XXV. An Account of ancient Monuments and Fortifications in the Highlands of Scotland. In a Letter from Mr. James Anderson, to George Wilson, Esq; of Lincoln's-Inn

Archaeologia ◽  
1779 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 241-266
Author(s):  
James Anderson

Nothing seems to be so well calculated for throwing light on the origin of nations, as an attention to the radical construction of the language of the people, and to the nature of those monuments of remote antiquity that have escaped the ravages of time.

1977 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 131-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reay Robertson-Mackay

This report should be read in conjunction with the report on the excavations in the interior of the fort (previous paper in these Proceedings).The site of the hill-fort lies on the north side of the North Downs Trackway (National Grid Reference SU/614528). It is also on the southern edge of the Lower Thames valley. In this area there is a gap through the Hampshire Downs which connects the Thames valley with that of the River Test.The derivation of the place name Winklebury is not entirely clear. Medieval spellings, e.g. Wiltenischebury, c. 1290; Wyltenysshbury, 1407; Wynnyshbery and Wynlysbery, 1443, suggest that the name may be of Anglo-Saxon derivation and mean the ‘fort or stronghold of the people of Wilton’, i.e. the fort owned, occupied or built by the Wiltshiremen. However, Wiltonish occurs as a surname in Romsey in the 1289 Assize Rolls, in Walter le Wyltenysshe, and thus the site name may have evolved in the 13th century through associations with this family.Building development threatened the north side of the hill-fort in 1959. Excavations were accordingly carried out by the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate of the then Ministry of Works (now the Department of the Environment), under the direction of the writer in July and August of that year.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
М.Б. Гуров

В статье на основе периодических изданий Министерства внутренних дел 30-40-х гг. XIX в. анализируется первый свод памятников России – «Краткое обозрение древних русских зданий и других отечественных памятников», составленное ученым, историком и археологом А.Г. Глаголевым по поручению министра внутренних дел Д.Н. Блудова. Анализ проводится с целью установления, какие именно памятники и по какой причине были отобраны государством для охраны. В первой части исследования изучен процесс составления свода, вторая посвящена анализу его пообъектного состава. При подготовке статьи использовались нарративный и исторический методы исследования, а также сравнительный и типологический. Делается вывод, что основу первого свода памятников России составили, в первую очередь, памятники церковной архитектуры, главным критерием отбора объектов при этом выступала их древность, причастность к истории, выдающимся историческим событиям и жизни великих людей, то есть историческая и мемориальная ценность. The article analyzes the first corpus of monuments of Russia—A Brief Overview of Ancient Russian Buildings and Other Domestic Monuments. The corpus was compiled by the scientist, historian and archaeologist Andrey Glagolev under the instruction of Minister of Internal Affairs Dmitry Bludov. The analysis aims to determine which monuments were selected by the state for protection and why. Glagolev’s A Brief Overview has never been the subject of separate consideration in Russian science. At the same time, this is a very valuable document for the history of cultural heritage protection in Russia. A Brief Overview was based on materials prepared by local governors in response to circulars from the Ministry of the Internal Affairs of 31 December 1826 and 9 October 1837. The Ministry of Internal Affairs received these materials and passed them to Glagolev for verification and editing. Thus, the materials published in the official publications of the Ministry of internal Affairs are the result of the work of a lot of people throughout the country; they allow us to understand what local officials and metropolitan scientists understood by ancient monuments. The article consists of two parts. The first is devoted to the process of compiling the corpus, and the second to the analysis of its object-specific composition. The first part was prepared using narrative and historical research methods, while the second part was prepared using comparative and typological methods. In total, A Brief Overview and its accompanying materials contain information about 2,155 monuments, which fall into two large groups: Russian monuments (1,506 objects) and monuments of other ethnoses (649 objects). The analysis of the structure of the corpus of monuments and the distribution of all the described monuments into types (churches, monasteries, fortifications, civil buildings, necropolises, engineering structures, natural objects, etc.) leads to the conclusion that the basis of the first corpus of Russian monuments was primarily monuments of church architecture. The analysis of the description of objects in Glagolev’s materials allows concluding that the main criterion for selecting monuments for inclusion in the corpus was their antiquity, involvement in history, outstanding historical events and the lives of great people, that is, historical and memorial value. Thus, in the first half of the 19th century, Russian society considered the ancient church architecture as the main channel for transmitting the historical memory of the people from generation to generation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-167
Author(s):  
Anders Högberg

The study presents an investigation of a regional authorized heritage discourse, represented by the County Administrative Board on signs set up at an- cient monuments and sites in the province of Skåne in southern Sweden. The starting point is a critical analysis of layout, texts and illustrations to ascertain the narratives conveyed by the signs. The results show that slightly less than half of the studied signs work well according to the criteria set up for the study. The result also demonstrates that more than half of the studied signs do not work well according to these cri- teria. Those that work well give detailed information about the ancient monument or site. The signs that do not work well give inadequate information and risk excluding a majority of the people who read them. The latter signs confirm what so many other discourse analyses have shown, that the authorized heritage dis- course to a large extent still privileges the perspectives of a white, middle-class male. The former signs, that is, those that are judged to work well in terms of the criteria applied in this study, show that the authorized heritage discourse does not only offer something that privileges the perspectives of that white, middle class male, but also has the ability to offer narratives with other perspectives.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Skladany
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Michael A. Neblo ◽  
Kevin M. Esterling ◽  
David M. J. Lazer
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document