PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL NONFARM PLACES IN THE USSR

According to the 1970 census, the Soviet Union had 37,800 rural nonfarm places with a combined population of 6.1 million, or 5.8 percent of the rural population. The census data are believed to understate the number and population of nonfarm places because they assigned rural places to the nonfarm category purely on the basis of their generic designation. Many multifunctional nonfarm places and rural places that serve as administrative centers and have little relation to agriculture were not categorized as nonfarm in the census. Although many of the smaller nonfarm places are likely to be eliminated over time, others will continue to perform clearly defined functions in industry, construction, transportation, and services. The situation is illustrated with particular reference to Novosibirsk Oblast.     

The Tames of Fairford

Abstract

Based on evidence collected by surveying a sample of Norfolk churches, this paper presents a reappraisal of the presumed ubiquity of chancel screens in late medieval parish churches. Building on this foundation, evidence is presented and discussed regarding the supposed homogenous form of chancel screens, and the relationship of these screens to other elements such as lofts and beams. By considering the broad period of c. 1330–1537, during which chancel screens were being constructed or renewed, this paper sets out the major changes in their structure, decoration and patronage. Whilst perhaps not ubiquitous, chancel screens did achieve and retain a widespread popularity during a protracted period. The paper offers explanations for their prevalence and argues that, in being representative of the gates of heaven, chancel screens were an important element in the setting of the medieval liturgy at parish level. It concludes with a discussion of patronage which is intended to reinforce the points made about the symbolic and physical centrality of these furnishings in Norfolk parish churches.     

The Deserted Medieval Village of Riseholme,near Lincoln

Abstract

Advances in the understanding of the Anglo-Saxon burh in the last 25 years, a reassessment of the date and context of the Burghal Hidage and a recent analysis of comparable archaeological evidence from Cricklade make it necessary to review the archaeological evidence of the defences of the late-Saxon burh at Christchurch. This enables a reconstruction of the urban landscape, which in turn allows a new view of the significance of hidage assessments in the Burghal Hidage for all the burhs in the system it describes. It also places the development of Christchurch in the context of that of other burhs in Wessex and southern Mercia, and throws a new light on general historical processes in the 9th to the early 11th centuries.