Suchergebnisse

"Yearbook of Eastern Studies" has been established as a forum for the debate on the multifaceted nature of transformations in Central and Eastern Europe and Asia, with particular focus on the post-Soviet area. The conceptual content of the periodical was born thanks to the professors Zdzislaw J. Winnicki and Walenty Baluk, who edited the first three volumes, which were published formally as separate monographs, but already under the banner of "Wschodnioznawstwo". Since 2010, the Yearbook has the status of a scientific journal, and two years later it has been listed on the journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. In addition, the periodical is indexed in national and international databases such as Index Copernicus, Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, BazHum and Polska Bibliografia Naukowa. The scientific profile of the periodical, which has consistently been implemented since the beginning of the activity of "Yearbook of Eastern Studies", focuses on the field of social sciences, with particular emphasis on the science of politics and science of safety. Its great advantage is its internationalization, which manifests itself both in terms of composition of the scientific council, reviewers, and authors of texts published in the "Wschodnioznawstwo" in Polish, English and Russian languages. Up to now, researchers from Poland, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Czech Republic, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Macedonia, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine have published on the cards of the journal. ; Wydawany przez Zakład Badań Wschodnich od 2007 r. rocznik "Wschodnioznawstwo" powstał jako forum debaty nad wielowymiarowością przemian w regionie Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej oraz Azji, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem obszaru postradzieckiego. Koncepcja merytoryczna periodyku zrodziła się dzięki profesorom Zdzisławowi J. Winnickiemu oraz Walentemu Balukowi, którzy redagowali wspólnie pierwsze trzy tomy, wydane jeszcze z formalnego punktu widzenia jako odrębne monografie, ale już pod szyldem "Wschodnioznawstwa". Od 2010 r. rocznik posiada status czasopisma naukowego, a dwa lata później trafił na listę czasopism punktowanych Ministerstwa Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. Ponadto periodyk jest indeksowany w krajowych i międzynarodowych bazach, takich jak Index Copernicus, Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, BazHum czy Polska Bibliografia Naukowa. Profil naukowy periodyku, który konsekwentnie jest realizowany od początku działalności "Wschodnioznawstwa", koncentruje się wokół dziedziny nauk społecznych, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem nauk o polityce i nauk o bezpieczeństwie. Ogromnym atutem rocznika jest jego umiędzynarodowienie, które przejawia się zarówno w aspekcie składu rady naukowej, recenzentów, jak i autorów tekstów zamieszczanych na łamach "Wschodnioznawstwa" w językach polskim, angielskim i rosyjskim. Do tej pory na kartach periodyku publikowali naukowcy z Polski, Azerbejdżanu, Białorusi, Czech, Gruzji, Japonii, Kazachstanu, Łotwy, Macedonii, Niemiec, Rosji, Słowacji, Ukrainy i Węgier.

Subject article is relevant because It is devoted to description of sources of financing of defense enterprises and peculiarities of selection of sources of financing enterprises of the military-industrial complex. In the first part of the article provides an overview of the financial resources and types of funding organizations and enterprises. Description of modern methods of creating a climate for innovation, supporting innovative ideas, and domestic entrepreneurship. The second part of the article describes the direction, the form of financing for companies, taking into account the peculiarities of the development and operation of defense enterprises. The first phase of the study was to identify the main sources of financing for companies in difficult socio-economic conditions of the potential customer of defense products. The second phase of the study was to determine the ranking factors the use of different sources of funding and its impact on the development of enterprises. The presented research topic is particularly relevant in connection with an increase in the role of sources of financing development of the industry for the growth of innovation activity of enterprises. The urgency of acquiring those aspects of economic relations that with the financing of new projects enterprises of the defense-industrial complex, the financing of the state defense order. In today's economic environment has the need to address financial security of the defense-industrial complex, to attract new sources of funding, development of bank lending in the defense sector and the participation of banks in the financing of projects of the enterprises of the military-industrial complex. The processes of market transformation of enterprises of the military-industrial complex (MIC) have acquired a special significance in relation to defining the role of these enterprises in the country and providing security to the complexity of their adaptation to market conditions. Currently, only a low percentage of civilian goods produced at the enterprises of the military-industrial complex (MIC), is exported. This preserves the low investment activity in the sectors of the military-industrial complex, which is the most high-tech part of the industry. In modern conditions in the Russian Federation military-industrial complex includes industrial companies and research organizations involved in defense research and creation of weapons and military equipment, governments and federal bodies of executive power. Under these circumstances, current CMO exit from the crisis is a problem of formation of an investment to ensure its development system. Objectives. The aim of the article is to study sources of financing and investment enterprises of the military-industrial complex, study and analysis of the financing of investment sphere of defense