CC BY
8Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 3 (2009 2) 336-348
УДК 930. 26 (571.51)
About the History of Krasnoyarsk Archaeologists' International Relations
Nikolai P. Makarova*, Aleksandr S. Vdovinb and Yekaterina V. Detlovac
a Siberian Federal University, 79 Svobodny, Krasnoyarsk, 660041 Russia b Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V. P. Astafiev,
89 Lebedevoi st., Krasnoyarsk, 600049 Russia Krasnoyarsk Local Lore Museum, c 84 Dubrovinskogo st., Krasnoyarsk, 600049 Russia 1
Received 14.08.2009, received in revised form 21.08.2009, accepted 28.08.2009
This article is devoted to Siberian archaeologists' international relations in the late 19th century till the 1st decade of 20th century. A great variety of sources that are kept in archives of Russia, Germany and Finland are used here.
Keywords: archaeology history, international relations.
Introduction
Lately Siberian archaeologists' international contacts have become an ordinary thing. Joint expeditions and conferences are held. Foreign scientists are invited to give lectures in Siberian Universities. Russian scientists have opportunities for training or work experience abroad. We can't say that we have a lot of contacts with foreign archaeologists. Only in recent decades Krasnoyarsk archaeologists have been taking an active part in international integration. At the same time relations of Krasnoyarsk scientists and their foreign colleagues have deep roots.
The purpose of this article is representation ofthe little-known, mostly not published materials on history of the international contacts of the
* Corresponding author E-mail address: mnp@kkkm.ru
1 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
Krasnoyarsk archeologists revealed in archives of Russia, Germany, Finland.
Basic positions
Foreign researchers were always interested in Siberian antiquities. First of all, we should mention German scientists, who worked in Russia at different times, e. g. D. G. Messerschmidt, G. F. Miller, J. G. Gmelin, P. S. Pallas and others (Borisenko, Hudyakov, 2005). The Swedes were also interested in Siberian archaeology. Someone from them happened to be in Siberia against their own free will, e. g. I. F. Stralenberg or of their own free will, e. g. F. R. Martin. In XIX century the Finns are involved in the study of Siberian ancient history most of all (M.A.Castren's
studies, I.R. Aspelin, Ya. Appelgren-Kivalo and A. O. Geikel's expeditions) (Salminen, 2003). They explore Siberian area, mainly the South of Yeniseiskaya guberniya, to find ancestral home of their nation. However, we can't speak about constant foreigners' interest in Siberian archaeology or about their constant contacts with Krasnoyarsk scientists at the pre-revolutionary period.
First of all foreign researchers and travellers were interested in supplement of their own foreign collections. Private collecting became a real danger for archaeological monuments of the Yenisei area. A lot of foreign travellers and scientists got antiquities from inhabitants. Sometimes collections were rather impressive, e. g. an Englishman, P. A. Boiling, had a collection. According to N. M. Yadrintsev, this collection consisted of 799 copper, stone, iron, bone and cast-iron things. Fortunately, Boiling's collection was left in Russia and bought by a famous Krasnoyarsk merchant, I. G. Gadalov. The latter presented the main part of his collection to the archeological museum of Tomsk University. At the same time archaeological things were constantly brought abroad. Antiquities from the Yenisei area are kept in museums of Washington D. C., London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Budapest, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki and other countries.
At the pre-revolutionary period home researchers successfully study Siberian ancient history. These researchers are talented self-educated persons, who treat archaeology not as a job, but as a hobby. However, they made a great contribution to the Siberian science development of antiquities. The first collections and excavations (they were carried out on an amateur level) were made by these inquisitive persons. Some of them managed to make Siberian antiquities recognized by the world science society. In 1884 I. T. Savenkov made sensational finds on the Afontova hill. This monument of palaeolith attracted first of
all foreign researcher's attention. Despite the fact that this was not the only monument of the Old Stone Age in Russia, in the books on specialized subjects it's mentioned just about the Afontova hill as about the only location of palaeolith age (Obermeier1, 1913: 79, 113).
It's not by chance that at the international anthropological congress (it was held in Moscow in 1882) a French archaeologist, Baron de Baye, called Savenkov's report the most significant event of that day.
On returning home de Baye presents a report about finds in Krasnoyarsk to Paris Academy. He ends it with the following words, «Gentlemen, I'm finishing this report and I'm happy that I've called you the name of scientist who works hard for the science development on the banks of the large Siberian river (Auerbach, 1928).
Friendly correspondence starts between de Baye and Savenkov. De Baye visits the Yenisei area twice. During his visits in 1896 and 1897 he examines the Afontova hill, opens a palaeolith site near Pereselencheskii point on the Yenisei's right bank. The scientist collects archaeological materials of different eras, he finds them in ancient settlements such as Bazaiha, Nyasha, Ladeiki. He excavates the gravel hill near the village Torgashino. Then he gives the part of his materials and booklets in French to the municipal museum. Among these things de Baye's photo is kept. There is an inscription on it for I. T. Savenkov «To a lucky man and a voracious researcher of the Yenisei's valley in memory of congress of 1892 in Moscow» (Makarov, 1989, 51).
