Free Historical Society. When you add a new element to the picture of the world
Natalya IVANOVA, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, First Deputy Director of the National Research Institute of World Economy and international relations them. E.M. Primakov RAS
1. If we consider the transformation of the RAS into a club of scientists and the creation of new mechanisms for managing academic institutions, as it was written in the first version of the law, as the main tasks of the reform, we can say that the initiators of this process have achieved their goal. The authors of the bill apparently believed that such measures would improve the efficiency of scientific activities, to build the “archaic” RAS into new socio-economic conditions. But the RAS existed as one system, in which the prospects for the scientific growth of all employees and the career trajectories of those of them who worked more actively were clear. The connection between institutes and academicians, the Presidium as a community of the most respected scientists representing their fields of knowledge, was understandable. The strength of the RAS was its regional network, which united the entire country. Regions provided an influx of "fresh blood" into scientific and organizational structures, gave birth to new ideas, gave impulses to development.
It cannot be said that this system worked perfectly, but it is clearly not worse than other institutions that survived the transition period. It is now broken. Of course, the destruction could have been more, if not for active position an academic community that has resisted the most unreasonable initiatives of the reformers. It must be admitted that FANO succeeded in registering the property under the management of the institutes. But as for the development of science, scientists did not notice any changes for the better. This is the opinion of my many acquaintances from different institutions. Some colleagues say that everything has remained as it is, others note an increase in the bureaucratic burden, which is quite natural, since the RAS has retained some control functions, and FANO has constantly increased them.
A characteristic attribute of the reform is increased attention to quantitative indicators of the effectiveness of scientific work. FANO attached great importance to this, and the new Ministry of Education and Science is likely to pick up the baton, since it is more convenient for officials to manage with the help of such methods. Yes, the publication activity indicators of Russian scientists have begun to grow. But this is not the result of meaningful changes in the scientific field. Rather, increased attention to this direction reporting. We understand very well that a significant part of the journals recognized by FANO are frankly weak, many act on commercial basis... Since no one cares about the quality of publications, this surge is temporary.
When they talk about the Academy of Sciences, outside observers often mean the Presidium of the Academy. However, RAS is also a branch, a General Meeting, institutes and other research organizations. Until now, these sets have crossed, converged in the Presidium and at the General Meeting of the RAS. Now institutions are increasingly falling out of the general landscape, sectoral and regional offices placed in different conditions, so that the preservation of unity and integrity is a big question.
2. I believe that any change is better than stagnation, and I do not at all call to cling to the old foundations. Life is changing rapidly, you need to adapt to new realities. The Academy has known different times, and as an institute it will undoubtedly remain in some form. RAS brings together active, professionally trained, smart people... She will be able to find her place in a new form, although she will no longer be the same as before, and this greatly saddens those who have formed in this environment. If the authorities set the task of turning the Academy of Sciences into a club, maybe it is not worth resisting this? After all, in a number of countries, the academic sector exists as a club. We must raise the issue of the quality of this club, fight for it to be influential, have a good reputation, and perform important functions.
The Academy, represented by the new President and the Presidium, is actually doing this - it tries to raise the status of the organization, regain the authority lost in recent decades, and positively interact with government bodies... I think that in this sense all is not lost for the RAS. But it is not so easy to solve such a problem in conditions of constant change of landmarks. The old system has been destroyed, and no one seems to know what is supposed to replace it. We do not have time to get used to the new rules of the game, as they change again. Now the functions of ministries and departments have once again been reshuffled. It is planned to turn the Ministry of Education and Science into a kind of scientific Gosplan. What policy it will pursue is unknown. Legislative field is not regulated: preparing new law on science, amendments are made to the law on the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Subordinating everything to the idea of a technological breakthrough only sounds beautiful. Such tasks cannot be solved by simple means. Conversations about innovative economy have been going on for many years, but it has not been possible to launch the development of a knowledge-intensive industry with the active participation of private companies. But it is the business sector that must order scientific developments, risk its money when creating new technologies. Meanwhile, branch science is now in an even more difficult situation than in Soviet times. In developed countries, as you know, technological breakthroughs are not carried out by universities and state laboratories. They only "bring cartridges", and large transnational corporations... In our country, no one needs science, as our Nobel laureate Zhores Ivanovich Alferov constantly insists. And he is one hundred percent right.
Another problem of great importance for the development of science, which in Lately is getting worse, burying hopes for the best: I mean the destruction of the system of training scientific youth, which is going through an even greater crisis than the Russian Academy of Sciences. The number of graduate students is decreasing, the quantity and quality of defended dissertations are falling. According to statistics, the total number of research workers in FANO organizations did not decrease very much in 2013-2016, and the number of postgraduate defenses fell by half. Now it is about “0.5 protection” per institution. Such a rate of personnel renewal cannot suit anyone.
I am very glad that a corps of RAS professors has been created at the Academy. These are active scientists who have received recognition from colleagues, the possibility of accelerated integration into the academic ranks. True, in my opinion, they imagine the academy rather speculatively, considering the title of “professor” as a useful line in their biography. But - most importantly - I find it strange that the requirements for the professors of the Russian Academy of Sciences do not include responsibilities for training a certain number of candidates and doctors of sciences, and the “Vakovsky” professor, as we know, had to prepare five candidates of sciences. As a result, scientists in their prime have no incentive to participate in the learning process of the new shift. I think this will have a negative impact on the future of our science.
Ivan ERMOLOV, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Acting Deputy Director for Scientific Work of the Institute for Problems in Mechanics. A.Yu. Ishlinsky RAS, Scientific Secretary of the Scientific Council on Robotics and Mechatronics RAS
1. Like everything else in our world, reform has positive and negative sides. On the positive side: FANO took over some of the functions that are really unusual for scientists. These are, first of all, many economic and “bureaucratic” duties that annoy researchers so much, but are successfully solved by officials. For example, we managed to establish productive interaction with the staff of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations, who were in charge of our scientific direction. We even invited representatives of the agency to join the Scientific Council on Robotics and Mechatronics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. On the negative side: there was an increase in document circulation, and, unfortunately, not without the participation of FANO.
The agency's actions in this area, in my opinion, were not always justified. In addition, FANO, I am sure, should have been more active in fulfilling the functions assigned to it to ensure the participation of institutes in exhibitions, and to conduct centralized procurement tenders. Unfortunately, we often had to do it all ourselves. But the main negative result of the reform is the growth of mistrust and tension in relations between scientists and the authorities. And this is at the moment when, in the face of the great challenges facing the country, we, on the contrary, must unite to solve major problems!
2. It seems to me that the realities have not yet been finally determined. There is a feeling that not everyone understood how serious the situation was. When this is finally realized, the government, I hope, will change its attitude towards science, and scientists will begin to take a more responsible approach to work. As we know, the “golden age” of the Academy (the Atomic Project) came at a time when a mortal danger hung over the country, and only the Academy of Sciences was able to propose a solution. Scientists themselves have appealed to the government with warnings about the need to counter the threat with their nuclear weapons. Now the situation is only slightly easier. The modern economy requires more and more knowledge. Meanwhile, there is little domestic branch science left. It is our happiness that there is a replenishment of new ideas and technologies from the Academy of Sciences. Applied research cannot be restored without RAS.