industry enterprises; Development of the best ways of functioning of the integrated companies with a view to achieving high economic efficiency in the military and economic cooperation on the basis of military technology, defense industry places on its analysis of the global market. Methods. The methodological basis of this article are the economic and statistical analysis methods, regulatory documents in the fi eld of economic security, publications in the fi eld of economic and financial security, public analyzes in the fi eld of development of military-industrial complex. Results. To improve the financial and investment attractiveness of the enterprises of the military-industrial complex need to improve conditions for attracting investments in the defense sector and expand the powers of enterprise credit and financial sector to actively participate in their financing processes of new projects of defense enterprises. State financing of Russian investment sector is characterized by the following features: the source of the reproduction process started only natural resources, many of which are irreplaceable; scarce resources and limited domestic savings, private investors the opportunity to compensate for the lack of public financial resources to overcome the crisis in investment; risky prospects for attracting investment in the real economy through the securities market; set too high price of credit resources, and for the banks is a high risk of untimely return loans and big enough payback period (for example, in mechanical engineering from 3 to 7 years); the passivity of banks and other credit institutions in the capitalization of financial resources; the low efficiency of investment programs associated with attraction of foreign direct investment; the increased export of capital abroad, estimated at billions of dollarst; the main source of investment in the real sector are own funds of enterprises and organizations (60% of total investments); inadequate legal regulation of investment activities of foreign investors in the Russian economy, which reduces the efficiency of the organization of production and the restructuring of a signifi cant number of companies. Thus, the implementation of reforms in the process of market transformation of the military-industrial complex – it is the policy of the new millennium. The processes of globalization and transformation, especially in the search for new sources of financing and investing MIC enterprises, showed the need to find new ways and convert existing lines of financing business projects of the military-industrial complex. of such transformations for Russia is the cornerstone.Conclusions and Relevance. The practical significance of the work lies in the orientation of the provisions of the conclusions and recommendations of the work on the widespread use of search and adaptation funding sources of military-industrial complex may be used by the legislative and executive authorities of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Defence in the current activity. ; Тема статьи актуальна, так как посвящена описанию источников финансирования предприятий ОПК и особенностям подбора источников финансирования предприятий оборонно-производственного комплекса. В первой части статьи делается обзор финансовых ресурсов и видов источников финансирования организаций и предприятий. Описание современных методов создания инновационного климата, поддержки инновационных идей и внутреннего предпринимательства. Вторая часть статьи описывает направление, формы финансирования на предприятиях, учитывая особенности развития и функционирования оборонных предприятий. Первая фаза исследования заключалась в выявлении основных источников финансирования предприятий в сложных социально-экономических условиях потенциального заказчика оборонной продукции. Вторая фаза исследования заключалась в ранжировании факторов, определяющих использование различных источников финансирования и их влияние на развитие предприятий. Представленная тема исследования особенно актуальна в связи с повышением роли источников финансирования на развитие промышленности для роста инновационной активности предприятий. Актуальность приобретают те, аспекты экономических отношений, которые свя-заны с финансированием новых проектов предприятий оборонно-промышленного комплекса, финансированием государственного оборонного заказа. В современных экономических условиях есть необходимость решения проблем финансового обеспечения организаций оборонно-промышленного комплекса, привлечения новых источников финансирования, развития банковского кредитования в оборонном секторе и участия банков в финансировании проектов предприятий оборонно-промышленного комплекса. Процессы рыночной трансформации предприятий оборонно-промышленного комплекса (ОПК) приобрели особую значимость в связи с определяющей ролью этих предприятий в обеспечении безопасности страны и со сложностью их адаптации к условиям рынка. В настоящее время только низкий процент гражданских товаров, производимых на предприятиях оборонно-промышленного комплекса (ОПК), идет на экспорт. При этом сохраняется низкая инвестиционная активность в отраслях оборонно-промышленного комплекса, являющегося наиболее высокотехнологической частью промышленности. В современных условиях в Российской Федерации оборонно-промышленный комплекс включает в себя промышленные предприятия и научные организации, занимающиеся оборонными исследованиями и созданием вооружения и военной техники, органы государственного управления и федеральные органы исполнительной власти. В сложившихся условиях актуальной проблемой выхода ОПК из кризиса является формирование системы инвестиционного обеспечения его развития. Цель / задачи. Целью статьи является проведение анализа финансирования инвестиционной сферы предприятий ОПК; разработка оптимальных путей функционирования интегрированных предприятий с целью достижения высокой экономической эффективности в военно-экономическом сотрудничестве на основе мирового рынка военной техники, места оборонного комплекса на нем и обоснование в направлении расширения