However, the scientists didn't manage to meet in Krasnoyarsk. These years Savenkov worked as a proctor of folk schools in Warsaw. The French archaeologist also didn't manage to meet with N. M. Martyanov, the director of the Minusinsk museum, which is famous abroad for its archaeological collections. De Baye's companions were a conservative of the Krasnoyarsk museum,
M. Ye. Kibort, who accompanied Savenkov in archaeological expeditions, a teacher of Krasnoyarsk grammar school for boys, P. S. Proskuryakov, and others (Orehova, 2004). Evaluating Siberians' contribution to the study of antiquities from the Yenisei area, de Baye recommended them to French academy for honorary title «Officier d'Academie». As a result N. M. Martyanov and P. S. Proskuryakov were awarded these honorable titles.
On returning in France, de Baye displays his finds from Krasnoyarsk sites in Paris Museum of natural history. At one of the meetings of geographical society he recollects about his journey to Russia. He describes stay in Krasnoyarsk especially warmly. In fact de Baye popularizes antiquities from the Yenisei area abroad. Savenkov's works are published in France just thanks to de Baye (Savenkov, 2003).
Siberian palaeolith got wide scientific resonance thanks to Savenkov and de Baye's work and collaboration. Siberia archaeology was mostly known only in the field of the Stone Age study up to 1920's. However, the Iron Age has become more studied in the 1st decades of the 20th century.
A. M. Tallgren's2 (a famous Finnish scientist) works were also very important for Siberian archaeology. He researched Siberian antiquities and Siberian archaeological culture much better then his fellow countrymen. Tallgren's travels to Russia started since 1908. In 1915 he visited Siberia. Unlike his predecessors his aim wasn't to find the Finns ancestral home, although there were supporters of this theory, it was considered to be old-fashioned already. According to modern finish histonographers «there was a little romanticism, desire to see with his own eyes legendary Minusinsk steppes in this travel» (Uino, 2005).
During the expedition Tallgren excavates a number of archaeological monuments and
gets acquainted with Minusinsk museum archaeological collections. At the same time he visits Krasnoyarsk municipal museum. This museum as a part of Krasnoyarsk subdivision of RGO (Russian Geographical Society) was a forming regional scientific center. Judging by A. Ya. Tugarinov's (he was a conservative) letter of the 30th of November, 1918 we can say that the Finnish scientist managed to see only a little bit. «It is a pity you were in Krasnoyarsk museum and didn't have an opportunity to see what you'd wished. Probably I could have showed you something that would interest you. We can't display this material because of the museum condition. As far as I know you were interested in the collection from the Ishimka village of Achinsk[ii] U[yezd] especially»3. This situation happened because A. Ya. Tugarinov was in the expedition at that time. In Krasnoyarsk A. M. Tallgren was accompanied by N. A. Pikulevich, who the Finnish scientist corresponded with after that. Tallgren also knew V. A. Danilov, the latter wanted Tallgren to get acquainted with his significant archaeological collection4.
Carrying out local lore researches workers of Krasnoyarsk museum paid a lot of attention to the region archaeology. Thanks to their diligence as well as the private collections of antiquities, which were given to the museum in the 1st decade of the 20th century, there was a great material that archaeologists (who researched Siberia) were interested in. The Finnish archaeologist corresponded with Krasnoyarsk colleagues and museum workers after his departure from Russia. Several letters from A. Ya. Tugarinov, S. M. Sergeev, N. K. Auerbach, G. P. Sosnovskii, V. G. Kartsov5 are kept in Tallgren's personal archive in Finland.
A. Ya. Tugarinov played an important role in strengthening and expansion of international contacts. He often applied for the help of foreign specialists to define collections. In the years of
the First World War he enlisted people of creative professions and scientists, who were in captivity, to work in the museum. According to the archival data of 1921 such specialists as I. I. Vodratska, F. F. Doush, G. Pangerl, G. V. Merhart worked in the museum6.
Significant achievements in the Siberian archaeology field of those years were connected with an Austrian. His name was Gero Merhart von Bernegg7. First he was in a prison camp in Chita, then he was sent to a prison camp in Kansk. The acquaintance with the Kansk museum collections, finds of antiquities in the neighbourhood of the town aroused a desire to work in the Siberia archaeology field. However, there was no possibility for serious researches in Kansk. That's why in 1919 Merhart writes a letter to A. Ya. Tugarinov and asks to give him a position in Krasnoyarsk museum. Since the 3rd of November he becomes its worker. He worked in Krasnoyarsk from 1919 till 1921. First he worked as a restore, then as the head of Ancient History department. Merhart takes an active part in putting in order, systematizing and restoring of museum archaeological collections. In spring and in summer of 1920 the researcher and his colleagues hold archaeological excursions in the neighbourhood of the town. As a result museum collections were expanded, new palaeolithic sites were discovered, significant observations were carried out (Makarov and others, 2005; Detlova, 2006, 2007).