The Academy has an even more important advantage - interdisciplinarity. This is a platform where mathematicians, historians, engineers and economists collaborate productively. It cannot be left out of use during development. new paradigm development of our society. Of course, we are more interested in fundamental research, so the emphasis on applied problems may alert someone. But, as we remember, the previous generation of scientists was engaged in what the fatherland needed at the moment. For example, IV Kurchatov during the war personally took part in the protection of the fleet from magnetic mines. I believe that we, too, will fulfill our duty with dignity, and I look to the future with optimism.
Askold IVANCHIK, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Inscriptions and Fine Literature (France), Chief Researcher, Head of the Department of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of History, RANEPA, Professor of Moscow State University
1. Five years after the start of the reform, in my opinion, it can be argued that all the worst fears expressed by its opponents have come true. The Academy of Sciences, in fact, has been transformed into a club of academics. Academic institutes are separate from it. Only at the cost of great efforts of both the previous and the current Presidium of the RAS, the Academy managed to return at least some influence on their fate, however, rather limited. And now, after the subordination of the institutes to the new Ministry of Higher Education and Science, even these crumbs of influence have been called into question. For the institutes, the main result, noticeable at first by the administration, and now by all employees, was a significant bureaucratization of management: the volume of reporting, which is often quite meaningless, has grown significantly and continues to grow.
The amalgamation of the Russian Academy of Sciences with the academies of medical and agricultural sciences also, in my opinion, did not bring anything good. It increased the imbalance between disciplines, which was previously characteristic of the Academy of Sciences, and lowered the average scientific level of the members of the “new” RAS. The function of the expertise assigned by the law to the academy is in fact formal. For example, it never occurred to anyone to ask the RAS for an examination of such an important innovation in the field of science and education management as the division of the Ministry of Education and Science into two ministries and the subordination of one of them to academic institutes with the simultaneous abolition of FANO.
The reform also created huge problems for international cooperation, in which the RAS played a key role. The entire system of inter-academic exchanges has been destroyed. It reaches the point of absurdity: RAS is a member of many international organizations, but cannot send its representatives (even when they are elected to the leadership of these structures) to their meetings, which is necessary for the normal maintenance of membership. This is due to the fact that after the reform the RAS has the right to send only its own employees on business trips, and only members of the Presidium and the staff are considered as such.
In particular, in order to fulfill my duties as vice-president of the International Union of Academies (the main organization that unites academies working in the humanities and social sciences), I have to travel to the meetings of the organization's bureau at my own expense. Interestingly, if a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences is elected president of some international academic organization, the performance of his duties will also be considered as his own business? In fact, the reform is not over yet. From time to time, new government initiatives appear, from which it is simply overwhelming. Thus, the Government of the Russian Federation is going to entrust Rosobrnadzor with monitoring and evaluation of academic institutions. Moreover, this is done immediately after Rosobrnadzor revoked accreditation of one of the best Russian universities working in the field of the humanities and social sciences - the famous "Shaninka" - having done this on the basis of formal requirements that in no way reflect the quality of scientific and educational work In the organisation.
Experts of Rosobrnadzor, who have no authority in the scientific community, were selected according to incomprehensible criteria, and besides, they were also convicted of defending falsified theses, make serious decisions: whether to live or not to live for this or that university. This raises serious doubts about the qualifications of Rosobrnadzor itself. To entrust him with the assessment of academic institutions, to say the least, is strange. Needless to say, the Academy of Sciences did not conduct any examination of this government decision. Such escapades are of great concern. Of course, we are not talking about the science itself, which will develop in any case, but about its organizational forms... However, these forms can either make life easier or more difficult for researchers. So far, they are mostly making it difficult. Perhaps the main positive development in recent years has been the increase in salaries for research workers in 2017 and 2018, although it was carried out not without drawbacks associated with the unfair regional distribution of these allowances.
2. I think that it will be possible to establish the normal work of academic institutions only after the restoration of the system that provides for scientific and organizational management them from the RAS. This, in turn, requires the adoption of a new law on the Academy of Sciences, which changes its status to a more adequate one. As far as I understand, the RAS Presidium is preparing such a bill.
Denis FOMIN-NILOV, Ph.D. in History, Rector of the State Academic University for the Humanities, Senior Researcher at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences
1. In 2013, I was still a young scientist, who had spent several years before that as part of the SMU RAS 1.0. This very composition of the Council is known for its rather radical activity. The need for accelerated modernization of the RAS and changes in organizational and management models did not raise any doubts at that time. New socio-economic and regulatory environment, a qualitatively different level of development information technologies- this and many other things convinced us that changes were needed in our scientific “kingdom”. Not long before the start of the reform, my essay, Science XXI: Guilds of Masters or Centers of Innovation, was even published in the "Trinity Variant". All the presidential candidates of the Russian Academy of Sciences, including Academician V.E. Fortov, spoke about the need to reform the RAS and our institutes at that time.
The key issues were the format of modernization, implementers of reforms, goals and objectives in the short and long term. Therefore, in general, I perceived the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2013 and the emergence of the Federal Agency scientific organizations positively, hoping for the implementation of many large-scale projects, the revitalization of scientific life, the solution of the most urgent and promising tasks... Our lag in science from world leaders in many areas was frustrating, but the historical experience of our country suggested that with competent personnel policy, concentration and mobilization of resources, high-quality goal-setting, our people are ready for great deeds, labor feats and breakthroughs into the future. However, according to the data available in open sources, it did not work out ...
2. FANO Russia turned out to be incapable of implementing ambitious scientific projects aimed at long-term strategic development country. The agency had a lot of obstacles in its work. In particular, the moratorium of the President of the Russian Federation, the inability to determine public policy in the field of science (which was the task of the Ministry of Education and Science, and not the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations), the second "key" of the RAS, the need to coordinate property issues with the Federal Property Management Agency, the lack of sufficient financial resources etc. Five years later, FANO liquidated and formed a new “super-body” of the federal executive branch with phenomenal powers and resources. Probably, the SCST did not have such “super-, mega-opportunities” even in the Soviet period, since the higher education system is now integrated with science in all its diversity.
The majority of Russian intellectuals (among whom there are a lot of managers of various levels) understand that the country has no future without effective and competitive science. Science determines the level of the state's defense capability, and the level of national security, and the level of well-being of citizens, and the conditions for solving demographic problems. It is science that provides an increase in the duration and comfort of life, contributes to the improvement of the social and economic climate in society. Is the new one capable federal body executive power to solve the tasks set for him by the country's top leadership? I think he can, but only if a number of conditions are met, which require, first of all, the highest level of competence and qualifications of people who make decisions, set managerial tasks and control their implementation.
Stepan ANDREEV, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Scientific Secretary of the Institute of General Physics named after A.M. Prokhorov RAS, member of the Council of Young Scientists RAS
1. The reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences had an extremely negative impact on young scientists in general and the Council of Young Scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences in particular. Opportunities for obtaining funding for scientific and scientific-organizational activities have significantly decreased. The support programs for young scientists that existed in the Russian Academy of Sciences were canceled or severely curtailed. The career trajectory of the young scientist, clearly outlined in the former RAS, has become very vague and uncertain. Young people have lost a very important incentive to work in national science. Accordingly, there is an outflow of young people from this sphere, and their condition becomes even more depressing.