источников финансирования и инвестиций предприятий оборонно-промышленного комплекса, Методология. Методической основой данной статьи являются экономико-статистические методы анализа, нормативно-правовые документы в области обеспечения экономической безопасности, публикации в области обеспечения экономической и финансовой безопасности, открытые аналитические материалы в области развития оборонно-промышленного комплекса. Результаты. Для улучшения финансовой и инвестиционной привлекательности предприятий оборонно-промышленного комплекса необходимо улучшить условия привлечения инвестиций в сферу ОПК и расширить полномочия предприятий кредитно-финансовой сферы для активного участия их в процессах финансирования новых проектов предприятий ОПК. Состояние финансирования инвестиционной сферы России характеризуется следующими особенностями: источником воспроизводственного процесса стали исключительно природные ресурсы, многие из которых невосполнимы; незначительный ресурс внутренних накоплений и ограниченная возможность частных инвесторов компенсировать недостаточность государственных финансовых ресурсов для преодоления кризиса в инвестиционной сфере; рискованные перспективы привлечения инвестиций в реальный сектор экономики через рынок ценных бумаг; завышение цены кредитных ресурсов, а для банков сохранение высокого риска несвоевременного возвращения кредитов и достаточно большой срок окупаемости инвестиций (например, в машиностроении от 3 до 7 лет); пассивность банков и других кредитных учреждений в капитализации финансовых ресурсов; низкая эффективность инвестиционных программ, связанных с привлечением прямых иностранных инвестиций; возрос вывоз капитала за границу, оцениваемый в миллиардах долларов; основным источником инвестиций в реальный сектор являются собственные средства предприятий и организаций (более 60% от общего объема инвестиций); недостаточный уровень правовой регламентации инвестиционной деятельности иностранных инвесторов в российский сектор экономики, снижающий эффективность организации производства и его реструктуризацию у значительного числа предприятий. Таким образом, осуществление преобразований в процессе рыночной трансформации оборонно-промышленного комплекса – это политика нового тысячелетия. Процессы глобализации и трансформации, особенно в сфере поиска новых источников финансирования и инвестирования предприятий ОПК, показали необходимость поиска новых путей и преобразования уже имеющихся направлений финансирования проектов предприятий оборонно-промышленного комплекса. проведения таких преобразований для России является особенно важным. Выводы / значимость. Практическая значимость работы заключается в ориентации положений, выводов и разработка рекомендаций, направленных на широкое использование, поиск и адаптацию источников финансирования предприятий оборонно-промышленного комплекса, которые могут использоваться законодательными и исполнительными органами Российской Федерации, Министерством обороны в текущей деятельности.

Introduction. Currently, internationalisation is a priority for the development of higher education, as an institutional component of its academic functioning, both in terms of ensuring the quality of education, and in connection with the implementation of a multi-level integration agenda, in which a modern university is involved. In order to increase the effectiveness of the international dimension of higher education, it remains necessary to clarify a number of theoretical and fundamental questions, among them one of the most important is the problem of the institutional conditions of the academic environment that contribute to the emergence of internationalisation. Mass higher education can be found as fundamental condition and in that relation the clarification of the interrelations between massification and internationalisation of higher education can expand the theoretical understanding of current processes in higher education, providing the necessary theoretical framework for further applied research. The aim of the present article is to investigate the interrelations between the massification and internationalisation of higher education in order to clarify the institutional conditions that contribute to the development of the international dimension of the modern university. Methodology and research methods. The methodological framework of this research involves socio-philosophical tools. In particular, the research is based on a retrospective analysis and philosophical deconstruction of the socio-historical transition of higher education from elite to mass model. Both statistical data and analytical materials on the national conditions of transition to mass higher education are used to investigate the issue. Results. The massification of the higher school became reality due to the historical development of social systems, representing the further evolution of global higher education. Acting as a source of society's emancipation and democratisation, the massification of higher education ensured the reorientation of universities from upbringing needs (ideology) to professional competence (economics). Meanwhile, mass higher education is considered to be the reason of destruction of the imperialist agenda, including the problem of alienated labour. Institutionally, the massification of higher education has become possible due the state-private cooperation. The implementation of this cooperation requires two options: 1) via government subsidies to private higher education, 2) via private investments into public higher education. Mass higher education is an institutional factor of internationalisation development: 1) it creates a need to improve the quality of education; 2) it acts as an instrument of the international integration. Scientific novelty. The connection between mass education and internationalisation of higher education has been found. Mass higher education acts as an institutional factor in the formation of academic demand for the development of internationalisation processes: 1) forming the need to improve the quality of education; 2) acting as one of the tools for implementing the integration agenda. The absence of processes of massification and internationalisation in the modern system of higher education may indicate on fundamental barriers in the national development of a particular state. Practical significance. The results obtained will contribute to further fundamental research in the fields of philosophy and sociology of education. Moreover, the present findings could be applied as a theoretical basis for further practical research on modern processes of higher education development. ; Введение. В настоящее время интернационализация выступает приоритетом развития высшего образования в качестве институциональной составляющей его академического функционирования как с точки зрения обеспечения качества образования, так и в связи с реализацией многоуровневой интеграционной повестки, в которую вовлечен современный университет. В целях повышения эффективности международного измерения высшего образования необходимо прояснить ряд теоретико-фундаментальных вопросов, среди которых один из наиболее важных - проблема институциональных условий академической среды, способствующих возникновению интернационализации. Фундаментальным условием может выступать массовая высшая школа, в связи с чем прояснение взаимозависимостей между массовизацией и интернационализацией высшего образования позволит расширить теоретическое понимание его актуальных процессов, предоставив необходимый исследовательский каркас для дальнейших прикладных изысканий. Целью данной работы является исследование взаимозависимости между массовизацией и интернационализацией высшего образования для уточнения институциональных условий, способствующих развитию международного измерения современного университета. Методология и методика исследования. С точки зрения методологического аппарата данного исследования избран социально-философский инструментарий. В частности, работа основана на ретроспективном анализе и философской деконструкции социально-исторического перехода высшей школы от элитарной модели к массовой. В качестве исследуемого материала выступают работы, содержащие как статистические, так и аналитические данные относительно национальных условий перехода к массовой высшей школе. Результаты исследования. Массовизация высшей школы обусловлена эволюцией исторического развития социальных систем и является составной частью дальнейшего развития всемирного высшего образования. Выступая одним из источников эмансипации и демократизации общества, массовое высшее образование обеспечило переориентацию университетов с воспитательных нужд на нужды компетенций, тем самым став спутником разрушения империалистической повестки, включая снятие проблемы отчужденного труда. Институционально массовизация высшего образования стала возможной за счет объединения ресурсов государства и частного сектора. Оно имеет два варианта реализации: 1) за счет государственных субсидий в частное высшее образование; 2) за счет частных инвестиций в государственное высшее образование. Массовое высшее образование выступает институциональным фактором развития интернационализации: 1) формирует потребность в совершенствовании качества образования; 2) выступает инструментом имплементации интеграционной повестки. Научная новизна. Установлена связь между массовизацией и интернационализацией высшего образования: массовое высшее образование выступает институциональным фактором формирования академического запроса на развитие процессов интернационализации: 1) формируя потребность в совершенствовании качества образования; 2) выступая одним из инструментов реализации интеграционной повестки. Отсутствие процессов массовизации и интернационализации в современной системе высшего образования может свидетельствовать о фундаментальных барьерах в национальном развитии того или иного государства. Практическая значимость. Полученные результаты поспособствуют проведению дальнейших фундаментальных изысканий в философии и социологии образования, а также могут быть использованы в качестве теоретической основы для реализации практических исследований относительно современных процессов развития высшего образования. ; The article was prepared in the framework of the five-year working plan of the Sino-Belarusian Research Center of Philosophy and Culture at Lingnan Normal University. ; Статья выполнена в рамках реализации пятилетнего плана работы Белорусско-китайского исследовательского центра философии и культуры Линнаньского педагогического университета.

Many critics consider Richard Serra the leading sculptor of the 20th century. He is famous not only for inventing something new in sculpture (abstract sculpture compositions existed before him, having been opened by constructivist vanguard of the beginning of the 20th century). Material selections by Vladimir Tatlin and sculptures by Osip Tsadkin, as well as compositions by Henry Moor appeared before Serra. Serra is famous for transferring his works' accent from the works as they are, which could be installed in any place, to their environment. That is he saw in the sculpture a key to understanding the urban space. His crude metal sheets and profiles, rectangular and curvilinear, exceeding regular scale of sculpture, come closer to architecture. Richard Serra places them near architectural constructions as checkpoints of intermediate scale category of space located between so-called «street furniture» – lamp posts, stalls, fountains and benches – and buildings, especially huge modern ones.But the matter is not only in the scale. Serra's sculptures are not only abstract compositions that harmoniously add to the space with their spacious scale. They have some mystery, some implicit sense appearing before a pedestrian as an enigma. Their mystique opposes both street furniture and architecture. But first of all it opposes the historical sculpture with its enigma always overshadowed by historical or biographical topic. Krylov's sculpture in the Summer Garden or Minin and Pozharsky's monument on the Red Square do not strike us, because we know that those monuments are erected IN COMMEMORATION of prominent people, as fellow citizens' tribute to their great contribution to the national history. But the crude metal sheets welded at different angles – what are they for? Who needs them?As an art critic, Edward Goldman, said, fame came to Richard Serra in 1989, when the sculpture composition Tilted Arc erected eight years before it was demolished by request of the public, that did not understand its sense and was exasperated with the obvious absence of this sense. However, Serra sees his sculpture's sense not only in its filling a scale gap in the environment, but also in its instigating a man to think and to concern the environment and the space as a problem, linking this problem with a problem of human's being. Is there any other way to explain the public's indignation? Serra's sculpture compositions do not obstruct pedestrian flow and do not offend anyone's dignity or memory, do they? They act as Zen koans, as if mutely asking a spectator about the sense. Not knowing the answer, the citizen gets exasperated – not with his inability to answer, but with the sculptor (or city government), imposing this enigma to him. Only children are always happy to get an enigma. They like to train their mind in determining the sense, because they believe in the sense of being and consider themselves successors of this sense. A grown-up member of the state, both of a totalitarian one and of one with a market economy, loses this ability, believing neither in God nor in devil, neither in state officers nor in heroes. He only gets annoyed when reminded about a sense. This irritation can be explained in terms of a conflict between conviction in his right to freedom and real feeling of his fatality. He is not disposed to play with the world and the artist. He is willing only to take sedative pills, cheering drinks and all kinds of flattery. Seeing a hero made of bronze or cast iron, he feels free either to share his respect towards the hero, or to spit upon the false idol. In both cases the sense realized by him remains in his power. When this sense escapes, the illusion of his power disappears too, in other words the illusion of his rights in this world where he is kicked by those who have more power and rights.Reasoning from quite Utopian ideals of Democracy, Richard Serra believes that to train such play of mind is as necessary as to brush teeth or to button a shirt. A man with this ability not functioning falls out of the society, officially remaining its member though.But there is also another aspect – relation of such enigmas to architecture. Architecture differs from Richard Serra's sculptures not only in scale. The difference is also in the fact, that, being a plastic object like an abstract sculpture, architectural composition has social and functional status, and therefore it does not represent any special enigma. Looking at a grand construction we understand that it is a City Administration, or a Bank, or a Library, or a Museum, or… whatever having its own socially approved status and sense never doubted. So, one can treat it either with respect or with hatred, not losing the feeling of ability for sense orientation. But Serra's sculptures sometimes lead to this.Nevertheless, architecture has turned out to be sensitive to such things and it currently tries to propose an enigma to a citizen instead of suggesting its status. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao or the Hundertwasser Viennese House in this regard come closer to sculpture, as if crushing differences between architecture and fine arts and making needless an artistic gesture such as Serra's. The question is to what extent this architectural aping is appropriate. Or maybe it is better to leave the sense space to the sculptor, focusing on the senses peculiar to architecture, which are claimed neither by Serra nor by his possible progeny. Evidently Serra experienced those problems himself, appealing to the authorities and searching for their support. Probably he was looking for support not only as an artist in need of a client, but also as an artist confronting social determinancy of architecture in urban environment. Thus he was indirectly returning to architecture its sense space, which architecture is currently ready to play with, forgetting about its sense limits. So it is a big question: whether his sculpture does harm to architecture with its competition with the latter or releases it from plays that are not appropriate to it in order to perform its maybe more sublime mission – not only to ask but also to answer the questions on the sense of being?However, solution of this problem is to what extent architects and their clients are ready to give such answers, to what extent these answers are sincere and realistic, and to what extent the society is ready to ask itself about the sense of its own being. But it is another topic.

International audience ; In the mid-19th century, Emperor Alexander II was carrying out large scale liberal reforms in Russia. In the course of these reforms, a problem was put forward about public preservation of historical monuments and archaeological sites as national cultural heritage. A step to this direction was undertaken in 1859 when the Imperial Archaeological Commission (IAC) was organized in Saint-Petersburg. Over the second half of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Commission remained the single State body concerned with archaeology and protection of sites and monuments on the territory of Russian Empire. In its activities, this Institution combined scientific research, organizational, monitoring and controlling functions. In the present monograph mainly created by the collective of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, the history of the first archaeological institution in Russia is systematically presented and analysis of its activities proposed for the first time. The organization of IAC was preceded by a long process of formation of the interest of the Russian society to the archaeology. The immediate precursor of IAC was the "Office of Archaeological Researches" founded