Merhart had close relations with Krasnoyarsk scientists during their joint work and after it. We should mention here G. P. Sosnovskii, a known soviet archaeologist. Sosnovskii worked as an assistant of Ancient History department and soon he became «a bright assistant in the field» for Merhart (Kuzminih and others, 2007). In 1920 the researchers hold a joint archaeological reconnaissance in the Middle Yenisei area (Vdovin and others, 2000). In autumn of 1920
G. P. Sosnovskii quits his job in museum and leaves for Irkutsk. That time there was the only department for training specialists-prehistorians in Siberia. This department was headed by B. E. Petri. Besides his classes in university Sosnovskii works as a curator in Irkutsk Lokal Lore Museum and in Irkutsk University Museum. He takes an active part in the work of Ethnology Circle. He also continues his communication with Merhart, he writes him in details about his life in Irkutsk, Irkutsk museums prehistoric collections, researches, which he carries out in Zabaikalie. Sosnovskii and Merhart's correspondence continues even when the latter returns home. In the letters of 1923 till 1925 Sosnovskii describes in details his work, which he carries out in Priyeneseiskii krai. At that period his aspirations as he said himself «were concentrated on palaeolith»8. Later, the scientist's interests are expanded he is also interested in ancient metal monuments.
Through the young scientist letters we can see that his opinion on Priyeniseiskaya Siberia and Zabaikalie archaeology differs from B. E. Petri's (he was Sosnovskii's mentor in Irkutsk) opinion. Sosnovskii also criticizes the way Petri carries out excavations. Merhart stays the only authority and professional for Sosnovskii. Sosnovskii adopted Merhart's excavations methods of European school and European level, scrupulosity in describing monuments. Austrian's good relations and moral support were very important for Sosnovskii, as he was a beginner. Later on Merhart continues to interest in Sosnovskii's fortune. Through Sosnovskii's letters and correspondence with other colleagues Merhart learns about his former assistant's success and follows Sosnovskii's scientific career. Merhart tries to organize Sosnovskii's travel abroad, where there are possibilities and conditions for continuing education under the leadership of best Europe archaeologists. Sosnovskii stays for
Merhart the most accurate and active Russian correspondent during the next decade. Their correspondence that is kept in Merhart's Marburg archive, counts 17 letters. But these are not all the letters. We can affirm that this correspondence was much more intensive. We know this through some facts from the letters mentioned above. Sosnovskii's last letter, to be exact a postscript to a collective letter, to Merhart dated 1926. Probably, the scientists' correspondence breaks off in the beginning of 1930's, when Merhart parts Sosnovskii and other Russian colleagues because of fortune and policy9.
Merhart also corresponded with G. P. Sosnovskii's comrade, N. K. Auerbach (Auerbach and Sosnovskii took part in excavations of Krasnoyarskii krai archaeological monuments). After graduating from Moscow Archaeological Institute and from Moscow State University, Auerbach returns to Krasnoyarsk and in 1918 he becomes a museum worker. When there were job cuts in Yeniseiskaya guberniya institutions after the end of the civil war, N. K. Auerbach works voluntarily as the head of Archaeological department.
Auerbach's 6 letters are kept in Merhart's private archive in Marburg. In the 1st letter of the 24th of March, 1925 Auerbach suggests corresponding regularly because this will be mutually beneficial. Krasnoyarsk archaeologists were interested in getting information about foreign science novelties and they promised to inform about new monuments, achievements and Siberian archaeologists' work. It was also important for Merhart's future researches. It allowed Merhart to be well informed and work successfully in the Russian science field.
These years Krasnoyarsk archaeologists pay great attention to the excavations on the Afontova hill. According to their words if they get «new materials» from there that «will let them finish a preliminary scheme of palaeolith development
in the Yenisei area»10. Researches are continued there from 1923 till 1926 and later. Excavations results were finds of thousands of palaeolithic tools and rich bone materials (numerous fauna remains and the first find of palaeolithic man's bones in Russia). The results of researches were published in special information bulletins, some of which were sent to Merhart.