2. The directional evolution of the academy is clearly moving towards the creation of a “club of honored scientists”. This process can hardly be called development. Academic institutions all last years survived, adapting to new realities, and this situation does not change. Saves the safety margin accumulated since the time of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The influx of young people - students, graduate students, junior researchers - to institutes, I think, will continue to decline, since the prestige of science in our country remains at the same level - near zero. As a result, there will be a natural reduction in the number of research institutes and scientific topics. The main losses will be in the area basic research, applied developments, possibly, will develop in centers like Skolkovo or the Scientific and Technological Valley of Moscow State University. One should not expect serious scientific breakthroughs in such a situation.
Askold Ivanchik is a famous Russian historian. He conducts research both in Russia and abroad. He is the Chief Researcher of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the head of the historical department of the RANEPA and the Directeur de recherche at the National Center for Scientific Research (Institute for the Study of Antiquity and the Middle Ages Ausonius, Bordeaux, France).
Askold Igorevich is a member of the Science Council, an expert and analytical body under the Ministry of Education and Science, created under Minister Dmitry Livanov and continuing to work under Minister Olga Vasilyeva. The work of the Council is in demand both by society and by officials. The Science Council not only publicly speaks out with its proposals on topical problems of science and education, but also conducts, in a closed mode, an examination of the internal documents of the Ministry.
When you add a new element to the picture of the world
- How and when did you get the desire to become an archaeologist?
- It happened quite early, I don't even remember when. Already at the age of 8, I thought that I would become an archaeologist, and there was always an interest in the past. For my family, my choice of a humanitarian profession was not obvious, since my parents are both natural scientists, my father is a physicist, my mother is a biologist. And my brother became a physicist, that's why I am such a “black sheep in the family,” as they say.
But my parents always believed that the main thing is that the child grows up in love and understanding, and support our interests with my brother, therefore, when I went to the third grade of school at the age of 8, they enrolled me in an archaeological circle in the Palace of Pioneers on Vorobyovy Gory , where I went to the end of school.
I was very lucky with this circle, it was led by a researcher at the Institute of Archeology and a great enthusiast Boris Georgievich Peters, an extremely bright personality. A significant part of the currently working Moscow archaeologists went through his circle. They all keep the best memories of him, and many continued to communicate with him until the very end: he died last year at the age of 90.
My interest in history was competing with a great interest in animals, in their behavior; in grades 7-8, I learned that there is a special science that deals with this, ethology, and for some time I even hesitated in my choice future profession, but, in the end, the love of antiquities won out.
So I wanted to become an archaeologist for a long time, but then I switched to writing texts - this already happened at the university. However, I did not leave archeology either.
- What brings you the greatest joy in your scientific work?
- When it is interesting, when you understand something new, which no one before you knew or noticed, and you add a new element to the picture of the world.
- What is the most boring thing for you in your scientific work?
– Technical work... For example, when you need to draw up a bibliography of your own, and especially someone else's article; it is not surprising that some colleagues entrust it to others ...
- What upsets you the most in scientific work?
- If you come across cases when colleagues show bad faith, moreover, deliberately. When they don't just make mistakes, but deliberately ignore what they know, when they deliberately go for forgery.
- You became a doctor of science very early, at the age of 31. What is the subject of your scientific interest, have your research areas changed?
- Yes, they did. As I said, all my school years I was interested in archeology, after entering Moscow University, too. I was especially interested in ancient archeology - Ancient Greece and Rome, as well as Scythian. But already at the university, I quickly realized that in order to study antiquity, you need to know ancient languages well, otherwise nothing serious can be done.
And since archaeologists then and now were not actually taught languages, they were only introduced, I chose the department of ancient history for specialization, where the teaching of ancient languages was. I soon realized that there, too, languages were given insufficiently. Therefore, I studied ancient languages at the Department of Classical Philology. This is how I received an education in history and philology, and gradually the center of my interests shifted to the study of written texts.
But I have always continued to study archeology, and continue to do so now; In my work, I try to combine archaeological data with data from written sources, I participate in excavations and even led archaeological projects, in particular in Turkey.
From the age of 14 until now, I probably only missed two or three field seasons when I was not involved in the excavation.
After university I was very lucky - I was offered the position of laboratory assistant at the Academic Institute of Oriental Studies. At that time it was very difficult to find a job in my specialty, and the fact that I was taken to this institute was the result of a rare and happy coincidence. One of the conditions for applying for a job was the need to learn one of the Eastern languages.
In the office with a colleague in the journal "Bulletin of Ancient History"
I chose Akkadian, and for my dissertation, a topic that needed both Akkadian cuneiform texts and Greek sources. This was a pretty significant change in direction. After a while, I returned to antiquity, now I am mainly engaged in epigraphy, that is, inscriptions on stone, in Greek and Latin, including those originating from the Northern Black Sea region.
In addition, for the past seven years I have been leading an archaeological exploration project in Turkey. We researched a very interesting ancient city Kelena, it is well described in sources, there was one of the residences of the kings, first Persian kings, then Hellenistic, after Alexander the Great captured it. In Roman times, this city was considered the largest after Ephesus. shopping center throughout Asia. However, it has never been researched before. During our exploration, many interesting results were obtained, in particular, about a hundred new inscriptions were discovered.
- What are your efforts in science directed at now?
- Now I have three main areas of work. Firstly, this is the processing of the results of these field studies in Turkey, secondly, I continue to deal with Greek-Iranian relations, the images of Iranians in Greek literature, and thirdly, perhaps, for me, the most important direction of work is the study of Greek and Latin inscriptions of the Northern Black Sea region.
"It doesn't matter what language it is in - you have to read it."
- How many ancient or modern languages you know? Was it difficult to teach them?
- It is always difficult to answer this question, because it is not entirely clear what it means to “know the language”. Some linguists are said to know a hundred languages, but what is really meant is that he has an idea of their structure. The answer to this question will be different, depending on what is meant by this concept. It's one thing to know colloquial be able to speak the language. Another thing is to be able to read.
I speak French, German, English, Bulgarian, I can barely explain myself in Italian. A little bit in Modern Greek, even less, quite a bit, in Turkish. But I can read or parse scientific texts in almost all European languages, except for Finno-Ugric.
The great Russian orientalist Igor Mikhailovich Dyakonov, whom I consider one of my teachers, forbade his students to cite ignorance of the language as the reason that they could not read any book or article, he said: “If there is an important article on the topic you need , no matter what language it is in - you have to read it. "
Actually, in fact, knowing Latin and one of the Romance languages, you can read quite easily in other Romance languages. Knowing German and English, you can make out the text in any German. When I need to read an article in Dutch or Swedish (this happens), which I have never learned specifically, I can figure it out with the dictionary. It's even easier with Slavic languages.
It is sometimes said that these problems will be solved by machine translation. Perhaps it will be so someday, but what I have seen so far gives a relatively decent result for English, much worse for German and French - but for them I don't need it. For Turkish, for example, the translation is so bad that it is often not clear from it what the speech is about.
Of the ancients, my main languages are ancient Greek and Latin - at the university, in parallel with the Faculty of History, I took a course of studying them at the Department of Classical Philology, and I still work mainly with texts in these languages. After university he studied Akkadian; in fact, my Ph.D. is built mainly on Akkadian texts, at the same time I studied ancient Persian and Avestan, and then - Hebrew and the very basics of Hittite.
- When you read the inscriptions in Greek and Latin, can you reconstruct the way of thinking of ancient people? How were they similar to us? How were they different?
- One of the main advantages of studying inscriptions is that you work with new, hitherto unknown, sources. After all, all the texts that have come down to us from antiquity in manuscripts, with very few exceptions, were already known in the middle of the 19th century, published by the end of the 19th century, so all these literary texts were commented and studied many times.
New inscriptions are found every year. Each excavation, and there are many of them, brings new texts. The texts are very different, they can be small, or they can be long, in dozens of lines. And each of these inscriptions gives us something new, allows us to take a fresh look at the most different problems associated with antiquity, and the history of economics or religion, and the history of literature or language.
They are written in different dialects and this provides information for linguistic research. So, of course, each new inscription expands our understanding of what the ancient people were, what they thought, what they were doing, from this point of view, each new inscription is a new brick in our knowledge of history.
And what about whether the inhabitants of the ancient era were different from us, then it depends on what to have in mind. If we talk about the external conditions of life, then, of course, they were different, just as we differ from our parents and our grandfathers. But, say, from the point of view of the structure of consciousness, thinking, they were not fundamentally different.
In general, there are two points of view on whether the thinking of ancient people was different from ours. Some believe that it has not fundamentally changed since the Stone Age, only the amount of information and some ways of understanding it differ. Others believe that ancient people had a special mythological thinking. I am a supporter of the first point of view and do not believe in mythological thinking.
- What found and deciphered inscription are you most proud of?
- Generally speaking, it is incorrect to say “deciphered” about inscriptions written in well-known languages that I work - this is more likely to be said about texts written in an unknown language, an unknown writing system, or deliberately encrypted. Epigraphists usually speak not about deciphered, but about read inscriptions.
Actually, I am proud of every inscription I read and published for the first time, or rather, every one of them is dear to me.
The largest epigraphist of the 20th century, Louis Robert, whose works for all of us are a model to strive for, said that there are no banal inscriptions, there are banal interpretations.
And this is true - every inscription, even the most ordinary-looking at first glance, is capable of giving new information... But, of course, there are texts that provide such information more than others.
Perhaps, from the inscriptions that I have been working on recently, I will mention one of those that we discovered during the research of Kelen in Turkey. It is applied to a large stone block and is badly damaged, so that its maintenance is difficult to restore - we are talking about the construction of some kind of structure on the family plot; she herself is very early - the end of the 6th - beginning of the 5th centuries. BC.
But the most interesting thing is that it was written not in Greek or Latin, but in one of the Asia Minor languages - Lydian. Such inscriptions are very rare in themselves - just over a hundred of them are known. But they are even less common outside of Lydia, located significantly west of Kelen: so far only one such inscription has been known. The Kelenes are located on the territory of a completely different historical region - Phrygia, inhabited by a completely different people who spoke a different language and used their own writing system.
So we found a second Lydian inscription on a stone outside Lydia. It allows us to draw a number of important historical conclusions about the relationship between Lydia and Phrygia during the period of Persian rule and before the Persian conquest. Among other things, it can be compared with one story of Herodotus, according to which during the campaign of the Persian king Xerxes against the Greeks, his army stopped at Keleni.
Study of an inscription from the Roman era in the Phrygian Apamea. Photo from the archive of Askold Ivanchik
Here the king and all his army were met by a certain Lydian named Pythias, who obviously had significant possessions in the city and its environs: he was not only able to adequately accept and support the king, his court and the entire huge army at his own expense, but also offered to donate to the king's campaign was a colossal amount: about 52 tons of silver and about 34 tons of gold. His generosity is not surprising - this Kelenian Lydian had a reputation as the richest man in the world after the Persian king himself.
The inscription we found for the first time testifies to the fact that behind the story of Herodotus lies a historical reality - in the Phrygian city of Kelene there were indeed Lydians who had land holdings, held a high position in society and retained their national identity.
Among other inscriptions, I can name a recently published text from Tanais, a Greek colony at the mouth of the Don, which allowed a fresh look at the problem of relations between Rome and the Bosporus kingdom, in particular, the problem of the presence of Roman troops here.
- Did you find something interesting during archaeological excavations or deciphering the inscriptions that is connected with the first Christians or the history of Christianity?
- Yes, it happened. At one time, I participated in the excavation of the agora, i.e. central square, the Greek city of Argos in the Peloponnese. The Agora served at the same time as a public, religious and commercial center of each Greek polis, so that the most important buildings and structures were concentrated here. I then dug a well that I found in the center of the agora.
The most interesting objects found in it belonged to the very last period of the agora's life, when it was abandoned, and most of the structures located here were destroyed. Accordingly, the well was no longer used, and very quickly, almost instantly, it was filled with debris associated with the destruction of the surrounding buildings; this happened in the first years of the 5th century. AD
Fragments of destructible buildings were dropped into the well ( facing tiles, architectural terracotta, window glass etc.); among them were found several heads of marble statues, which were deliberately beaten off, their faces were damaged, and they themselves were thrown into a well. All these, naturally, are material traces of the struggle of Christianity, which had already become the state religion in the empire, with the last pagans - in Argos, pagan sanctuaries continued to function until the very end of the 4th century.
The laws in force at that time in the empire did not directly require the closure and destruction of existing temples, but prohibited the restoration of already destroyed sanctuaries. In Greece, the death of paganism was accelerated by the raids of the Goths, who, in particular, took by storm Argos in 396; they were mainly engaged in robbery, but since they were Christians of the Arian persuasion, the favorite target of their attacks was still quite numerous pagan sanctuaries.
The Argos could not rebuild the destroyed agora sanctuaries without violating the recently adopted imperial edict; on the contrary, the local Christians, relying on him, apparently completed the destruction of what was still in ruins after the Gothic raid and finally destroyed the remains of the agora sanctuaries. So, paradoxically, the actions of the barbarian invaders and central administration empires, coinciding in time, strengthened each other and finally allowed the Argos Christians to deal a mortal blow to the local paganism.
The material found in the filling of the well contains a number of testimonies that the completion of the destruction of the sanctuaries was carried out with special passion, which, obviously, indirectly testifies to the preservation of sufficiently strong positions by paganism in the city. This is evidenced by another find made in the well - a slab made of good marble and bearing an inscription informing about the restoration of the Temple of Hera by the Emperor Hadrian after a fire.
The inscription was stripped from the facade of the building, but instead of being used as a material for new construction, as was usually done, it was broken into small pieces, all the pieces were put together and thrown into the well, so that we were able to glue it completely. At the same time, the first blow, from which the slab split, was inflicted exactly on the name of the hated goddess.
But perhaps even more interesting is something else: the fact that the well was used not only for dumping garbage, but also for other purposes. About a hundred lamps were found in it, one of which preserved traces of an inscription made in ink, as well as several lead tablets with poorly preserved inscriptions.
These findings are associated with magical practices: spells were applied to lead plates, and lamps were used in rituals: they were thrown into the well lit up. Thus, the belief in the power of magic was extremely widespread here even after the victory of Christianity: magic actions and rituals were often practiced, despite their unequivocal condemnation of the Christian Church.
Abandoned wells, like graves, were favorite places for these activities. It was believed that they, like the graves, provide direct access to the afterlife, inhabited by the forces involved in the course of these actions. To induce damage, it was necessary to place the text of the spell closer to these forces, so they are usually found either in graves or in wells.
Thus, thanks to these findings, it was possible to find out that paganism was retained in Argos until the very end of the 4th century. AD and the final blow was dealt to him by the Gothic raids, after which it was no longer possible to restore the sanctuaries. However, even after the victory of Christianity, the locals did not abandon their former superstitions and willingly resorted to forbidden magic rituals.
Another example is related to the already mentioned works in Turkey: we found a number of tombstones that contained the formula already fixed in other inscriptions. All of them belong to the 3rd century. AD, i.e. by the time when Christianity was still often persecuted in the Roman Empire, and in best case- he was tolerated.
One of the problems in the Greek cities of Asia Minor, as well as in other places, was the lack of space in cemeteries and their high cost, as well as the high cost of gravestones. Therefore, many tried to bury the dead in other people's tombs, which was punishable by rather large fines. Therefore, on many tombstones, all those who had the right to be buried in the corresponding tomb (usually still alive) are listed, and then the threat follows - if someone else buries here, then such and such a fine will pay. On a number of tombstones, this common formula is replaced by another - he will answer before God.
This appeal not to civil authorities, but to Heaven, and the threat not with an earthly penalty, but with divine retribution (however, sometimes both formulas are used) is a new phenomenon that can be associated with the spread of Christianity. Indeed, some of the inscriptions of this group contain Christian symbols (cross, fish, etc.). But on others similar in content, the symbols are not Christian, but Jewish (menorah, shofar). If there are neither one nor the other, then it is impossible to separate the Christian from the Jewish tombstones, which, incidentally, is not surprising, since Christianity initially spread precisely in the Jewish environment - not only, of course, but to a significant extent.
- Did Schliemann really find Troy? And do you agree that it would be better if he did not carry out these excavations, but they were carried out by modern scientists at the proper scientific level?
- If the answer is simple, then yes, but if it goes deeper, then everything is more complicated and depends on what is called Troy. The three Homeric poems and Greek mythology are not exactly the same as the real city of Troy, which was its prototype. An epic is not a historical composition. In any case, in antiquity, and already in the archaic era, it was believed that Homeric Troy or Ilion was located on the very hill of Hisarlik, which Schliemann began to excavate, and at this place the ancient city continued to exist until the Byzantine era.
By the way, this hill was identified with Troy long before Schliemann, and even he was not the first to start excavations - his merit is not that he "found" Troy or was the first archaeologist who dug it, but that his excavations were large-scale and attracted everyone's attention.
As for their quality, they, of course, do not correspond to modern requirements, and even to the level of science of his time, and he lost a lot of information; in addition, he is suspected of falsifying data.
Of course, modern scientists would conduct excavations at a higher level (in fact, they are doing it - excavations in Troy continue). But the same can be said about almost any excavation of his time and later.
It can be assumed that in a hundred years the same reproaches can be addressed to modern researchers: archeology is developing rapidly and its methods are also rapidly being updated. But this, of course, is not a reason to do nothing: if all the monuments are preserved for posterity, then archeology itself will cease to develop. However, many believe that it is necessary to excavate first of all those monuments that are under the threat of destruction by man or nature, and I also agree with that. The problem, however, is that those monuments, which, it would seem, are not in danger, may be destroyed unexpectedly, and there are many such cases.
Photo by Natalia Demina
I try not to make judgments about what I don't understand.
- What ethical principles are most important in the work of a scientist, and have they changed during your work in science and now?
– Ethical principles? Scientific honesty. Perhaps most importantly, many things are deduced from this. I do not see anything terrible if a person is conscientiously mistaken, this is a normal phenomenon, or is not able to do something, he (she) lacks education or intelligence, this is nothing terrible. But if a person deliberately goes to forgery or distorts data, then this is a violation of the foundations of the ethics of science. The ethics of science is quite conservative, and, in my opinion, hardly changes over time.
- What is your attitude to religion?
- I am Orthodox, practicing. My mother was Orthodox, she baptized me in childhood, for me Orthodoxy is also a part of the family tradition, but consciously I started going to church at the age of 16-17. Mom was not very churchly, she went to services only on very important occasions or major holidays, but Easter was considered the most important holiday of the year in the family, it was celebrated very widely, with a large number of guests.
As you can imagine, in Soviet time the attitude towards the Church and religion was different, they were practically banned, and for any, the most insignificant, manifestations of religiosity it was easy to suffer, so in fact it was not advertised at all. But in general, Orthodoxy has been present in my life since childhood, and, unfortunately, I have not experienced that worldview change - very beneficial, in my opinion - that was experienced by neophytes from atheistic families. My wife is in this position, she is still much more church-going than I am, and even has been the headman of the parish for quite some time.
- Have you ever thought about how life appeared on Earth? Do you see the contradictions between the evolutionary picture of the world and Orthodox dogmas?
- I think that none of the serious modern theologians adhere to traditional creationist views, do not take Genesis literally, and do not consider it a direct description of reality. I am not an expert, but physicists talk about the Big Bang, about the birth of the Universe, which is even quite accurately dated. If we talk about the act of creation, then it is very similar to it. As for the appearance of life on earth, then, as far as I understand, there is no convincing scientific answer to this question yet, and discussions continue. If and when such an answer is formulated, I will stick to it. In general, I try not to express judgments on those issues that I do not understand well, and prefer to trust specialists.
A golden cult vessel discovered in 2013 during excavations of a Scythian burial mound in the Stavropol Territory
(excavation leader A.B. Belinsky)
Photo from the archive of Askold Ivanchik
- And what, in your opinion, made a person a person? How are we different from animals?
- This is also a question to which there is no clear answer. The border between animals and humans is quite thin, it is sometimes said that a person is distinguished by language skills or the ability to think abstractly. There have been many different discussions and studies, and it turns out that some species of animals have signaling systems that are close to language, can be called language. The same applies to the manufacture and use of tools - some species of animals are capable of this. In general, in my opinion, the border here is quite thin, and it is difficult to answer this question. Christians believe that humans, unlike animals, have free will and therefore are responsible for their actions. Therefore, concepts such as sin and virtue, in general, concepts associated with ethics, are applicable only to people, but not to animals. I share this point of view.
- Now in the scientific community there is a lot of controversy about the attitude towards religion, about the attitude towards faith in God, even the opinion is expressed that a real scientist cannot be a believer. What do you answer to these theses?
- It is rather boring to discuss this, because the arguments of the parties have already been stated a hundred times over the past centuries. As for the statement “a real scientist cannot be a believer,” it is very easy to refute - it is enough to give just one example that contradicts him. At the same time, lists of believers, outstanding scientists belonging to different confessions, including our contemporaries, have been cited many times.
I think that religion irritates secular people when it begins to impose on them and claim a role in the life of society that this society is not ready to give it, when people see explicit or hidden forms of compulsion to religion, and even more so when it becomes state.
In general, religion is a private affair of each person, and for the Church, I am deeply sure, it is much more useful to be separate from the state than subordinate to it.
Paradoxically, it is more useful for the Church to be persecuted than to be the state. The situation in Russian Orthodox Church in the synodal period or now, in my opinion, it is much less healthy than in churches - both Catholic and Orthodox - in such an anti-clerical country as modern France.
And even though the Church was under pressure in Soviet times, how they tried to corrupt it from the inside, including by recruiting clergy, all the same, in my opinion, the situation in which it was in those days when it could not count on government support, on the power of power, but only on oneself, only on one's spiritual strength, for the Church this situation was healthier than the one in which it is now.
Now, unfortunately, she is relying more not on her spiritual foundation and spiritual strength, but on state support, she has again become a part of the state, as in the days of the Russian Empire. In my opinion, the presence of a state religion is very harmful for both the Church and the state - in this situation, the Church loses its authority and power.
I have already mentioned France, where the Catholic Church is rigidly separated from the state. She, of course, is not physically persecuted, but being a practicing Catholic is not very comfortable, especially in intellectual, university circles, and people prefer not to expand on this topic - unlike atheists, who, on the contrary, do not miss the opportunity to go over religion.
Actually, this anticlericalism, which is still part of French mentality is a reaction to the clericalism of the "old regime" of France in the 18th century, when the state Church played a huge role in the life of society, and its ministers occupied a privileged position. More than two hundred years have passed, and the tradition dating back to the atheists and anticlericals of the 18th century is still alive. By the way, in Russia, too, the hatred with which Russian people, primarily ordinary peasants, burned churches and killed priests after the revolution, is explained by the fact that the Church for them was part of the hated imperial state.
Orthodox believers less often in aliens, reptilians and psychics
- Do you think you need to take any special efforts to popularize science in the Orthodox community, or not?
- It makes no sense to popularize science specifically in the Orthodox community, because the Orthodox community in relation to science is no different from the non-Orthodox, and in general, how can you separate the Orthodox from the non-Orthodox? According to various sources in Russia, from 42 to 75% of the population consider themselves Orthodox, while many of them do not have the slightest idea about Orthodoxy or Christianity in general, and have not been to church since birth. Published recently sociological survey, according to which many of those who consider themselves Orthodox, at the same time claim that they do not believe in God. Are they part of the Orthodox community or not?
And if we talk about conscientious Orthodox people, i.e. even if they are well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures and who know the church life, among them the percentage of educated people is much higher than the average in Russia. However, having an education does not at all guarantee the absence of pseudoscientific ideas and adherence to superstitions. But even here, in my experience, the situation among atheists and agnostics is no better, and, as it were, no worse than among the Orthodox. In any case, the Orthodox believe in aliens, reptilians and psychics less often, as well as, for example, in astrology. Therefore, it is necessary to engage in enlightenment and popularization of science among all our fellow citizens, regardless of their religion or attitude to religion.
– What is the main problem of modern Christianity (regardless of denominations within)?
– The main problem of modern Christianity is the constant need to find ways to coexist with a changing society.
Christians must constantly find their place in a changing world, remaining part of this world, remaining modern people, but at the same time not abandoning the Christian faith and ideals.
In the modern world there are many non-Christian countries, and countries that are traditionally Christian, for the most part, are no longer such, they are dominated by a secular, secular worldview. The Christian is just one of the possible views of the world, and we Christians must reckon with the fact that we do not have a dominant position. In general, the main problem is how to live in the world and build relationships with the world while remaining Christians. However, this problem is eternal, Christians have always had it.
– What do you see main force modern Christianity?
– Again, what has always been, Christ.
– I know you have a wonderful family. Can you say a few words about her?
– Family is very important to me, it is my support and source of love, without which it is difficult to live. I have three children, whom I love very much, the two older ones have already separated from us. They study in another city, and the youngest, ten years old, is with us.
Askold Ivanchik with his wife at the opening of the Last Address sign in memory of Osip Mandelstam in Moscow. Photo by Natalia Demina
– What would you like to convey to the children and is it possible to convey it?
– I would like them to be themselves and understand what they want, and would have the desire and will to achieve it. I try to help them so that they find themselves and understand what they want and what they need; this, it turns out, is not always easy. The main thing is not to impose on them their own ideas about what they should do in life, but to help develop their own.
– Are they Orthodox too?
– They were brought up in the Orthodox tradition, but they cannot be called very active believers. In any case, they have no rejection of religion, and in general, yes, they are Orthodox. For them, the church is such a family affair where everything is familiar; they can go there, and they will not feel embarrassed in a foreign place, like many people who come to church as an adult. Orthodoxy for them is their own, this is their home.
– Were there moments in your life when you lost heart, and how did you overcome these situations?
– Somehow it worked out by itself.
– And there were moments professional burnout, when you were disappointed even in your profession, did this happen?
– In the profession as a whole, no. It happens that a certain direction of activity gets bored, and then you change direction, it refreshes.
– What is loneliness for you? Do you love being alone?
– I'm not afraid of loneliness, but I'm not looking for it either. For work, I prefer to be alone.
On the general meeting RAS. Photo by Natalia Demina
- Do you think you live better than your parents?
- Yes, better, of course.
- In the material, most likely, everyone will say yes, but in the spiritual?
- Both in the material and spiritual - yes, and with all the claims that can be made to our era, it is still much freer, much more interesting than the 60s and 70s than the Soviet era. Of course, now there is more freedom, less fear, and peace is available.
– What annoys you the most in life?
– It is stupidity in people if it is aggressive and active.
– Have you learned to forgive?
– It seems to me that yes, I rarely have strong negative feelings towards people, for example, the feeling of hatred, and it passes rather quickly. Perhaps now there are no people about whom I can say that I hate them.
- Is there such a thing that you could not forgive anyone? When will you always remember someone's bad deed?
- I usually remember about actions that I consider bad, unacceptable, my memory is good, and from the actions of people I draw appropriate conclusions. At the same time, I do not have any strong feelings for them, for example, I am almost never guided by a feeling of resentment and I try to evaluate people rationally.
For example, I can continue to communicate quite nicely with a person, but understand that I will never carry on with him joint work, or ready to work with him, but not ready to communicate outside the working context. With some people, I just try to avoid meeting or other contact. For example, there are 2-3 people with whom I avoid even participating in joint conferences and always decline an invitation if I know they will be there, and even more so if this person is on the organizing committee. Not that I didn’t forgive them something, but I believe that there should be some scientific and behavioral hygiene.
