MUSEUM. MONUMENT. HERITAGE 1 (9) / 2021
A Problem in Focus: Towards Abram Davidovitch Stolyar’s Сentenary (1921–2014)
Nikonova, Antonina Alexandrovna — Candidate of Science in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Saint-Petersburg State University, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, firstname.lastname@example.org
To understand the role of a scientist in the development of scientific knowledge, to highlight the stages of his worldview formation, it is necessary to turn to his biography as a source for reconstruction or “archaeology” of not only a “life story” of the scientist, but also the cultural and historical context of the era. The article analyzes biographical information about the archaeologist A.D. Stolyar, preserved in various types of written and electronic sources. There are several groups of sources: official autobiographies and autobiographical essays; obituaries and biographical sketches for memorable dates; electronic biographical information. The analysis of biographical information about scientific, educational and organizational activities of A.D. Stolyar allows us to outline once again the main dominants of his path to science and, at the same time, to highlight some gaps in the biographical data. The autobiographical documents reflect a subjective position of the scientist not only in assessing the most important
events and achievements of his life, but also his final understanding of individual events
of his scientific biography.
Key words: archeology, biography, history of science, memory tags, written sources, university, scientist, teacher.
Solomakha, Elena Yurievna — the Deputy Head of the Manuscripts and Documents Department, the State Hermitage, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, email@example.com
The article presents a brief overview of materials of the State Hermitage Museum’s Scientific Archive related to the personality and scientific heritage of Abram Davidovich Stolyar, who worked for eight years at the State Hermitage Museum, and after his dismissal remained a scientific consultant at the museum. A.D. Stolyar began working at the Hermitage in 1956, at a time when his teacher Mikhail Illarionovich Artamonov was the director of the Hermitage. After the dismissal of Artamonov, known for his freedom of thought, in 1964, A.D. Stolyar also left the Hermitage. The article examines and analyzes in the context of the cultural and ideological paradigm of the era and biographical realities of the author, a detailed autobiography preserved in the personal file of A.D. Stolyar, reviews of M.I. Artamonov and B.B. Piotrovsky, reports, materials for archaeological exhibitions and the preparation of scientific expeditions. Undoubtedly significant in the context of considering the evolution of the Hermitage’s archaeological collections and their research is the introduction into scientific circulation the
archival data on the newly organized by M.I. Artamonov the Hermitage’s own publishing
house, where since 1958 the Archaeological Volume began to be published, as well as scientific books, including works of A.D. Stolyar, and materials related to the preparation of the North Caucasus expedition under the leadership of A.D. Stolyar.
Key words: A.D. Stolyar, archeology, the State Hermitage, museum.
Konstantinov, Mikhail Vasilievitch — Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, the Transbaikal State University, Russian Federation, Chita, firstname.lastname@example.org
Professor Abram Davidovitch Stolyar provided great scientific and pedagogical assistance to Transbaikal archaeology. Teachers and students of the Faculty of History of the Chita State Pedagogical Institute (now the Transbaikal State University) underwent regular internships at the Department of Archaeology of Leningrad State University — St. Petersburg State University — which he managed. Under his supervision, two doctoral and two candidate dissertations were defended. He was an editor of a number of monographs and collections. In 1989 A.D. Stolyar visited Chita, gave a number of lectures to students-historians, got acquainted with the collections in the laboratory of paleoecology, visited archaeological sites in the Ust-Menza tract being studied by the university expedition, and appraised the scale of the excavations
and the importance of ancient multilayer settlements. He handed over a solid selection
of books on archaeology and ethnography, photocopies of his articles and some manuscripts to Chita. Personalia dedicated to A.D. Stolyar found reflection in the Transbaikal encyclopedic project books. A stand in the University Museum of Archaeology of Transbaikalia is dedicated to him. Students study his books, such as “The Origin of Fine Art”, “Following Demons Tracks”, reflecting ancient art genesis, intelligence and formation of creative consciousness. Students-historians of all generations know and appreciate a remarkable St. Petersburg professor,
an outstanding scientist, a wise and worthy person — Abram Davidovitch Stolyar.
Key words: archeology, professor A.D. Stolyar, Department of Archeology of the Leningrad State University, the Transbaikal State University, Chita, museum of archaeology, expedition.
Shumkin, Vladimir Yakovlevitch — Candidate of Science in History, the Senior Research Fellow, the Institute of history of material culture of Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, email@example.com
A lot has been written and said about the famous Honorary Professor of St. Petersburg
State University Abram Davidovitch Stolyar, who taught at the Department of Archaeology for more than 50 years and headed it for almost 25 years. These are memories and various student stories and legends, many of which, however, do not belong to eyewitnesses and participants of the events, but are often retellings, often far from what really happened and missing many details that usually contained more interesting moments, and often significantly distort the essence of what happened. The latter is especially present on the student website “Stolyar rules …” Despite the variety of situations in these often lovingly written notes, perhaps undeservedly
too rarely paid to two more “hypostases” of this multi-faceted person: participation in
the war and everyday expedition life. Given these omissions, I dared to fill in this “gap” somewhat by presenting to your court some of my memories on these topics, as a direct witness and participant in the events. Being in contact with the teacher of the Department of Archaeology of LSU-SPbSU A.D. Stolyar since 1965, and in the last 40 years having received from the Teacher the “privilege” to be called his personal friend, which I have always been aware of and still consider as a special honor and trust of the Teacher, being in these years repeatedly in joint lecture, excursion, expedition trips in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, on the Kola Peninsula, remembering the memorable “table” conversations and discussions at his and at my home, I offer a small essay “in the wake” of various, in my opinion, symptomatic events.
Key words: A.D. Stolyar, archaeology, expedition, the Great Patriotic war.
Senatorov, Sergey Nikolaevich — Candidate of Science in History, the Senior Research
Fellow, the State Hermitage, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, firstname.lastname@example.org
The article provides a brief analysis of the collection of ceramic materials from the archaeological excavations of A.D. Stolyar in 1955–1956 of the Alimovsky naves site in the Bakhchisarai district of the Republic of Crimea. In the upper mixed cultural layer of this site, fragments of ceramics from the Neolithic Ceramic era to modern times were found. Analysis of archival and stock materials showed that the handmade ware of this monument belongs to the period of existence of three archaeological cultures of the Crimea. The first culture is represented by one fragment of pottery from the period of the ceramic Neolithic of the Tash-Air culture. Two ceramic fragments belong to the second ProtoKemi-Oba culture of the Crimean Eneolithic period. Similar in shape and ornamentation vessels are known in ceramic complexes of various cultures of the Eneolithic period of the Dnieper region of the second half of the V — first half of the IV millennium BC. The third culture is represented by fragments of utensils of the first phase of Kizil-Koba culture of the Late Bronze Age — early iron age 12–9th centuries
BC and one fragment of a vessel of the third stage (Taurus) this culture of the second
half of 6 — first half of 4th century BC. A rare category of finds is a fragment of a Bosporan fish dish of the 5th century BC, which testifies to the contacts between the local tribes of the Taurian with the Greek city-states of the Bosporan Kingdom.
Key words: ceramic Neolithic of the Crimea, Eneolithic of the Crimea, Tash-Air culture, Protokemi-Oba culture, Lower Mikhaylovka culture, Kizil-Koba culture, Tauri, Bosporus, handmade ceramics, fish dish of the 5th century BC.