Not only the Afontova hill attracts Siberian archaeologists these years. In the letters of 1925 till 1926 Auerbach tells Merhart about his intention to continue his work in the neighbourhood of Krasnoyarsk. In the letter of the 24th of March,
1925 he says, «This year we have got money for continuing excavations of the Afontova hill and for systematic reconnaissance of sites near the town. These sites are Kirpichnii sarai, Voyennii Gorodok and Pereselencheskii point. Besides, we are going to reconnoitre in Zikovo, Batoye, Dolgovo and Kubekovo. In summer an instrumental survey of Pereselencheskii point and Kirpichnii sarai will be carried out. After these we are going to carry out excavations near Biryusinskaya site. By autumn we are going to reconnoitre in Minusinskii uyezd and in Achinskii uyezd. So, you see, doctor, our plans correspond to your wishes11».
This extensive program was put into practice by Auerbach and his colleagues. At the same time great excavations were carried out in Biryusinskaya site (there are a lot of strata there). According to the report about museum work from
1926 till 1927 in the Biryusa area «about 100 m2 of the site were excavated. The collected material appeared to be absolutely new in its scientific significance speaking about the age of palaeolithic and neolithic sites of this territory12». In the south of the territory, sites of different eras («which Sosnovskii and Merhart visited in 1920») were again researched by Sosnovskii (Makarov, 1989: 47). New palaeolithic sites were discovered near the Kokorevo village. Excavations of graves of
Andronovskaya, Karasukskaya, Afanasiefskaya cultures were carried out near the Orak ulus. Excavations of Tagarsk gravel hills were carried out near the Novoselovo village. Excavations of the gravel hill with iron things finds were carried out near the Kokorevo village. «Significant material was got»13.
However, there are great difficulties at this period. First of all, Siberian scientists don't have much information and they know nothing about the world science achievements. In his letters Auerbach complains, that there is almost no literature on archaeology. He asks Merhart to help them to get major works that they extremely need, «We terribly need a new textbook, e. g. the Dechelette14, to understand palaeolithic tools terminology and a new report about palaeolithic loessial site excavations. The last report is very important for us to learn new foreign methods of excavations and methods of publication»15.
Krasnoyarsk scientists got this text book and probably some others. Auerbach is very thankful to Merhart for this. Krasnoyarsk scientists and Merhart exchange specialized literature on archaeology. Merhart sends world editions as well as his own works (1923b, 1924a, 1924b, 1926) to the museum. As for Auerbach and Krasnoyarsk scientists, they supply their Austrian colleague with literary novelties, which are published in Siberia and in Russia these years. They send a few books and Auerbach explains, that there is a little publication in the country and of course in Siberia, «A few books are published, popular brochures are published, there are a few scientific articles»16. There is not only no possibility for publications in the country. There is also lack of research works financing, lack of professional staff in Siberia, lack of conditions for training specialists-prehistorians, numerous life problems. In his letters, Auerbach expresses regret, «You've written, doctor, we are near the archaeological material of international significance. That's
right, of course. But this international significance can't help us to work and publish. You see, doctor, we spent 75 % of the time on excavations, but the Germans would spent only 5 % of this time on excavations. That's why, doctor, we need your unfailing desire to help us! We need this help. There is no literature, no literature at all»17.
A lot of prehistorians have to combine research activity and work that isn't connected with their profession. They have to work in the institutions that are not connected with science. Some have to work with ancient history as a member of part-time staff and that is unpaid. That happened also to Auerbach. He is not paid for his scientific researches, services and huge work carried out in the museum. He earned his living lecturing at the Polytechnic school. That's why moral support from foreign colleagues was very important for Siberian scientists. «Your letters cheer us up. Your attention makes us forget archaeological loneliness in Siberia, here it is so difficult to work for science far away from scientific centeres»18.
Moral support is not everything that Merhart gives to Siberian archaeologists. He acts and that is more important. He repeatedly suggests acting as an intermediary between the Russian colleagues and foreign institutions, press organs. He helps to disseminate and publish Siberian materials abroad, in particular he assists in «distribution of the report of 1923»19 and that's not all. In the letters of 1926 Auerbach and Merhart discuss possible publication of Afontova hill excavations report in Europe. During 1926 Auerbach and his colleagues prepare a report and some materials (results of bones, wood, rocks analyses; negatives of the finds, photos, sketches). They want «to make the report more complete as foreign science requires it»20. However, the Krasnoyarsk archaeologists didn't manage to publish it abroad. The Society of Siberia productive forces study, which gave money for excavations on the Afontova hill,
«laid down a condition that the report had to be published in Russia»21.
However, N. K. Auerbach took the opportunity. He published the review on Siberia archaeology «Archäologische Forschungen in Sibirien 1917-1928» in a German magazine of 1930, this magazine was called «Slavische Rundschau» (Azadovskii, 1937).
In their correspondence, Merhart and Auerbach pay great attention not only to professional issues but to life themes also. For many years after returning home Merhart had a great interest in Siberia. In his letters to Krasnoyarsk scientists he constantly asks about their success, sends his regards to them. Auerbach tells him about museum work at that period, about changes in Krasnoyarsk people lives. Speaking about Merhart and Siberian scientists, we should mention, that not always they had mutual understanding. The conflict of 1924 between the Austrian scientist and the head of Moscow archaeologists, V. A. Gorodtsov is mentioned in Merhart and Auerbach's correspondence. In summer of 1924 V. A. Gorodtsov went for a trip to Siberia. His aim was to get acquainted with Siberian museums archaeological collections and with Siberian archaeology in general (Vdovin, 2008). In his report about the results of his trip Gorodtsov ventured a remark on the Austrian colleague and called into question his professional competence. It happened at joint meeting board of Priyeniseiskii krai museum and Krasnoyarsk department of RGO on the 31st of August. When Merhart learnt about this, it offended him. It offended him as a scientist and as a man. Merhart demanded explanations and excuses from Gorodtsov. He also demanded that Russian colleagues had to sort out the situation. He sent an angry letter to Krasnoyarsk museum workers. In this letter he reproached them for inaction and for the behaviour, which didn't deserve his colleagues' behaviour. Auerbach as a
representative of Krasnoyarsk archaeologists had to apologize to Merhart. But he found himself in a difficult situation because V. A. Gorodtsov was his teacher. Auerbach respected him and was devoted to him. Nevertheless, he manages to admit his teacher's injustice and discourteous behaviour. He tries to soften the situation and reconcile them. «All museum workers are sorry that they did nothing when Gorodtsov said such things about you on 30-VIII 1924. It happened because of the difference of the state of mind between the Russians and foreigners. The Russians often say words and pay no attention to them. The Russians listen to these words and don't understand them as foreigners do. The Russians know that these are only «words». I think Gorodtsov didn't want to offend you. The museum workers still remember you as a careful, voracious and devoted to science scientist. You will get an official opinion of Geographical society»22.
However, this incident didn't influence the Austrian scientist and his Siberian colleagues' communication. The Second World War, that divided Russia and Germany, also didn't influence Merhart's attitude to the country and people, who he reflected with love and respect. (Merhart, 1958, Merhart, 1959; Kuzminih and others, 2007). Merhart's main services to world science are the fact that Siberian archaeology information has become known in Europe. Western scientists knew a lot about Greece, Rome, Egypt, Asia Minor cultures and nothing about Russian and especially Siberian ancient history. Concerning Siberia the Afontova hill finds are often mentioned in European literature. It is mentioned speaking about palaeolith or «chudskii pits» of Minusinsk hollow and these are later eras. After Merhart's returning home and after publishing of his works on Siberia ancient history everything changes a little bit. His works are used and quoted by the famous Siberian prehistorians of Europe, Obermeier (Obermeier, 1928, 57), Tallgren (Tallgren, 1928, 71) and
others. Thus, Merhart and his researches help not only, as Auerbach said, Siberian «amateurs to be close to foreign science»23. They help also foreign archaeologists to be close to Russian science. There is no doubt that Gero Merhart's work was and stays a rare case, when a West European scientist devotes himself to Siberian archaeology. It is also an example when the foreign scientist and Krasnoyarsk archaeologists and museum workers collaborate fruitfully for a long time. This fact is confirmed with datum of reports on museum work in the next years. In the report of 1927 till 1928 it is said, that «the museum has no direct relations with foreign institutions. There are relations with some European scientists (doctor Merhart). Merhart has published several works on Krasnoyarskii krai archaeology in English (in America) and in German (in Vienna). This report was based on the Museum material»24. In the Siberian Lights magazine Auerbach and Sosnovskii published their review «New foreign literature on Siberia prehistory» of Merhart's works (Auerbach and Sosnovskii, 1925).
In the Priyeniseiskii krai Municipal Museum report of 1929-1930 it is said «relations with foreign scientists were kept up with correspondence of Tallgren (Finland), Minns (England) and professor Tranin (France) (he had visited our museum)»25.
Among the scientists mentioned above Tallgren continues the most active correspondence with Siberian archaeologists. In one of his letter he suggests Auerbach giving the report about the excavations of 1923 on the Afontova hill to a delegate «from Russian scientific societies to the international congress in Denmark and making a report about your excavations»26. Giving a preliminary consent to publication Auerbach suggests foreign colleagues exchanging literature. He also asks Tallgren «to send him cards models of Archaeological department of your museum catalogue»27.
Other young archaeologists (V. P. Levasheva and V. G. Kartsov) also continue correspondence
with the Finnish scientist. After N. K. Auerbach's departure to Novosibirsk in 1926 V. G. Kartsov headed the Krasnoyarsk museum Archaeological department. In his letter V. G. Kartsov asks to help him in getting Tallgren's book on the Ananian culture28. He tells, «I will be glad to be useful to you. If there is any information on works, materials, Krasnoyarsk museum and its okrug collections, that you are interested in, I will give you it»29.