in 1841 by the Minister for Home Affairs Lev Perovsky (1796–1856). The activities of the Office were concerned with investigations of archaeological sites of Kerch and Bosporos, Chersonesos, kurgans in the surroundings of Vladimir and Suzdal and settlements of the Golden Horde on the Volga River. During this period, the main principles which afterwards lay in the foundation of IAC were established. After the death of Lev Perovsky, the investigations were entrusted to Count Sergey Stroganov (1794–1882). The result of this appointment was that the assistant of Lev Perovsky and his nephew Count Alexey Uvarov (1824–1884), who planned to stand himself at the head of Russian archaeology, left Saint-Petersburg and moved to Moscow where in 1864 he founded the Moscow Archaeological Society in opposition to the Imperial Archaeological Commission. The confrontation between two Institutions however became actually a stimulus for the progressive advancement of the science and protection of monuments of antiquity. In 1857, Sergey Stroganov proposed to organize the "Main Archaeological Commission". That project became the basis of IAC, the statute of which was approved on February 2, 1859, by Emperor Alexander II. That statute secured for the Commission the right to conduct "earthen excavations", monitoring of the discoveries of hoards and archaeological objects in Russia and supervision over building activity at archaeological sites. The principles underlying the foundation of IAC were partly oriented to France and its "Commission des Monuments Historiques" (1837). The experience of the activities of IAC was used in organizing archaeological institutions in some European countries (Austria, Italy). The activity of IAC may be subdivided through three periods connected with its chairmen: 1859–1882 when Sergey Stroganov was the chairmen of IAC, 1882–1886 when it was headed by the Director of the Imperial Hermitage Museum Alexander Vasil'chikov (1832–1890), and 1886–1918 when the Commission was directed by Count Alexey Bobrinskoy (1852–1927). Originally, the staff of the Commission consisted of eight persons. In the activity of the Commission, such famous historians and archaeologists took part as Ivan Zabelin (1859–1876), Vladimir Tiesenhausen (1825–1902) and Nikodim Kondakov (1876–1891). Initially, the Commission was housed in the palace of Stroganov in Nevsky Prospect in Saint-Petersburg. The activities of the Commission have established the system of regulation of archaeological researches in Russia, which with several alterations existed until the beginning of the 21st century. This system was based on the "Otkryty list" (laissez-passer) as individual authorizations for researchers to conduct excavations with the indispensable submission of a report to the archives of the Commission. This practice has initiated the creation of the unique corpus of sources for the archaeology, architectural monuments and sites of different nations and modern states of East-Central Europe and Asia. The main activity of the Commission in 1859–1886 included excavations of sites of the Scythian culture and Classical Greek antiquities on the Taman Peninsula, in the Crimea (Kerch, Bosporos) and on some other territories, now in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the widespread opinion that the Commission studied exclusively the Classical and Scythian antiquities is incorrect: already then the first investigations in Siberia, Central Asia were conducted as well as studies of sites of the Bronze and Stone ages in Northern Russia. The finds came predominantly to the collections of the Imperial Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg and Historical Museum in Moscow. Another important responsibility of the Commission was the acquisition of monetary hoards and treasures of historical objects found on the territory of Russian Empire. The first investigator of hoards was a curator of the Hermitage collections Julian Iversen (1859–1900). Simultaneously, the Commission consulted the restoration and conservation activities of the Ministry of Home Affairs, primarily for the monuments of the defensive architecture and church buildings. For that purpose, the staff of the Commission included a representative of the Academy of Arts Feodor Solntsev (1859–1892). Protection of the monuments of archaeology also was an important task of the Commission. In 1866, Sergey Stroganov achieved the prohibition of treasure-hunting in Russia. The Commission, as the central state institution, actively collaborated with provincial Statistic Committees and Archive Commissions in the field of studies and protection of local monuments and sites. During the chairmanship of Alexander Vasil'chikov, the reforms of the Commission's activities were prepared. These reforms took place already under Count Alexey Bobrinskoy. In 1886–1887, an interdisciplinary program for studies of Slavic-Russian archaeology, the eastern Black-Sea region, Siberia etc. was developed. During that period, the Commission was moved to an office in the Winter Palace in Saint-Petersburg. On March 11, 1889, Emperor Alexander III approved by his decree the exclusive right of the Commission to conduct archaeological excavations and to license their execution on state and public lands. Simultaneously, the Commission, together with the Academy of Arts, was charged with supervision over restoration and protection of objects of art and architectural monuments. In 1890, the "Regulations for the Archaeological Commission and Academy of Arts on the order of consideration of petitions about restoration of historical monuments" were approved. Beginning with 1894, special sessions of IAC began to consider projects of restorations an conservations. The main specialists of IAC in the branch of restoration were Petr Pokryshkin (1870–1922), Konstantin Romanov (1882–1942) and Dmitry Mileev (1878–1914). The Commission got also Vladimir Suslov (1857–1921), Nikolay Sultanov (1850–1908), Ieronim Kitner (1839–1929) and Georgy Kotov (1859–1942) to take part in the architectural restorations. These activities resulted in establishment of standards of modern scientific restoration, using primarily the archaeological approach, which are efficacious even in the 21st century. Among the most successful restoration projects of IAC, noteworthy are the Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Nereditsa hill near Novgorod, Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour at Berestovo in Kyiv, the Saint Boris and Gleb church at Kolozha in Grodno, the Saint George church in Yuryev-Polskoy, Cathedral of the Dormition of Mother of God in the Moscow Kremlin, Ipatyevsky Monastery in Kostroma, Ferapontov Monastery in Vologda region, Bakhchisarai Palace in Crimea, Smolensk and Pskov city walls etc. Among the most important problems of IAC in the restoration issues were its relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. As early as 1893, the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1827–1907) confirmed that restoration of churches must be conducted with permission of the Commission, however in practice many churches were disfigured by illiterately made repairs. Part of the difficulties proceeded from contradictions in Russian law. Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission had succeeded in developing an algorithm of its relations with the clergy, during the World War I, under the conditions of the general crisis of the Russian State and society, the Synod attempted to withdraw religious monuments from the public control.The new objectives and expansion of the geography of researches of IAC demanded a new staff of the Commission. That approval was received in 1888 and 1902. The membership of the Commission included Alexander Spitsyn (1858–1931), Nikolay Veselovsky (1848–1918), Vasily Latyshev (1855–1921), Boris Farmakovsky (1870–1928) and others. Alexey Bobrinskoy actively used his right of appointment of corresponding members and honorary members of the Commission. Among the corresponding members appointed in 1886–1917 were Vladimir Stasov (1824–1906), Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Samokvasov (1843–1911), Innokenty Lopatin (1839–1909), Alexander Bertier-Delagard (1842–1920), Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky (1863–1919), Yulian Kulakovsky (1855–1919), Nikolay Pantusov (1849–1909), Valentin Zhukovsky (1858–1919), Vladimir Malmberg (1860–1921), Sergey Zhebelev (1867–1941), Emil Roesler (?–?), Alexey Markov (1858–1920), Nikolay Marr (1864–1934), Mstislav Farmakovsky (1873–1946), Alexander Malein (1869–1938) and others. There was yet another category of assistants of the Commission — supernumerary members. They included Nikolay Pokrovsky (1848–1917) — an expert on Christian archaeology and Orthodox art, Vladimir Antonovich (1834–1908), Bohdan Khanenko (1849–1917), Ernst von Stern (1859–1924), Mikhail Rostovtsev (1870–1952), Alexey Shirinsky-Shikhmatov (1862–1930), Feodor Braun (1862–1942), Nikolay Bulychev (1852–1919) et al.In 1909, the 50th anniversary of the Commission and 25th anniversary of the activities of its chairman Alexey Bobrinskoy became something like summing up of the results of the works of IAC. The special role of the Commission is noteworthy regarding the studies of Scythian and Greek and Roman antiquities. The commission excavated about fifty 'Royal' kurgans containing rich Scythian burials from which the artistic gold objects are housed now in the Special Treasury of the State Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg. Studies of Bosporan sites were continued: the Commission was in charge of the Kerch Museum of Antiquities which directed the archaeological excavations in this region. The museum was headed by Alexander Lyutsenko (1807–1884), Stepan Verebryusov (1819–1884), Fedor Gross (1822–1897), Karl Dumberg (1862–1931) and Vladislav Shkorpil (1853–1918). Funerary catacombs, important Classical, Jewish and Christian antiquities were here discovered. Since 1888, according to an order of Emperor Alexander III, IAC was entrusted with the direction of researches in the area of the Tauric Chersonesos and its surroundings. Karol Kościuszko-Waluszyński (1847–1907) was appointed the head of the excavations in Chersonesos. During the later years, the excavations were directed by Robert Loeper (1865–1918) and Leonid Moiseev (1882–1946). Under the direction of the Archaeological Commission, living blocks, buildings and necropolis dated to the Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods had been discovered and investigated, as well as several dozens of Christian churches and basilicas. In 1902, the systematic excavations of Olbia began under the direction of Boris Farmakovsky, and in 1904 – the archaeological researches of Berezan Island began under the direction of Ernst von Stern. An expansive project came to be that of excavations in 1908–1914 of one of the first medieval stone church of Eastern Europe — the Church of the Tithe in Kyiv conducted under the direction of Dmitry Mileev. During the period of 1890–1914, the Commission was financing altogether up to twenty expeditions annually throughout more than fifteen provinces and regions of Russian Empire. It must be noted however that the level of understanding of archaeological evidence gained remained behind its accumulation. In the field of the archaeology of the Stone Age, the studies of the Commission revealed several important Neolithic sites of Eastern Europe. In 1905, Alexander Spitsyn discovered a Paleolithic site at Borshevo, Voronezh region. The same researcher also wrote in 1915 a synthetic and generalizing work on the Russian Paleolithic where he had summarized the results of archaeology of the Early Stone Age in Eastern Europe and comprehensively characterized the sites of Caucasus and Siberia. Nevertheless, it must be noted here that the major researches on the Stone Age were carried out the sphere of activities of the Commission.During investigations of archaeological sites of Siberia separated by thousands kilometers from the scientific centers of European Russia, the Commission maintained close relations with local archaeologists and ethnologists directing their efforts and licensing their excavations. At the funds and on the instructions of the Commission, the archaeological sites of Siberia were studied since the 1860s by Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Klements (1848–1914), Alexander Adrianov (1854–1920) and other scholars.Members of the Commission participated personally in investigations of antiquities of the Caucasus and Ciscaucasia. In 1887, Dmitriy Bakradze (1826–1890) proposed a program of archaeological exploration of the area of Sukhumi, and in 1889 IAC carried out description and photographing of objects of Georgian Christian art from sacristies of churches and monasteries in Georgia. Since 1892, Nikolay Marr conducted longstanding investigations of the ancient Armenian capital Ani, medieval towns, fortresses and churches (Dvin, Akhtamar). Simultaneously, the explorations of sites of the Bronze and Middle Ages (dolmens, the Maikop kurgan and the Koban culture) were carried out through the efforts of Nikolay Veselovsky and Emil Roesler.The initiative of studies of architectural and archaeological monuments in Central Asia also mainly belongs to IAC. In 1900s–1915, IAC just kept under control the works in this region, gathered and distributed local collections and stray finds through museums. Photographing of architectural, ethnographic and historical monuments was conducted. The first archaeological excavations are connected with the names of Nikolay Pantusov who investigated in 1860s–1890s Christian Nestorian cemeteries near the Syr-Darya River, and Nikolay Veselovsky who continued archaeological and architectural researches since 1884 until the beginning of the 20th century. In 1890 and 1896, Valentin Zhukovsky observed several archaeological sites. In the 1880s, Alexey Bobrinskoy and Vladimir Antonovich developed a program of interdisciplinary research in the field Slavic and medieval archaeology on the territory of Ukraine. Excavations of kurgans were started in the Dnieper River region, Bielorus' and Novgorod region. At Gnezdovo near Smolensk, the Commission organized in 1890s-1900s excavations of kurgans and the settlement which initiated researches in the Viking Age in Eastern Europe. The systematization of mediaeval Slavic archaeology was proposed by Alexander Spitsyn. Of note is the IAC's contribution to studies of mediaeval archaeological sites of Eastern Europe. These included the Malaya Pereshchepina hoard found in 1912 — the supposed funerary complex of Khan Kubrat, excavations of the settlement of Mayatskoe conducted by Nikolay Makarenko (1877–1938) in 1908–1909, sites of Ugro-Finnish and Baltic tribes — Lyadinsky and Lyutsinsky necropolis investigated in 1889–1891 by Evdokim Romanov (1855–1922), Vladimir Sizov (1840–1904), Vladimir Yastrebov (1855–1899) et al. The archaeology of the region of Perm of the 8th-9th centuries and sites of the Vyatka region also were included in the sphere of interests of IAC, inter alia due to the fact that a very rich collection of local archaeological materials belonged to Sergey Stroganov. Alexander Spitsyn proposed the first archaeological periodization of the Perm and Kama regions local history and distinguished a number of local archaeological cultures. By 1917, the Commission was a serious academic institution both in the branch of architectural and archaeological researches. It became the organizing centre of Russian archaeology actively collaborating with public structures and planning new directions of researches. It is exactly inside the academic community rather than at the communistic authority after the October 1917 that the idea sprang up to transform the Commission into the "Academy of Archaeological Sciences" in order to focus efforts of its members exclusively onto the scientific sphere. In October of 1918, Anatoly Lunacharsky (1875–1933) approves the new regulations of the Russian State Archaeological Commission. Nikolay Marr became its chairman whereas Alexey Bobrinskoy had to emigrate. On April 19, 1919, the decree on the foundation of the Russian Academy for the History of Material Culture was signed by the chairman of the Bolsheviks government Vladimir Ulyanov. In the early August, elections to the new Academy took place. The Academy was housed in the Marble Palace in Petrograd. We should regard August 7, 1919, as the first day of the Academy for the History of Material Culture and the last day of the history of the Archaeological Commission.On the basis of the Imperial Archaeological Commission and Academy for the History of Material Culture the modern archaeological institutions of Russia have emerged. The practices established by the Commission were put into the foundation of the present-day regulation of archaeological researches and the system of protection of archaeological sites. The experience of the Commission undoubtedly indicates that the protection of the cultural heritage may be effective only in the case where it is carried out within an academic system. The protection and restoration of historical monuments must be subdued to scientific goals and architectural researches. The role of IAC manifested in the establishing national archaeological and site protection systems of the European and Asiatic countries which once constituted the Russian Empire. The editorial activities of IAC have been reflected in 65 titles of periodicals and nonperiodicals: Reports of IAC, Proceedings of IAC, and Materials on the Archaeology of Russia etc. Nikodim Kondakov's publication "Russian Hoards" (1896) and Yakov Smirnov's "Oriental Silver" (1909) are special contributions to the Art history. The materials of IAC kept in the Manuscript and Photographic departments of Scientific archives of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg (9,030 files and over 100,000 photographic imprints and negatives) conceal unique possibilities for future scientific discoveries and constitute an invaluable contribution of the Commission to studies and preservation of archaeological and cultural heritage of the World.