Tikhonov, Igor Lvovich — Doctor of Science in History, Professor, Saint-Petersburg State University, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, I.Tikhonov@spbu.ru
In 1958 A.D. Stolyar and G.P. Grozdilov published an article “On the construction of a museum archaeological exposition” in the journal “Soviet Archaeology”. That paper became one of the first works devoted to the problems of creating an exposition of archaeological materials that was understandable for a general public. Many of their theses still sound relevant today. The central issue is the possibility of using, in addition to the original artifacts, all kinds of didactic materials (photographs, drawings, explications, models, dummies, reconstructions, etc.), conveying to the audience the semantics and functional purpose of the exhibits on display. An important task is not to demonstrate individual objects, but to create an integral image of a certain culture of the past. Fragmented, often not very attractive archaeological finds by themselves do not always allow this to be done. Modern museums, especially specialized in archaeology,
use various exposition techniques that make archaeological material more accessible for understanding. This article examines these methodological techniques used in domestic and foreign museums. The author identifies six groups of museums which store and exhibit archaeological collections. The largest art museums of world culture tend to exhibit only authentic things, while archaeological and historical museums use didactic material more in their exhibitions.
Key words: A.D. Stolyar, archaeological collections, museum, exposition, methodological techniques.
Korolkova, Liudmila Valentinovna — Candidate of Science in History, the Leading Research Fellow, the Russian Museum of Ethnography, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, email@example.com
The article is the result of a research devoted to the history of the formation of the Tikhvin regional Local Lore Museum in the period from 1919 to 1941. Special attention is paid to persons who were at the origins of the museum and supported its work in the 1920th and 1930th (E.V. Skorodumov, I.P. Mordvinov, V.I. Ravdonikas). The article examines the process of forming the museum and the problems that its employees had to face in the post-revolutionary years: preserving the historical values of the Tikhvin Assumption Monastery, identifying objects of museum significance, ensuring the safety of collections and individual particularly valuable exhibits. Throughout their activities, the organizers and employees of the museum in Tikhvin set themselves quite large-scale tasks that involved a comprehensive study of the Tikhvin region. However, the directions of work were often adjusted, since this activity depended on several objective and subjective factors: the difficult political situation and the economic situation, the peculiarities of the mentality of various categories of the population of the city of Tikhvin and the Tikhvin region. By the 1930th, the museum already had diverse collections, which included many rare and unique objects. However, almost all of them were lost during the Second World War. Until recently, the composition of these collections was unknown. The materials presented in the article partially fill this gap.
Key words: collection, museum, Tikhvin, I.P. Mordvinov, V.I. Ravdonikas.
Stasjuk, Ivan Vadimovitch — the Research Fellow, the Institute for the History of Material Culture of Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, firstname.lastname@example.org
The first Russian state museum of the artist, traveler, archaeologist and peacemaker Nicholas Roerich was opened in 1984 in the Izvara estate, where he spent his childhood and youth. In the region of Izvara at the end of the 19th century, Roerich carried out excavations of ancient Russian burial mounds and other archaeological sites. Archaeology had a significant impact on his ideas and worldview, reflected both in historical painting and in his peacekeeping activities aimed at protecting the world cultural heritage. Therefore, the museum turned in its work to archaeological issues. In 1990–2017, the museum, in cooperation with the Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Saint-Petersburg State University, organized the archaeological excavations on 7 sites. The archaeological collection
of the museum includes 2484 items and is regularly replenished; in 2017, an exhibition
“Ancient and medieval history of the Izhora plateau” was opened in the Roerich manor
house. It covers the periods of the Iron Age, the early Middle Ages, the era of the Old Russian and Moscow state. There is a possibility to expand the archaeological direction in the activities of the museum in Izvara. On the basis of the separate building of the School House belonging to the museum — an architectural monument of Northern Modern of the beginning of the 20th century, — it is possible to create a new modern exposition dedicated to the archaeology of the west part of the Leningrad region, equip a storage facility for archaeological collections. Izvara landscapes provide an opportunity for a variety of scientific and educational, tourist, cultural events of historical subjects.
Key words: Nicholas Roerich, estate-museum, Izvara, museum archaeology, archaeological collections, archaeological exposition.
