeological numbering of samples. Numbers like AT_000 are numbers given by antropologists of National University. Not all these numbers we can check and it need a some work to compare these numbers with real archaeological sites. All excavated barrows have names and numbering of cemeteries (sites), numbering of excavated kurgans and graves and numbering of burials if more than one burial situated in kurgan. Some burials might be secondary and belong to more later periods.
I can inform you firstly only about some mistakes about barrows excavated by us and used by you without our permission.
1. Sample KUR001 (AT_635) dasn't belong to Afanasievo. It was rectangular barrow in Chemurchek tradition (named Kurgak govi #2) situated nearby Afanasievo kurgan (named Kurgak govi #1). This sample would need to be combined with sample KUM001 AT_628 (Kumdi govi #1 burial 2). It are secondary burials in ritual structures of Chemurchek types. I think now it was mixed group of people with Chemurchek and East Kazakhstan cultural traditions.
2. Sample SBG001 (AT_960) dasn't belong to Munkhkhairkhan culture. This barrow named as Shar gov' 3 excavated by me and Munkhbayar oin Bayan-Ulgii aimag, Tsengel sum in 2014. Construction of this kurgan and burial custom is wery similar to Begazy-Dandybai culture (Late Andronovo) of neighbouring Kazakhstan. This burial dated back to more later period as Munkhkhairkhan culture (to 12 cent BCE). It will be very interesting to compare it with Kazakhstan LBA.
3. Sample ULI003 (AT_680) dasn't belong to Baitag culture. It was burial Uliastai dood denzh, kurgan #5, burial on the former surface in stone cist on the back in stretched position. Newly discovered Baitag culture characterized by burials in small pits in position with knees up. This kurgan belong to same cultural group like ULZ001 (AT_674) (ULastai Zastava (Khudzhirtyn gol) 1, kurgan #2) with similar consrtruction and burial custom. AT_674 mistakely put in spreadsheed yo Sukhbaatar aimag but it is neigbouring cemetery in the South of Khovd aimag.
To Baitag culture really belong only sample ULI004 (AT_672). This burial #7 was excavated by me in Uliastai dund denzh cemetery of newly dicovered Baitag culture!
4. Sample ULI001 (AT_676) have archaeological name Ulastai Zastava (Khudzhirtyn gol) 2, kurgan 1, burial #4 (main burial). This grave belong to Mongun-Taiga type of LBA graves in Mongolia and Tuva (stretched on side in narrow pit covered by stone slabs). It is not clear by now what cultural groups there were in Western Mongolia in this time and this sample need to combine with other LBA samples named in your article incorrectly DSKC (it is not correect name because Mongun-Taiga type of kurgans never connected with deer stones etc.). As regard as "Sagsai" culture we never use this name because Ts.Tubat didn't gave definition of it.
Yours sincerely,"
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment