The article is written as a memoir by one the leading Russian experts in youth studies on how the development of state youth policy (SYP) began in the 1980s. This was the decade which saw the rise of the theory and concept of the SYP which led to the passing of the Youth Act spearheaded by the top thinktank in this field – the Research Center of the Higher Komsomol School, which had over 200 researchers among its staff.The idea of the SYP was developed by the author of this article after a visit to an international conference in Västerås, Sweden in 1984. Although the Swedish youth faced many problems at the time, the country had a well-built state system to help solve them. The author felt that Russia lacked a scientifically grounded youth policy.In 1986, at the research session celebrating the 10th anniversary of the HKS Research Center the author presented a paper titled "Problems of youth and youth policy under the acceleration of social and political development of Soviet society". For the very first time in the Soviet Union, this report expounded the notion and the theoretical foundations of the SYP. The idea found support by Komsomol leaders, and other research centers joined the HKS in further working it out. The adoption of the very term 'state youth policy' was no mechanical act and came as a result of complex political and ideological struggle. The theoretical and legal foundations of the SYP were developed by the author in collaboration with his colleagues. The long course of preparing the bill helped these foundations enter the public life and social conscience of the Soviet society. The lifespan of the Act of the Basic Foundations of State Youth Policy in the USSR proved to be short: after the collapse of the Soviet Union it was not included into the body of laws of the Russian Federation. But this did not put an end to the idea – the Act's provisions, its concept and the legal norms it encoded still played a decisive role in shaping the state youth policy in the course of the next decade, at least until the turn of the century. ; В статье представлены воспоминания одного из ведущих отечественных исследователей молодежной проблематики о том, как начиналась разработка государственной молодежной политики (ГМП) в СССР в 1980-е годы. Тогда создавались теория и концепция ГМП, «Закон о молодежи», работала ведущая организация по исследованию молодежных проблем в стране — Научно-исследовательский центр (НИЦ) при Высшей комсомольской школе, где трудилось более 200 научных работников. Директором этого единственного в стране научного учреждения, способного проводить масштабные и комплексные исследования молодежи, был И. М. Ильинский.Идеи ГМП автор привез из Швеции, где он неоднократно бывал на международных конференциях, начиная с 1984 г. В Швеции оказалось много проблем у молодежи, но и была хорошо организована государственная система по решению этих проблем. Это побудило автора задуматься об отсутствии в СССР научно обоснованной государственной политики в отношении к молодежи.В 1986 г. автор выступил на Научной сессии, посвященной 10-летию НИЦ при ВКШ с докладом «Проблемы молодежи и молодежной политики в условиях ускорения социально-экономического развития советского общества». Это было первое в Советском Союзе изложение идеи и принципиальных основ ГМП. Инициатива была поддержана руководством комсомола. Утверждение концепции и самого термина «государственная молодежная политика» было не просто теоретическими изысками, а сопровождалось сложной политической и идейной борьбой. Несмотря на это, в результате долговременной и трудной борьбы были разработаны теоретические и правовые основы концепции ГМП, подготовлен законопроект «Об общих началах государственной молодежной политики в СССР», которые прочно вошли в научный оборот, общественное сознание и общественную практику. С уничтожением СССР в 1991 г. история Закона СССР «Об общих началах государственной молодежной политики в СССР» как юридического акта завершилась: он не вошел в состав нормативных правовых актов Российской Федерации. Но это был финал Закона только по форме. Теоретические основы ГМП и ее содержание, правовые нормы Закона продолжают оказывать важное воздействие на весь процесс строительства государственной молодежной политики в «новой» России по сей день.
The article is devoted to two main problems. On the one hand, this is the response of the print media to the upcoming event – the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. On the other hand, these are opportunities for didactic interpretation of the political portrait genre in the system of teaching Russian as a foreign language. From the point of view of the author, we can now talk about the media topic "The Great Patriotic War", which has multiple genre differentiation. Biographical genres correlate with this media topic, and first of all, biographies of military leaders, top leaders of the country and ordinary war veterans. In addition, the structure of the media topic includes memoirs, the portrait essay genre and polemical genres: "Refutation", "Point of View", "Discussion". In connection with attempts to revise the outcome of the war and falsify history, he received a rebirth and such a genre as "Reprimand" (rebuke, philippic). The genres of "Interview", "Forecast", "Note", "Investigation", "Film review" and a number of other text forms contributing to the replenishment of the genre corps are also actively used in the framework of the media topic "The Great Patriotic War". The author of the article believes that the richest media material has ample opportunities for didactic interpretation, and above all, with the aim of teaching Russian as a foreign language. The need to include material on the Great Patriotic War in Russian-language textbooks on RCTs is due, inter alia, to the absence or insufficiency of information about the largest Russian politicians of the past and present, which leads to the formation of incomplete or distorted ideas about Russia. The aforesaid can be supplemented by means of training materials of a specialized type, which the teacher can use both fully and in parts. As an example, the article presents fragments of such a manual (excerpts from the biographies of A. N. Kosygin and A. Mikoyan, dedicated to their activities during the Great Patriotic War) and implementing two strategies – information and training. Based on the interpretation of the linguistic competence of Y. Apresyan, the author of the article presented a system of instructional tasks for these texts, which contributes to the formation of not only speaking, listening, writing and reading skills, but also a systematic fund of knowledge about Russian politicians of the 20th and 21st centuries. ; Статья посвящена двум основным проблемам. С одной стороны, это отклик печатных СМИ на предстоящее событие – 75-летие Победы в Великой Отечественной войне. С другой стороны, это возможности дидактической интерпретации жанра политического портрета в системе преподава-ния русского языка как иностранного. С точки зрения автора, в настоящее время можно говорить о медиатопике «Великая Отечественная война», который имеет множественную жанровую диффе-ренциацию. С данным медиатопиком соотносятся биографические жанры, и прежде всего – био-графии военачальников, высших руководителей страны и рядовых участников войны. Кроме этого, в структуру медиатопика входят мемуарные жанры, жанр портретного очерка и полемические жанры: «Опровержение», «Точка зрения», «Обсуждение». В связи с попытками пересмотра итогов войны и фальсификации истории получил второе рождение и такой жанр, как «Порицание» (отпо-ведь, филиппика). В рамках медиатопика «Великая Отечественная война» активно используются также жанры «Интервью», «Прогноз», «Заметка», «Расследование», «Кинорецензия» и ряд дру-гих текстовых форм, способствующих пополнению жанрового корпуса. Автор статьи считает, что богатейший материал СМИ имеет широкие возможности для дидактической интерпретации, и прежде всего – с целью преподавания русского языка как иностранного. Необходимость включе-ния материала о Великой Отечественной войне в учебные пособия по РКИ обусловлена, в том числе, отсутствием или недостаточностью информации о крупнейших российских политиках про-шлого и настоящего, что ведет к формированию неполных или искаженных представлений о Рос-сии. Сказанное возможно восполнить посредством учебных пособий специализированного типа, которые преподаватель может использовать как полностью, так и по частям. В качестве образца в статье представлены фрагменты такого пособия (выдержки из биографий А. Н. Косыгина и А. Микояна, посвященные их деятельности во время Великой Отечественной войны), реализую-щие две стратегии – информирующую и обучающую. С опорой на трактовку языковой компетен-ции Ю. Апресяна автор статьи представил систему обучающих заданий к этим текстам, способ-ствующую формированию не только навыков говорения, слушания, письма и чтения, но и систем-ного фонда знаний о российских политиках ХХ и ХХI веков.
Поступила в редакцию 09.05.2019. Принята к печати 22.10.2019. ; Submitted on 09 May, 2019. Accepted on 22 October, 2019. ; Рецензия на книгу: Propaganda: politika, hétköznapi és magas kultúra, mvészet és média a nagy háborúban / szerk. Ifj. I. Bertényi, L. Boka, A. Katona. Budapest : Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, 2016. 542 old.: ill. Во многих странах Европы 2014–2016 годы прошли под знаком столетия Первой мировой войны, также известной как Великая. Венгрия — одно из государств, понесших в результате этого глобального вооруженного конфликта катастрофические потери. Вступив в войну как равноправная часть большой композитарной монархии, страна по мирным договорам, подписанным в 1920 г. в Версале, лишилась двух третей территории, изменился этнический состав ее населения, вокруг появилось кольцо враждебно настроенных держав. В этой связи повышенный интерес к Великой войне в современных гуманитарных науках и венгерском обществе в целом понятен. В последние годы прошли десятки выставок и научных конференций. В статье рассматриваются материалы представительного междисциплинарного форума, на котором ведущие венгерские историки, литературоведы, искусствоведы обратились к феномену пропаганды, поставили задачу выявления ее форм, механизмов влияния на население, контроля за прессой, формирования общественного мнения, отношения к войне интеллектуалов; исследования функций материальных объектов с пропагандистским содержанием — от памятников на улицах города до предметов обихода и сувениров. Авторы рецензируемого издания приходят к заключению, что если война и пропаганда связаны в истории континента со времени Религиозных войн, то тотальная война, в которой стиралась граница между фронтом и тылом, и тотальная пропаганда, превращавшая тексты, изображения в визуальные объекты и предметы, окружавшие человека в повседневной жизни, патриотические послания, впервые в такой полноте появляются в начале ХХ в. Обоснованным представляется звучащий в статьях сборника вывод о том, что память о годах войны заслонила травма после гибели многонациональной империи. Историкам только предстоит в конкретно-исторических и обобщающих исследованиях определить меру влияния пропаганды на поколения Великой войны. ; Review of: Bertényi, Ifj. I., Boka, L., & Katona, A. (Eds.). (2016). Propaganda: politika, hétköznapi és magas kultúra, mvészet és média a nagy háborúban [Propaganda: Politics, Everyday Life and High Culture, Arts and Media in the Great War]. Budapest: Országos Széchényi Könyvtár. 542 p.: ill. In many countries of Europe, the years between 2014 to 2016 marked the 100th anniversary of World War I also known as the Great War. Hungary is one of the states which suffered catastrophic losses in this global military conflict. It joined the war as an equal part of a big composite monarchy and eventually, in accordance with the peace treaties signed in 1920 in Versailles, lost two thirds of its territory, turned into a virtually monoethnic state and found itself surrounded by hostile powers. In this regard, it is clear why the Great War is of considerable importance for the contemporary humanities and Hungarian society. Recently, dozens of exhibitions and scholarly conferences have been organised all over the country. This article considers the proceedings of a representative interdisciplinary forum where Hungarian historians, literary historians, and art historians examined the phenomenon of propaganda, formulated the task taxonomising its forms, or mechanisms of influencing the population, control over the written press and media, formation of public opinion, intellectuals' attitude to the war and studying of the propaganda message of material objects — from monuments in public spaces to utensils and souvenirs. The authors of the work reviewed come to the conclusion that if war and propaganda have been interconnected since the wars of religion of the early modern period, the total war which erased the division line between the front and the rear, and total propaganda, which turned texts, images, visual, and material objects surrounding people in their everyday life into patriotic messages, first appear in their full form in the early twentieth century. It seems that the conclusion most of the authors come to is that the memory of the Great War was replaced by the trauma after the collapse of the multinational empire, and historians in their case studies and comprehensive works have to measure the extent to which propaganda influenced mass and individual consciousness of the Great War generation. ; Статья подготовлена при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках проекта № 18-09-0036а «Дипломаты, публицисты, ученые-путешественники о Восточной, Центральной и Юго-Восточной Европе Нового времени: от наблюдений к знаниям». ; The article is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research in the framework of project 18-09-0036a "Diplomats, Publicists, Scholars-travelers about Eastern, Central and South-Eastern Europe of the Modern Times: From Observations to Knowledge".
The first national document containing the rules for avalanche danger assessing: «Guidelines for calculating avalanche loads in the design of structures. VSN 02-73», appeared in Russia in 1973. Despite many shortcomings, it was used until recently. In 2018, new rules for avalanche danger assessing: «SP 428.1325800.2018. Set of rules. Engineering surveys for construction in avalanche-prone areas. General requirements» were worked out. Some of the shortcomings of the previous document were eliminated in it. Used terms and definitions are given. For the first time in a regulatory document, a method for identifying of avalanche starting zones is presented. The conditions under which an avalanche danger assessment is required are formulated more correctly. The method for calculating the speeds and runouts of flowing avalanches, which was in the previous document, has been excluded. The rules allow, in case of insufficient data for analysis, to calculate the maximum possible avalanche path boundaries, but not the boundaries of the specified probability. New sections have appeared on the application of aerospace, phytocenotic, dendrochronological methods, as well as methods for studying buried soils to assess avalanche danger. At the same time, there are contradictions and shortcomings in the new rules. Clearer and mono-semantic terms and definitions are needed. Method for estimating the speed of powder avalanches is insufficiently substantiated and give greatly overestimated values. There is no sufficient rationale for determining the boundary of the air wave (powder avalanche) impact. The methods for assessing snow accumulation in an avalanche starting zone do not take into account the spatial variability of the snow depth and can lead to large errors in the assessment of avalanche danger. The use of statistical modeling to assess the probabilities of avalanches and their characteristics, in the proposed form, is not correct and can lead to an underestimation of the avalanche hazard. One of the reasons for the imperfection of the new document is the lack of requirements for the accuracy of the estimates performed with its help. It is proposed to discuss the document content and its possible changes more broadly and substantively by the time the set of rules update. ; Первый общегосударственный документ, содержащий правила оценки лавинной опасности: «Указания по расчёту снеголавинных нагрузок при проектировании сооружений. ВСН 02-73» в России появился в 1973 году. Несмотря на многие недостатки, он использовался до последнего времени. В 2018 году были созданы новые правила оценки лавинной опасности «СП 428.1325800.2018. Свод правил. Инженерные изыскания для строительства в лавиноопасных районах. Общие требования». Часть недостатков предыдущего документа в нём устранены. Приведены используемые термины и определения. Впервые в нормативном документе представлен метод выделения лавинных очагов. Корректнее сформулированы условия, при которых требуется оценка лавинной опасности. Исключён бывший в предыдущем документе метод расчёта скоростей и дальностей выброса текучих лавин. Допускается, в случае недостаточности данных для анализа, рассчитывать максимально возможные границы лавиносбора, а не границы заданной обеспеченности. Появились новые разделы, касающиеся применения аэрокосмических, фитоценотических, дендрохронологических методов, а также методов исследования погребенных почв для оценки лавинной опасности. Вместе с тем, в новых правилах имеются противоречия и недостатки. Необходимы более чёткие и однозначные формулировки используемых понятий. Методы оценки скорости пылевых лавин недостаточно обоснованы и дают сильно завышенные значения. Нет достаточных обоснований для определения границы воздействия воздушной волны. Методы оценки снегонакопления в лавинном очаге не учитывают пространственной изменчивости высоты снега и могут привести к большим ошибкам в оценке лавинной опасности. Применение статистического моделирования для оценки вероятностей лавин и их характеристик в предложенном виде не является обоснованным и может привести к недооценке лавинной опасности. Одной из причин несовершенства нового документа является отсутствие в нём требований к точности выполняемых с его помощью оценок. Предлагается к моменту актуализации свода правил более широко и предметно обсудить его содержание и возможные изменения в нём. Литература: Благовещенский В.П. Определение лавинных нагрузок. Алма-Ата.: Изд-во «Гылым», 1991. 115с. Москалёв Ю.Д. Динамика снежных лавин и снеголавинные расчёты. Л.: Гидрометеоиздат, 1977. 232 с. Рунич А.В. Обоснование метода расчёта движения лавин для инженерных целей // Снег и снежные лавины. Труды Высокогорного геофизического института. 1972. Вып. 18. С. 26–60. Селиверстов Ю.Г. Снежные лавины на равнине // Доклады и выступления VIII научно-практической конференции «Проблемы прогнозирования чрезвычайных ситуаций» (г.Санкт-Петербург, 8–10 октября 2008 г.). СПб: МЧС, 2009. С. 149–156. Черноус П.А. Снеголавинные расчёты в нормативной базе инженерных изысканий для строительства в лавиноопасных районах // Сборник докладов международной научной конференции памяти выдающегося русского ученого Ю.Б.Виноградова «Четвёртые Виноградовские чтения. Гидрология от познания к мировоззрению» (г. Санкт-Петербург, 23–31 октября 2020 г.). СПб: Изд-во ВВМ, 2020. С. 366–371. Черноус П.А. Мониторинг высоты снежного покрова при изысканиях для оценки лавинной опасности // Материалы Общероссийской научно-практической конференции «Изучение опасных природных процессов и геотехнический мониторинг при инженерных изысканиях» (г. Москва, 18 марта 2021 г.). М.:ООО «Геомаркетинг», 2021. С. 124–130. Barbolini M., Issler D., Jóhannesson T., Hákonardóttir K., Lied K., Gauer P., Naaim M., Faug T., Natale L., Cappabianca F., Pagliardi M., Rammer L., Sovilla B., Platzer K., Surinach E., Furdada G., Sabot F., Vilajosana I. Avalanche Test Sites and Research Equipment in Europe ‒ An Updated Overview. Davos, 2006. 172 p. De Quervain M. Lawinenbildung // Lawinenschutz in der Schweiz, Bd. 9 der Reihe Bündnerwald, Beiheft, 1972. Pp. 15–32. Eglit M., Yakubenko A., Zayko Y. A Review of Russian Snow Avalanche Models—From Analytical Solutions to Novel 3D Models // Geosciences. 2020. Vol. 10. Iss. 2. 77. DOI:10.3390/geosciences10020077. Issler D., Lied K., Rammer L., Revol R., Sabot F., Cornet E.S., Bellavista G.F., Sovilla B. European avalanche test sites. Overview and analysis in view of coordinated experiments. Mitteilungen des Eidg. Institutes für Schnee- und Lawinenforschung. 1999. Vol. 59. 122 p. Persistent URL: https://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/wsl/islandora/object/wsl:17261. Harbitz C.B., Issler D., Keylock C. Conclusions from a recent survey of avalanche computational models // Proceedings of the anniversary conference «25 Years of Snow Avalanche Research» (Voss, 12–16 May, 1998). Oslo: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, 1998. Pp. 128–139. McClung D., Schaerer P. The Avalanche Handbook. Seattle: The Mountaineers Books, 1993. 272 p. Oechslin M. Lawinengeschwindigkeiten und Lawinenluftdruck // Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen. 1938. Vol. 89. Iss. 6. Pp. 153–160. DOI:10.5169/seals-768146.
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.