From 1920's till 1930's a new point between Russia and foreign countries started in the archaeology field. Siberia Study Society (SSS) and state office Novoexport organize excavations in Siberia and sale, of the materials got, abroad.
A lot of famous scientists, who worked in Siberia, took parts in collecting materials for Novoexport. They were V. G. Kartsov and V. P. Levasheva (in Minusinskii krai), S. M. Sergeev (in Altai), V. I. Podgorbunskii30 (in the Angara area), I. M. Myagkov31 (in Narimskii krai). The palaeonthologic material processing was carried out by V. I. Gromov. The anthropological material processing was carried out by M. P. Gryaznov. The collection on the Stone Age was made by N. K. Auerbach (Vdovin and others, 2001).
In 1930 N. K. Auerbach collected more than 20 addresses of foreign archaeologists, he sent them offers on archaeological collections purchases. Rough copies of the letters to foreign researches are kept in the scientist's archive. These letters were addressed to G. Merhart, H. Findeisen (Berlin), V. Ya.Tolmachev (Harbin -Tariff - Model Museum of Eastern Chinese railway), A. M. Tallgren (Helsingfors). Probably N. K. Auerbach wanted to write letters to T. Arne (Stockholm) and de Baye (Paris), whose addresses V. A. Gorodtsov gave him32. The texts of the letters are similar, there are only some additions. For example, in his letter to G. Merhart N. K. Auerbach suggests him excavating any part on the Afontova hill. «I can organize excavations
of the Afontova III (Neftesklad). It is 40 meters of site area. I can enlist Sosnovskii and Gromov for this work. We also can gather collections on the Neolithic Age»33.
What happened to archaeological collections that were got during the expeditions for Novoexport is unknown yet.
The interest to archaeological monuments from the Yenisei area was shown not only with buying collections for museums. From foreign countries (the USA and Japan) in 1930's there were suggestions and inquiries about carrying out archaeological monuments excavations, first of all in Minusinskii Krai. Political situation, which was in the world, was not favourable to strengthening and expansion of international contacts. At that period Soviet Russia starts restricting Soviet archaeologists and their foreign colleagues' contacts, by the middle of 1930's contacts with foreign scientists are stopped entirely.
The difference of political regime and ideologies became an insuperable obstacle to contacts between Soviet and «bourgeois» scientists. Foreign scientists couldn't go to the most part of Russia, including Krasnoyarsk, until the Iron Curtain fell. According to a famous archaeologist Hermann Muller-Karpe (he was one of Gero Merhart's students), neither he nor other Merhart's students (who inherited interest in Russian archaeology and readiness for joint work with Russian colleagues) did not manage to get a visa for the USSR. However, they still had this desire to work in this Siberia archaeology field. Eurasian department was founded at Germanic
archaeological institution by their efforts. Study of Siberia and Central Asia was one of the most important subjects there.
International collaboration of Krasnoyarsk and foreign archaeologists was resumed at the Postperestroika period, when Siberia and Krasnoyarsk had become permitted for foreigners' visits. There was experience of successful expeditions of German scientists, German scientists' long work in the south of Krasnoyarskii krai, fruitful collaboration of Krasnoyarsk archaeologists (who studied palaeolith) with scientific-research and educational institutions of the USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, Japan, South Korea and other countries.
Conclusions
During the three centuries the foreign archaeologists give their attention to the richest in the archaeological attitude region. Their expeditions have allowed greatly to enlarge the amount of the sources on siberian archeology, and their collections became a basis of many special works. Herewith, the european science had influenced vastly on the formation of local scientific centres, incli\uding Krasnoyarsk, at the end of the 19th - beginning of 20th centuries.
Now the foreign scientists have interest in region archaeological researches, a number of projects was carried out, there are wide plans for the future. Taking into consideration everything mentioned above, we can affirm that history of international relations in the archaeology field in Krasnoyarsk will continue.
References
M. Azadovskii, «N. K. Auerbach», Soviet Asia, books 1-2 (Moscow, 1931, 293-295). N. K. Auerbach, G. P. Sosnovskii, «New foreign literature on Siberia prehistory», the Siberian Lights magazine, issue 2 (Novonikolaevsk, 1925, 266-267).
