Dr John Kirk and Dr William Robertson: Photographers in the Crimea

1988 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-241
Author(s):  
Julie Lawson
Keyword(s):  
2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander William Kinglake
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander William Kinglake
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
V.K. Khilchevskyi ◽  

In contrast to the hydrological and hydrochemical zoning, hydrographic and water management zoning of Ukraine (2016) was created on a basin basis, taking into account the boundaries of river basins, and not physiographic zoning. The main function of hydrographic and water management zoning is water management. Primary is hydrographic zoning, and water management - based on it. The description of modern hydrographic zoning of the territory of Ukraine, approved in 2016 by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and included in the Water Code of Ukraine is given. Hydrographic zoning is carried out for the development and implementation of river basin management plans. On the territory of Ukraine nine areas of river basins are allocated: Dnipro; Dnister; Danube; Southern Bug; Don; Vistula; rivers of the Crimea; rivers of the Black Sea coast; rivers of the Azov Sea coast 13 sub-basins are allocated in four river basins district. The water management zoning is described - the division of hydrographic units into water management areas, which is carried out for the development of water management balances. In the regions of the river basins in the territory of Ukraine allocated 132 water management areas, 59 of which are located in the Dnipro basin. About 9,000 bodies of surface water allocated for monitoring in Ukraine. Approved zoning is the implementation of the provisions of the EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60 / EC in the management of water resources in Ukraine. Modern hydrographic and water management zoning of the territory of Ukraine approximates the management of water resources of the state to European requirements.


2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-668
Author(s):  
Michael Nosonovsky ◽  
Dan Shapira ◽  
Daria Vasyutinsky-Shapira

AbstractDaniel Chwolson (1819–1911) made a huge impact upon the research of Hebrew epigraphy from the Crimea and Caucasus. Despite that, his role in the more-than-a-century-long controversy regarding Crimean Hebrew tomb inscriptions has not been well studied. Chwolson, at first, adopted Abraham Firkowicz’s forgeries, and then quickly realized his mistake; however, he could not back up. Th e criticism by both Abraham Harkavy and German Hebraists questioned Chwolson’s scholarly qualifications and integrity. Consequently, the interference of political pressure into the academic argument resulted in the prevailing of the scholarly flawed opinion. We revisit the interpretation of these findings by Russian, Jewish, Karaite and Georgian historians in the 19th and 20th centuries. During the Soviet period, Jewish Studies in the USSR were in neglect and nobody seriously studied the whole complex of the inscriptions from the South of Russia / the Soviet Union. The remnants of the scholarly community were hypnotized by Chwolson’s authority, who was the teacher of their teachers’ teachers. At the same time, Western scholars did not have access to these materials and/or lacked the understanding of the broader context, and thus a number of erroneous Chwolson’s conclusion have entered academic literature for decades.


2015 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 87-91
Author(s):  
Dmitri Melnikov ◽  
◽  
Sergei Kopnyshev ◽  
Nikolai Sedykh ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document