- To conclude our conversation, let's talk about reading. Can you name your favorite book or are there many?
– Somehow I do not understand how you can answer the question about your favorite book, this question can be answered by a person who read three books and liked one. Since childhood, I have read quite a lot, and I still read a lot now.
- I was not a child prodigy, but I began to read quite early, at the age of 4 I already read it and loved to do it, and the family told stories that when I was taken to kindergarten, the teachers were very pleased: they gave me a book, seated me around other children, I read them aloud, and the teachers themselves quietly drank tea.
- Hypothetically, you are sent to an uninhabited island, and you take 10 books with you, can you tell right away what you will take with you?
– No, I will not choose, I will take what I manage to save from the sinking ship.
– Thank you very much for the interview.
Russian historian. Doctor of Historical Sciences (1996), Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2003), Editor-in-Chief of the Bulletin of Ancient History, Chief Researcher, Scientific Director of the Department for Comparative Study of Ancient Civilizations of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Laboratory for Comprehensive Historical Research of the State and Municipal Administration of the Faculty of History, ION RANEPA, Professor of the Department of History the ancient world Faculty of History, Moscow State University, Head of the Sector of Eastern and Hellenistic Archeology of the Department of Scientific Research of the Institute for Computational Studies of the Russian State Humanitarian University, Chairman of the Organizing Committee of the Russian Association of Antiquities.
Was born on May 2, 1965 in Moscow. In 1986 he graduated from the history faculty of Moscow State University. Until 1992 - an employee of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1989, under the leadership of E.A. Grantovsky defended his Ph.D. thesis on the topic "Cimmerians in Asia Minor". Since 1993 he has been working at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1996 he defended his doctoral dissertation at the University of Friborg (Switzerland). Since 2002 - Corresponding Member of the German Archaeological Institute, since 2004 - Corresponding Member of the Italian Institute for Asia and Africa. In 2003 he was elected a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Since 2009 he has been the editor-in-chief of the journal "Bulletin of Ancient History".
V different years was invited for scientific work and teaching at foreign research centers: the universities of Friborg and Bern (Switzerland, 1990-1992), the University of Heidelberg (Scholar of the A. von Humboldt Foundation, 1993-1995) and the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin (laureate of the V. von Bessel, 2004-2005) (Germany), Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington (1996-1997) and Institute for Higher Studies at Princeton (USA, 2001-2002), University of Strasbourg (France, 1997-1998), Swedish College of Higher Studies ( Uppsala, 2008).
Author of over 170 scientific publications. Research interests include Greek and Latin epigraphy, ancient history and archeology of the Black Sea region, Asia Minor and the steppes of Eurasia, ancient Greek colonization, ancient literary tradition about the East, ancient ethnography.
Compositions:
Les Cimmériens au Proche-Orient. Friborg Suisse, Göttingen, 1993.
Konransuru Roshiano Kagaku. Tokyo, 1995. ("Science and Scientists in Russia", in Japanese, with II Ivanchik.)
Cimmerians. Ancient Eastern civilizations and steppe nomads in the VIII-VII centuries BC. M., 1996.
Cimmerians and Scythians / Kimmerier und Skythen (Steppenvölker Eurasiens, II). M., Berlin, 2001.
On the Eve of Colonization / Am Vorabend der Kolonization (Pontus Septentrionalis, III). M., Berlin, 2005.
Une koinè pontique. Cités grecques, sociétés indigènes et empires mondiaux sur le littoral nord de la Mer Noire (VIIe s. A.C. - IIIe s. P.C.). Bordeaux, 2007, ed. avec A.Bresson & J.-L. Ferrary.
Achaemenid Culture and Local Traditions in Anatolia, Southern Caucasus and Iran. New Discoveris. Leiden, 2007, ed. with V.Licheli.
Sinope. The Results of Fifteen Years of Research (Special volume of the Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 16, 2010). Leiden, Boston, 2011, ed. with D. Kassab-Tezgör.
Kelainai - Apamée Kibôtos: Développement urbain dans le contexte anatolien / Kelainai - Apameia Kibotos: Stadtentwicklung im anatolischen Kontext (Kelainai, I). Bordeaux, 2011.
Askold I. Ivanchik(born May 2, 1965, Moscow) - Russian historian-antiquarian and orientalist. Doctor of Historical Sciences (1996), Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences since May 22, 2003 in the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences. Chief Researcher, Head of the Department for Comparative Study of Ancient Civilizations of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of History, RANEPA, Professor of Moscow State University and Russian State Humanitarian University.
President of the Russian Association of Antiquities, Editor-in-Chief of the journals "Bulletin of Ancient History" (since 2009) and "Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia" (Leiden). Directeur de recherche at the National Center for Scientific Research (Institute for the Study of Antiquity and the Middle Ages Ausonius, Bordeaux, France), Senior Fellow at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University, Member of the International Council of Indo-European Studies and Frakology (Sofia, Bulgaria), Corresponding Member of the German Archaeological Institute (2002), Italian Institute for Asia and Africa (2004) and French Academy of Inscriptions and Literature (2016).
The main works are devoted to the problems of the history of the peoples of the Black Sea region of the ancient era on the basis of a comparative study of ancient and Middle Eastern written sources, as well as archaeological data, ancient Greek colonization, Greek and Latin epigraphy, and Scythology.
Biography
Son of physicist I. I. Ivanchik. Graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University (1986, specialized in the Department of the History of the Ancient World) and postgraduate studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1989); student of E. A. Grantovsky. He worked at the Institute of Oriental Studies (1986-1992), since 1993 - at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 2002 - the representative of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the International Council for Science. Member of the Council of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (2010-2016), Deputy Chairman of the Council for Science under the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (since 2013). Chief Researcher of the Laboratory for Complex Historical Research, Faculty of History, ION, RANEPA.
Invited for research and teaching at the University of Friborg and the University of Bern (Switzerland, 1990-1992), the University of Heidelberg (Germany, 1993-1995), the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington (1996-1997) and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton (USA, 2001) -2002), University of Strasbourg (1997-1998) and National Center for Scientific Research in Bordeaux (France), College of Advanced Studies in Uppsala (Sweden, 2008). I was many times invited to read reports at international conferences... Member of archaeological expeditions in southern Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey.
Author of over 170 scientific publications, including 5 monographs. Member of the editorial board of the journals Herald of Ancient History (since 1997), Il mar Nero (Rome, Paris, Bucharest, since 1999), Revue des tudes anciennes (Bordeaux, since 2006), Nartamong. Revue des tudes alano-osstiques "(Vladikavkaz, Paris) and" Epigraphic Bulletin "(Moscow). Chief Editor Russian-German book series "Steppe Peoples of Eurasia", "Corpus tumulorum scythicorum et sarmaticorum" (with G. Parzinger) and "Pontus Septentrionalis". Head of international scientific projects "Corpus of Greek and Latin Inscriptions of the Northern Black Sea Region" (IOSPE) and "Kelene - Apameya Kybotots: royal residence in Phrygia" (together with L. Zummerer, University of Munich). Fellow of the A. von Humboldt Foundation (1993-1995), laureate of the F.-W. von Bessel (Germany, 2002).