N. K. Auerbach, «The first period of I. T. Savenkov's archaeological work», Annals of State Museum named after N. M. Martyanov, volume VI (Minusinsk: State Museum named after N. M. Martyanov, 1928, 163-185)
Yu. G. Belokobilskii, The Bronze and the early Iron Ages of South Siberia: the history of ideas and researches XVIII -first thirds of XX centuries (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1986)
A. Yu. Borisenko, Yu. S. Hudyakov, The study of South Siberia antiquities by German scientists XVIII-XIX (Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk University, 2005)
A. S. Vdovin, «The history of organization of the archaeological researches in the Priyeniseiskaya Siberia area (XIX - the end of 1920's)», Candidate's (of history science) abstract of dissertation (Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University, 1999)
A. S. Vdovin, N. P. Gulyaeva, «Work of Novoexport in Siberia», Materials of the scientific-practical conference «The problems of fighting against illegal excavations and illegal sale of the archaeology, mineralogy and palaeontology things» (Krasnoyarsk, 2001, 26-28)
A. S. Vdovin, N. P. Gulyaeva, N. P. Makarov, «In commemoration of the 100th anniversary of G. P. Sosnovskii. The beginning of scientific work (1918-1920)», The 5th historical reading in memory of Mihail Petrovich Gryaznov, theses of All-Russian scientific conference reports (Omsk, 19th-20th of October, 2000) (Omsk: Omsk State University, 2000, 26-27)
Ye. V. Detlova, N. P. Makarov, A. Erenfried, «G. Merhart and Krasnoyarsk museum» Archaeology of South Siberia: ideas, methods, discoveries (Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University, 2005, 268-270)
Ye. V. Detlova, «Gero von Merhart and Russian archaeology: the new in the researches» Modern problems of Russia archaeology: The materials of All-Russian archaeological congress, volume 2, (Novosibirsk: IAiE SO RAN, 2007)
Ye. V. Detlova, «Gero von Merhart's letters to Krasnoyarsk museum», Yeniseiskaya province, issue 3 (Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University, 2007, 76-87)
L. Yu. Kitova, Siberian archaeology history (1920's-1930's): The study of monuments of the Iron Age (Novosibirsk: Publishing house IAiE SO RAN, 2007)
S. V.Kuzminih, Ye. V. Detlova, T. Salminen, «Gero von Merhart and his last recollection about Siberia», Archaeological materials and researches of North Asia of ancient times and of the Middle Ages (Tomsk: Tomsk State University, 2007, 160-174)
N. P. Makarov, «About the history of study and exhibition of archaeological collections», The asceticism Age (Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk book publishing house, 1989, 131 -189).
N. P. Makarov, A. S. Vdovin, N. P. Tcherbakova, «N. K. Auerbach as an archaeologist», The 3th historical reading in memory of Mihail Petrovich Gryaznov, part I (Omsk, 1995, 57-61)
V. I. Matyutchenko, Siberian archaeology is 300, volume I (Omsk: Omsk State university, 2001)
H. Obermeier, «A prehistoric man», A man in his past and in his present, (St.Petersburg: Brokgauz - Efron, 1913)
N. A. Orehova, «Le Baron de Baye: Siberian track», Yeniseiskaya province, anthology, issue 1 (Krasnoyarsk, 2004, 60-66)
I. T. Savenkov, «About remains of the Neolithic Age, that were found in Yeniseiskaya guberniya (Eastern Siberia), on the bank of Yenisei, near the mouths of the Bazaiha and the Chadobets (A preliminary report) (the translation from English by N. A. Orehova)», Priyeniseiskaya Siberia antiquities, issue 2, (Krasnoyarsk: RIO KGPU, 2003, 87-90)
Siberia from the news offoreign travelers and writers, edited by M. P. Alekseev (Irkutsk: Irkutsk regional publish house, 1941).
P. Uino, «Finnish archaeologists' researches in the territory of Minusinsk in the XIX till the beginning of the XX», Martyanov's local lore readings (2003-2004), the collection of reports, issue 3 (Minusinsk: Minusinsk Regional Local Lore Museum named after N. M. Martyanov, 2005, 80-83)
L. B. Us, Siberia international scientific contacts (the end of XIX - the beginning of XX), (Novosibirsk: Sova, 2005)
Le Baron de Baye, De Moscou a Krannonarsk. Souvenirs d'une mission. Exsrait de la Revue de guographie (Paris, 1987, p 38-52)
J. Dechelette, Manuel d'archeologie prehistorique et gallo-romaine (Paris: A. Picard et fills, 1908-1914, 2 tomes en 6 vol.)
G. Merhart, «The palaeolithic period in Siberia: Contributions to the prehistory of the Jenissei region», American Anthropologist, vol.25 (USA: American Anthropological Association, 1923, 23-55)
G. Merhart, Beiträge zur Urgeschichte der Jenissei-Gubernie. Bericht über die Öffnung yweier Kurgane in der Abakansteppe (Helsingfors: Finska Fornminnesför, 1923, Tidskiftg 34, 1)
G. Merhart, Beiträge II. Die Gruppe der Kurgane mit Platten - Einzelngrab (Helsingfors: Finska Fornminnesför, 1924, Tidskiftg 35, 2)
G. Merhart, Neuere Literatur über die Steinzeit Sibiriens (Wien: Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 1924, 11, 139-148)
G. Merhart, Bronzeit am Jenissei. Ein Beitrag zur Urgeschichte Sibiriens (Wien: Verlag von Anton Schroll, 1926)
G. Merhart, «Einige Errinerungen an Sibirien«, Palaeologia, (Osaka, 1958, 227-229)
G. Merhart, Daljoko: Bilder aus sibirischen Arbeitstagen (Innsburg: Privatdruck, 1959)
H. Obermeier, Sibirien A: Paläolithikum, Reallexikon für Urgeschichte (Berlin: Verlag von Max Ebert, 1928, 55-57)
A. M. Tallgren, L'epoque d'Ananino dans la Rssie orientale, vol. 31 (Helsingfors: SMYA, 1919)
A. M. Tallgren, Sibirien C: Paläolithikum, Reallexikon für Urgeschichte (Berlin: Verlag von Max Ebert, 1928, 70-71)
H. Parzinger, Die frühen Völker Eurasiens vom Neolithikum bis zum Mittelalter (München: Verlag von C. H. Beck, 2006)
T. Salminen, Suomen tieteelliset voittomaat. Venäjä ja Siperia suomalaisessa arkeologiassa 1870-1935, vol.110 (Helsinki: SMYA, 2003)
Sources
Abbreviations:
AAAKK - Archival Agency of Krasnoyarskii krai Administration;
AKKKM - Krasnoyarsk Local Lore Museum Archive;
AMU - Marburg University Archive;
AIAiE SO RAN - Archive of Archaeology and Ethnology Institution of siberian department of Russian Science Academy;
SSS - Siberia Study Society;
ROBHU - Manuscript department of Helsinki University library;
RGO - Russian Geographical Society;
KGPU - Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University SMYA - Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja. Helsinki.
1. By mistake H. Obermeier ascribes the Afontov palaeolith discovery to de Baye and F. K. Volkov. This site is believed to date from the Mousterian Age that means he considers it to be much earlier than it is. (Obermeier, 1913).
2. Aarne Michael Tallgren (1885-1945) is a Finnish archaeologist, professor at the universities of Derpt (Tartu) and Helsinki. He is an author of numerous works on the Cooper and Bronze Ages of the north and eastern parts of Siberia. But the main interest of this scientist was concentrated in the field of east-russian Bronze Ages.
3. ROBHU, the collection 230-9 // The correspondence of A. M. Tallgren with Russian scientists. We thank S. V. Kuzminih (IA RAN, Moscow) for the given materials.
4. In 1920 it was given to Krasnoyarsk museum, collection №131.
5. ROBHU, the collection 230-9// The correspondence of A. M. Tallgren with Russian scientists.
6. AAAKK, f.1380, l.1, d. 11, p 2.
7. Gero Merhart von Bernegg (1886-1959) is a famous European scientist, the first ordinary professor of Germany primitive history, an author of Siberia archaeology publications.
8. Here and further - quotations from the letters of Merhart's private archive at Marburg University [Archiv des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars der Philipps-Universitat Marburg, Nachlass G. v. Merhart]. We thank the dean of prehistorical seminar of Marburg University, professor Claus Dobiat, for the given materials.
AMU G. v. Merhart // G. N. Sosnovskii's letter to G. Merhart of 22nd of May, 1921.
9. Sosnovskii and Merhart's correspondence will be analyzed in details in another article.
10. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 24th of March, 1925.
11. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 24th of March, 1925.
12. AKKKM f.1608, 1, d. 365.
13. AKKKM f.1608, 1, d. 365.
14. Dechelette, 1908-1914.
15. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 24th of March, 1925.
16. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 4th of May, 1925.
17. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 4th of May, 1925.
18. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 4th of May, 1925.
19. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 4th of May, 1925.
20. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 4th of May, 1926.
21. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 9th of September, 1925.
22. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 4th of May, 1925.
23. AMU G. v. Merhart // N. K. Auerbach's letter to G. Merhart of 24th of March, 1925.
24. AKKKM f.1609,1, d. 366.
25. AKKKM f.1611, 1, d. 368.
26. Archive of IAE SO RAN, N. K. Auerbach's fund, without number.
27. ROBHU, the collection 230-9 // Tallgren's correspondence with Russian scientists.
28. Tallgren, 1919.
29. ROBHU, the collection 230-9 // Tallgren's correspondence with Russian scientists.
30. Corroboration of archaeological works is not found yet in the documents.
31. Corroboration of archaeological works is not found yet in the documents.
32. AIAiE SO RAN, N. K. Auerbach's fund // V. A. Gorodtsov's letter to N. K. Auerbach of 22nd of November, 1930.
33. AIAiE SO RAN, N. K. Auerbach's fund // V. A. Gorodtsov's letter to G. Merhart of March, 1930.