Martynov, Alexandr Yakovlevich — Candidate of Science in History, the Deputy Director
for Science, the Solovki State Historical, Architectural and Natural Museum-Reserve, Russian Federation, Solovky, email@example.com
The article devoted to the history of discovering and results of field study of the prehistorical and medieval monuments of the Solovetsky Islands in 20–21th centuries. 65 archaeological sites dated the Mesolithic epoch — the Iron Ages (from 5844–5548 cal BC till 1431–1660 cal AD) and scores of stones constructions were found to this year. The main part of the excavations was made by the Solovetsky Archaeological expedition in 1984–2017. On the bases of sources (more than 2200 м² excavated cultural layer, 35000 prehistorical and the Midle Ages artifacts, 40 dates of C 14 etc.) the author draw the conclusions about the developing of the Solovetsky Islands by the ancient hunters and fishermen from the Western and Southern coast of the White Sea. I consider that the stone labyrinths were built on Solovky in different times beginning with the middle of the first millennium AD till 19th century. The people of “Chud”, “Korelyanin” and “Saami” came to Solovky in 11–13th centuries. There are some problems that are not resolved today: the dates of some archaeological sites, cultural roots and using of
the ancient labyrinths, correlation of the cites and labyrinths etc. The activities of Solovetsky museum-reserve in preservation and popularization of the archaeological monuments is also reviewed in the article.
Key words: Solovky, Solovetsky Museum-Reserve, archaeology, prehistory, ancient, medieval, labyrinth.
Zuev, Vadim Yurievitch — Candidate of Science in History, Independent Researcher, the Laureate of the State Award of the Russian Federation, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, firstname.lastname@example.org
This article presents new materials in relation to the Scythian artistic tradition of bronze
mirror’s decorating handles of the 6th–5th centuries BC and concludes that there was an independent Scythian center of artistic casting, which was located somewhere in the Northern Ciscaucasia. This center was not only a place for the production of casting objects made of non-ferrous metals, but also toreutics, since images and artistic zoomorphic compositions are repeated on completely different objects (mirrors, cross-shaped plaques, decor of scabbards of ceremonial swords). It is likely that not only Scythian craftsmen worked in this center, but also immigrants from the Middle East and Ionians. Their products speak of familiarity not only with an early Scythian iconography, but also with Eastern and Ionian artistic traditions. For about half a century, this center co-existed with Greek workshops of the Borysthenian polis, which existed on the island of Berezan in Pobuzhye, which stopped working after a fire in the city in the last decade of the 6th century BC. This was probably due to the course of the Scythian-Persian War and the raid of the fleet of Greek tyrants to Borysthenes in 513 BC. But the center for production of artistic objects in Scythia continued its work. The materials published in the article are analyzed in the context of famous monuments of Scythian culture of the Archaic era. The article considers the evolution of the artistic style on the example of
a number of specific zoomorphic Scythian images and traces the degeneration of this tradition in the first half of the 5th century BC.
Key words: Scythians, Scythia, Caucasus, bronze mirrors, ceremonial swords in a gold
salary, cross-shaped zoomorphic badges, animal style, Archaic and classical epochs.
Minasyan, Raphael Sergeevitch — Candidate of Science in History, the Leading Research Fellow, the State Hermitage, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, email@example.com
This article is dedicated to the problem of appearance of ferrous metal objects in Western Siberia, Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Metallographic analysis of a dagger from Temirsha (Kazakhstan) showed that it was made by forging from iron. But the shape of the handle suggests that this dagger, like other similar things, is made by casting. But until recently, things made of iron were not cast. They were casted only from cast iron. In the ancient times, cast iron was mastered only in China, but there only agricultural tools were made from cast iron, and weapons were bronze in China until the end of the third century BC. All known rare weapons and daggers of complex shape made of black metal, dating from the VII–VI centuries BC, found in the specified territory among the nomads, are casted from cast iron. In the future, the nomads do not use cast-iron objects, and they have forged weapons and other iron objects. We need to find out where the nomads got cast-iron and iron things and the technology of their
production, which had been previously unknown to them.
Key words: Western Siberia, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, China, ferrous metallurgy, casting, wrought iron, cast iron, cast iron and iron objects, bronze and iron weapon.