In July 2013, in protest against the Government's plans for the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, expressed in the project Federal law"On the Russian Academy of Sciences, the reorganization of the state academies of sciences and amendments to certain legislative acts Russian Federation”305828-6, declared his refusal to join the new academy established by the proposed law (see Club July 1). Since 2014 - a member of the Free Historical Society.
Work
- Cimmerians in Western Asia. Abstract of the thesis. diss. ... to. And. n. M., IV. 1989.
- Cimmerians. Ancient Eastern civilizations and steppe nomads in the VIII-VII centuries BC e. M., 1996. (1st ed .: A. I. Ivantchik. Les Cimmerienns au proche-Orient. Friborg, Suisse, Gttingen, 1993; review: VDI. 1997. No. 4.)
- Cimmerians and Scythians. Cultural-historical and chronological problems of archeology of the Eastern European steppes and the Caucasus of the pre- and early Scythian time. Moscow-Berlin: Palaeograf, 2001.323 pp. (Series "Steppe peoples of Eurasia". Vol. 2)
- On the eve of colonization. Northern Black Sea region and steppe nomads of the 8th-7th centuries BC in the ancient literary tradition: folklore, literature and history. Moscow-Berlin, 2005.311 pp. (Reviews by S.R. Tokhtasiev and S.V. Kullandy - VDI. 2008. No. 1. P. 193-210, A.I. Ivanchik's answer to opponents - VDI. 2009. No. 2.S. 62-88)
Ivanchik Askold Igorevich
Diplomas and degrees
Diploma of higher education: Faculty of History, Moscow State University (1986),
Candidate of Historical Sciences (1989, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences),
Doctor of Historical Sciences (1996, University of Friborg, Switzerland, habilitation, recognized by the Higher Attestation Commission in the same year).
Scientific and pedagogical work
1986-1993 - Senior Laboratory Assistant, Junior Researcher, Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences - RAS
since 1994 - Researcher, Senior, Leading, Chief Researcher, Scientific Director of the Department for the Comparative Study of Ancient Civilizations of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Since 1998 - Research Fellow (chargé de recherche, directeur de recherche) at the National Center for Scientific Research of France (Institute for the Study of Antiquity and the Middle Ages Ausonius, Bordeaux).
1997-1998 - Professor of Archeology at the University of Strasbourg (France).
Since 2007 - Professor of the Faculty of History, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov.
Since 2014 - Professor of the Faculty of History, Russian State University for the Humanities, Head. Sector of Eastern and Hellenistic Archeology of the Institute of Oriental Cultures and Antiquity.
Since 2015 - acting Dean of the Faculty of History, RANEPA
Over the years - visiting professor at Moscow State University. Lomonosov, University of Bordeaux (France), University of Bern (Switzerland), University of Tbilisi (Georgia).
Member of a number of archaeological expeditions in southern Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, currently the head of the international project of archaeological research in Keleni - Apamey Kibotos (Turkey, Afion province).
Scientific and organizational work
Scientific Director of the Department for Comparative Study of Ancient Civilizations of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences
And about. Dean of the Faculty of History of the Russian Academy of National Economy and public service(since 2015)
Chairman of the Russian Association of Antiquities (since 2009)
Deputy Chairman of the Science Council of the Ministry of Education and Science (since 2013)
Member of the Science Council of the Moscow Government (since 2013)
Member of the Council of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (since 2010)
Representative of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the International Union of Academies (since 2002), member of the Bureau of the Union (since 2012)
Member of the Scientific Council of the international permanent project Achemenet (France)
Member of the International Council for Indo-European Studies and Fracology (Sofia, Bulgaria)
Head of long-term international projects "Corpus of Greek and Latin Inscriptions of the Northern Black Sea Region" (IOSPE) "," Corpus tumulorum scythicorum et sarmaticorum "(under the auspices of the International Union of Academies)," Kelena - Apamea Kibotos: royal residence in southern Phrygia ".
Publishing work
Editor-in-chief of the journals "Bulletin of Ancient History" (Moscow, since 2009) and "Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia" (Leiden, Netherlands, since 2002)
Member of the editorial boards of four international journals.
Editor-in-chief of the series of monographs "Steppe Peoples of Eurasia" (Moscow, Berlin, Bordeaux), "Pontus septentrionalis" (Moscow, Berlin), "Kelainai" (Bordeaux)
Grant project management since 2011
co-financing of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2012-2015), Region of Aquitaine (2012-2015), Labex Sciences archéologiques à Bordeaux (2012-2013), University of Bordeaux (2011-2012)
Digital Library of Ancient Greek Written Heritage of the Northern Black Sea, A.G. Leventis Foundation, 2011-2016
Europeana network of Ancient Greek and Latin Epigraphy, European Commission, 2013-2015 (French leadership of the project)
"Kelene / Apameya Kybotos (South Phrygia) and its districts: study of spatial organization and creation of a geo-information system" RFBR, 2013-2015
"Study and publication of new inscriptions of Apamea Phrygian", Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, 2011-2013.
"Study and publication of the inscriptions of Olbia and Tyra", Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, 2014-2016.
"Crimean Scythia in the system of cultural contacts between East and West (III century BC - VII century AD)", Russian Science Foundation, 2015-2017.
Scientific recognition (membership in academies and scientific societies, competitions, awards)
Corresponding Member of RAS (since 2003)
Corresponding Member of the German Archaeological Institute (since 2002)
Corresponding Member of the Italian Institute for Asia and Africa (since 2004)
Senior Fellow at the Institute for Ancient World Studies at New York University (since 2010)
Senior Fellow in Excellence Cluster Topoi (Berlin), Research Project B-2-4 "Scythian Tombs - between Monumentality and Gigantomania"
1990-1992: Canton Friborg (Switzerland) Scholarship for Young Scientists
1993-1995: Scholarship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Germany), work at the University of Heidelberg.
2001-2002: Member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton (USA)
2004-2005: Prize to them. W. von Bessel (Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany), work at the German Archaeological Institute (Berlin)
2008: Member of the College of Advanced Studies in Uppsala (Sweden)
2010: prize for scientific excellence of the French National Center for Scientific Research
He was many times invited to give plenary and keynote speeches to international congresses, over the past three years 11 times (congresses in Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Italy, France, Turkey)
Publications
Research interests: Greek and Latin epigraphy, ancient history and archeology of the Black Sea region, Asia Minor and the steppes of Eurasia, ancient Greek colonization, ancient literary tradition about the East, ancient ethnography.
Popular
- Preventive maintenance and its role in production
- Planned preventive maintenance of equipment
- On the procedure for placing non-stationary objects of seasonal trade
- Provisions on the placement of non-stationary shopping facilities
- Decorative painting in kindergarten "magic curl" is a joint activity of the teacher and
- Synopsis of the organization and conduct of classes on cognitive development in the second junior group "Bird feeder
- New professions Where to get information about the right specialists
- Plasticine diplodocus. Sculpting lesson. How to easily make basic shapes from plasticine: a ball, cone, cylinder, plait, brick How to make a cylinder from plasticine
- Rating of recruiting agencies
- Rating of recruiting agencies