Tunkina I.V. Following D.G. Messerschmidt’s Siberian Journey (1719–1727): The Recording of the Archaeological Monuments of Siberia by the Artists of the Academic Detachment of the Second Kamchatka Expedition (1733–1743). Part 2: Stone Sculptures and Burial Mounds — 151 (Rus.)
Tunkina, Irina Vladimirovna — Doctor of Science in History, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director, the Saint-Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, firstname.lastname@example.org
The article presents a comparative analysis of the drawings of the archaeological monuments, first graphically recorded during the Siberian expedition of D.G. Messerschmidt (1719–1727). These are scribbles, stone sculptures, steles with runic inscriptions, walls of mounds, etc. A decade later, the same monuments were graphically recorded by the artists of the Academic Detachment of the Second Kamchatka Expedition led by G.F. Miller (1733–1743) — by J.W. Lursenius, J.Ch. Berkhan and J.C. Dekker. Their drawings are kept now among the personal papers of D.G. Messerschmidt and in the “Miller Portfolios” in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. The Second Part of the study reveals the drawings of stone sculptures and burial mounds made during the Second Kamchatka Expedition.
Key words: D.G. Messerschmidt, G.F. Müller, J.G. Gmelin, archaeological monuments,
Viktorova, Valentina Domet’yanovna — Candidate of Science in History, the Senior Research Fellow, the Institute of History and Archeology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federation, Ekaterinburg, email@example.com
Based on the Charles S. Pierce’s semiotic theory, the article establishes the origin, evolvement and transformation of geometric signs on the monuments of the Stone Age in the mountain-forest Trans-Urals. The three meanings of the symbolic sign of the rhombus had different origins. Among the local population a rhombus meant a head. For Neolithic migrants from the Near East it was an iconic sign of the earth. By the Eneolithic Age the Ural population had kept the meaning of the sign, which was earth. In accordance with the new iconography of the rhombus there appeared a new meaning — soul-life. Wavy lines, the iconic sign of water, were depicted on objects of the Ural population of the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras. The transformation of the sign into a symbol of water, a zigzag, as well as the bodies of waterfowl and hoofed animals into rectangles, occurred when the population of the Eneolithic Age began to decorate the vessels with a comb-shaped stamp. The symbol of the world mountain was transformed from the iconic sign of the triangle-mountain by drawing a vertical chain of three rhombuses along its center as the signs of animating of all three worlds.
Key words: semiotics, sign, Stone Age, mountain-forest of Trans-Urals.
Kochneva, Anna Dmitrievna — Bachelor of Museology, Student of Master Programme, Saint-Petersburg State University, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, firstname.lastname@example.org
The article discusses the exhibition’s approaches to representation of museum history. In the age of total visualization, it seems necessary to analyze exhibitions in which the museum implements the functions of documenting its history and memory passing of itself. The author interprets this process within the framework of the archival turn that has arisen in contemporary art practices and is associated with the wish to return forgotten stories and information to the public space. The conceptual basis of the archival turn is able to bring closer the understanding of the exhibition reflection of the museum, which is in the flow of a new self-determination in the world of fluid modernity.
Key words: museums, exhibition, exhibition design, museum’s history, archival turn.
Ananiev, Vitaly Gennadievitch — Doctor of Cultural Studies, Associate Professor, Saint-
Petersburg State University, Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, email@example.com
The review analyzes the methodological recommendations on the creation of archaeological exhibitions developed by the prominent Czech museologist, Associate Professor at the Comenius University (Bratislava, Slovakia) Jan Dolak. The booklet was published by the Moravian Museum in Brno in 2018. The work consists of five chapters. In the first part, the basic terms and theoretical frameworks used in the booklet are determined, in the second, the choice of the topic of the future exposition is characterized, in the third, the process of creating the concept of the exhibition is gradually analyzed and the basic technical media of its implementation are analyzed, the fourth contains a list of the most common mistakes, the fifth chapter sums up everything said in the work.
Key words: archaeology, exhibition, the Czech museology, museum.
Download full issue MUSEUM. MONUMENT. HERITAGE. 1 (9) / 2021